Laboratories of Fascism: Voter Suppression
States are outdoing each other in disenfranchising voters
Justice Louis Brandeis, in his dissent in the New Ice Co. v Leibman, told us that “States are the laboratory of democracy.” He made the point that states should be allowed to experiment with policies and programs without overzealous prior restraint on the part of the courts or the federal government. Justice Brandeis, however, acknowledged that the states’ abilities to carry out such experiments weren’t without boundaries. They (and we) should expect that some of those experiments would fail in ways that required intervention on the part of the courts or the federal government. In his mind, our nation’s system of governance is dynamic and works best when different elements are in tension but that hold to basic principles of democracy and dignity for all citizens.
At the urging of conservative extremists, too many states are rejecting that ideal. Far rightists have persuaded many of us that the states’ abilities to pass whatever policies they want to without any interference from any external agency must be protected without condition. With respect to voting rights and individual freedom, a number of states have taken them at their word. They’ve become “laboratories of fascism”, taking away freedoms we had begun to take for granted. The antidemocratic efforts of a number of states has been directed, especially, at disenfranchising minority voters, who only obtained relatively unfettered access to the ballot box in recent decades after centuries of having their voices forcibly muted. States across the country (but particularly southern and midwestern states) have passed voter ID laws that disproportionately affect minority voters, reducing early voting hours, restricting access to absentee ballots, cuts to voter registration drive resources, and voter roll purges among other tactics.
Together, these laws significantly undermine the democratic process by silencing the voices of the citizenry. Perhaps worse, they send the message that leaders will use their power in whatever ways they can to rig the system to their own benefit. This, naturally, leads to apathy among the electorate who, justifiably conclude that they are powerless to make changes when leaders are so fully devoted to maintaining the status quo.
Let’s take a look at some of the “experiments” that are being carried out in these “laboratories of fascism”. Voter ID laws are fairly common across the nation. Thirty five states have them. Those states vary with respect to the strictness of their laws. The most restrictive states, like Tennessee, Kansas, and Wisconsin, will not allow someone without an ID to vote and will not provide a provisional ballot to voters without an ID. These Voter ID laws disproportionately impact minority voters, who are less likely to have the required identification. For example, a study by the Brennan Center for Justice found that 11% of African Americans and 7% of Hispanic voters lack the required identification, compared to only 4% of white voters.
Early voting restrictions are becoming more common. Early voting is particularly important for working people and people with disabilities, who may not be able to vote on Election Day. In 2021, Georgia cut its early voting from 35 days to 17 days. Texas, among other states, has severely restricted the daily hours during which early voting polls are open. Several states have reduced the locations where early voting is carried out. This has been especially true in urban areas. Early voting restrictions are more likely to be passed in states with large minority populations.
States are getting more aggressive in putting restrictions on absentee voting. Some states require voters to provide more documentation to vote absentee, such as a birth certificate or a utility bill. Other states shorten the absentee voting period, making it more difficult for people to vote absentee. Still other states require voters to request an absentee ballot in person or by mail, making it more difficult for people to vote absentee.
These restrictions, of course, make absentee voting more difficult. This is especially true for people who do not have the time or resources to gather the necessary documentation or to request an absentee ballot in person.
Registration drives are a part of our history. Traditionally, both conservatives and progressives saw the value of increasing the number of registered voters. Most states provided grants to a variety of organizations such as the League of Women Voters and Rock the Vote to help fund voter registration drives. As conservatives have come to believe that voters hinder their ability to pass unpopular laws, states have substantially reduced funding or resources available to voter registration drives. The cuts to funding have made it more difficult for these organizations to conduct voter registration drives, and they have led to a decrease in voter turnout.
For example, in Florida, the money for voter registration drives came from the state’s Motor Vehicle License Division (MVD). The MVD used to provide grants to civic organizations to conduct voter registration drives at DMV offices. However, in 2011, the state of Florida cut funding for these grants by 75%.
Similarly, in Texas, the money for voter registration drives came from the state’s Elections Division. The Elections Division used to provide grants to civic organizations to conduct voter registration drives at community events and other locations. However, in 2012, the state of Texas cut funding for these grants by 50%.
Voter roll purges have become a favorite tool to suppress voter participation in red states. In 2016, Georgia purged over 600,000 names from its voter rolls. This purge disproportionately affected minority voters, and it was estimated to have prevented over 30,000 voters from casting a ballot. In 2018, a federal judge ruled that Georgia’s voter roll purge had illegally removed over 100,000 voters from the rolls. he judge found that the purge had been conducted in a discriminatory manner, and that it had disproportionately affected minority voters. Nonetheless, In 2020, Georgia removed over 1.4 million voters from its rolls.
Florida has also been a frequent target of voter roll purges. In 2018, Florida removed over 1.2 million voters from its rolls. Six years earlier, a federal judge ruled that Florida’s voter roll purge had illegally removed over 180,000 voters from the rolls. The judge found that the purge had been conducted in a haphazard manner, and that it had resulted in the removal of many voters who were still eligible to vote.
Texas has also been a state that has carried out voter roll purges. In 2016, Texas removed over 900,000 voters from its rolls. This purge also disproportionately affected minority voters, and it was estimated to have prevented over 12,000 voters from casting a ballot. In 2020, Wisconsin purged over 230,000 names from its voter rolls. This purge disproportionately affected minority voters, and it was estimated to have prevented over 15,000 voters from casting a ballot.
According to the Brennan Center for Justice, 17 states have reduced the number of polling places since 2013. States justify these reductions by claiming that it’s too expensive to support more of them.. Actually, these reductions are a way to suppress voter turnout, especially among minority voters. For example, a study by the Brennan Center for Justice found that the number of polling places in minority communities in North Carolina decreased by 10% between 2013 and 2016.
Frequent changes in voting rules can make it difficult for people to keep up with the latest requirements. They also create confusion and uncertainty among voters. In the end, people are turned away at the polls, or too discouraged to even bother showing up to vote at all.
For example, in the state of Texas, the legislature has made frequent changes to the state’s voter ID law. These changes have made it more difficult for people to understand what forms of ID are acceptable for voting. They have also made it more difficult for people to obtain the required ID in the first place..
The Texas legislature has also made frequent changes to the state’s early voting rules, making it more difficult for people to vote early. Texas and other states have also made it more difficult for people to find out where and when they can vote early.
The Brennan Center for Justice defines election interference as legislation that either threatens the people and processes that make elections work or increases opportunities for partisan interference in election administration or outcomes.
For example, in 2021, Georgia passed a law that gives the legislature the power to remove and replace members of the State Election Board, which is responsible for overseeing elections in the state.
That same year, Florida passed a law that gives the legislature the power to appoint the members of the Florida Elections Commission, which is responsible for overseeing elections in the state.
Overall, at least 78 election interference bills were introduced in 20 states last year. States are beginning to invoke the “independent state legislature theory”. Once a position of a small fringe of legal scholars, the independent state legislature theory posits that state legislatures may pass any laws they wish, however egregious, with no worry of interference from the state courts.
In 2021, Texas passed legislation that gives the legislature the power to appoint electors for president and vice president if it believes that the results of an election were “tainted” or “irregular.” The law doesn’t define the terms “tainted” or “irregular”. It’s not hard to imagine that, to that state’s Republicans, “tainted” means “our preferred candidate lost”.
Another example of a state that has passed an independent state legislature theory law is Arizona. The Arizona law, passed in 2021, gives the legislature the power to remove and replace members of the state’s election board if it believes that the board is not conducting elections fairly. Again, we can predict that “unfair” elections will be those in which Republican candidates get fewer votes than their opponents.
On June 27, 2023, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the independent state legislature theory is inconsistent with the Elections Clause of the United States Constitution, which gives Congress the power to regulate the “time, place, and manner” of federal elections.
Still, it’s likely that states will continue to pass laws that are in violation of that decision so long as they think they can get away with it. So far, it seems they’re right.
Threats of violence to election workers have increased. A survey by the Brennan Center for Justice found that one in six local election officials have personally experienced threats, and nearly a third said they knew people who had left their jobs at least in part because of safety concerns.
In response to these threats, a number of states have passed laws that would provide increased protection for election workers. The passage of these laws is a positive step towards protecting election workers and ensuring that they can safely do their jobs. On the other hand, at least nine states, all of them in the south or Midwest, have no present laws that protect election workers.
In recent developments, the state legislative push to restrict voting and undermine faith in elections has moved at a near-record pace this year, driven by a still-active election denier movement. One troubling development: lawmakers have begun to target direct democracy, aiming to limit ways that voters can pass ballot measures. Another notable trend in voting legislation this year is a continued push to criminalize election-related activities. And in Texas, the legislature has considered multiple bills that would hamper election administration in Harris County, a trend that is unusual in its targeting of one particular county.
The cumulative effect of these laws is to make it harder for people to vote, especially minority voters.
A study by the Brennan Center for Justice found that voter ID laws have a disproportionate impact on minority voters. The study found that voter ID laws reduce turnout by 2–3 percentage points for African American voters and 1–2 percentage points for Hispanic voters.
Another study by the University of California, San Diego found that early voting restrictions have a disproportionate impact on minority voters. The study found that early voting restrictions reduce turnout by 1–2 percentage points for African American voters and 0.5–1 percentage points for Hispanic voters.
A study by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that cuts to voter registration drives have a disproportionate impact on minority voters. The study found that cuts to voter registration drives reduce turnout by 1–2 percentage points for African American voters and 0.5–1 percentage points for Hispanic voters.
These patterns suggest that voter suppression laws are being used to target minority voters . The evidence suggests that it’s working.
(Author’s note: I obtained a good bit of this information through a conversation with Bard. As we’ve learned, large language learning models do make mistakes and, occasionally, make things up. I checked some of the sources but not all. I usually like to provide links to all my sources but it was difficult to do in this case, given that Bard doesn’t provide them.
As per the article, the Brennan Center for Justice is a good source of information regarding voter suppression. I also obtained some information from the New York Times.
I’m reasonably confident that all the information here is accurate. But I didn’t verify each data point.)
