How two pivotal moments in history catalyzed a wave of restrictive voting laws.

You're receiving this email because of your interest in voting rights and election issues, or because you are a trusted partner of the Voting Rights Lab. If you prefer not to receive emails, please unsubscribe ([link removed]) .
[link removed]
[link removed]
Welcome to the June edition of The Lever — reaching you as we enter the early days of summer. Our democracy is strongest when everyone has a voice.

For 50 years, the federal Voting Rights Act’s preclearance system offered federal safeguards to help block state laws that would disproportionately suppress access to the ballot box for voters of color. Supreme Court Shelby v. Holder effectively gutted these protections in 2013, opening the door for a tremendous wave of restrictive voting laws. In this month’s Hot Policy Take, we take a close look at the consequences of this decision, the restrictive election laws enacted, and efforts made by some states to fill the gap.

Later in this issue, we share an update from North Carolina, where two restrictive, late-session elections bills are steadily moving through the legislature. We also offer a Pride Month spotlight on VoteRiders and Headcount’s resources to help ensure equitable access to the ballot box for transgender voters.


** HOT POLICY TAKE
------------------------------------------------------------

This past Sunday, June 25, marked 10 years since a Supreme Court decision that profoundly altered the election law landscape and dismantled 50 years of protections against racially discriminatory voting laws: Shelby County v. Holder.

That decision was the first of two major catalysts for restrictive election legislation in the past decade, the second being the 2020 presidential election.

In this month’s Hot Policy Take, ([link removed]) we take a closer look at these two pivotal moments in election history, and how they catalyzed a wave of election laws that restricted voting access across the country – particularly through voter ID, mail voting, and voter registration restrictions.
READ THE HOT POLICY TAKE NOW ([link removed])


** BY THE NUMBERS
------------------------------------------------------------

15 of 15 states

Prior to the Shelby decision, Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act required that 15 states with histories of racist voter disenfranchisement have new changes to election law or practices in some of all jurisdictions precleared before they could take effect.

Using historical data and our State Voting Rights Tracker ([link removed]) , we found that in years since the Shelby decision gutted the Voting Rights Act, all 15 of these states ([link removed]) have implemented new legislation that is either clearly restrictive, or possibly restrictive, in impact – with no required assessment of its racial impact.

The most common types of restrictive elections laws we have seen since Shelby include photo ID, restrictions on mail and early voting, and voter list maintenance changes. This chart offers a summary of the types of legislation we saw in the run-up to and aftermath of the Shelby decision.
SEE OUR CHART FOR MORE ([link removed])


** WHAT WE'RE READING
------------------------------------------------------------

North Carolina S.B. 747 ([link removed]) (a late session omnibus bill making its way through the legislature) could force election officials to discard thousands of valid mail ballots – simply because they arrive after Election Day. Under current law, mail ballots that are postmarked by Election Day are counted, as long as they are received within three days of the election.
WRAL News ([link removed]) has more:

“We know that this change will result in valid votes being thrown away,” said Sen. Natasha Marcus, D-Mecklenburg. “Whose votes? We don’t know for sure. Some will be Republican ballots, some will be Democratic, some will be independents. … And this bill will force election workers, if that ballot arrives after Election Day, to throw it in the trash. It’s not trash.”

S.B. 747 ([link removed]) – and S.B. 749 ([link removed]) another late-session bill, this one a legislative power grab – passed the North Carolina Senate on Wednesday along party lines, with all Republicans in favor and all Democrats opposing.

READ THE FULL ARTICLE HERE ([link removed])


** FROM OUR PARTNERS - VoteRiders and HeadCount

------------------------------------------------------------
Thirty percent of transgender and nonbinary voters report receiving verbal harassment resulting from identity documents that may not match their perceived gender presentation. This can create significant barriers to the ballot box. Our partners at VoteRiders and HeadCount’s Vote With Pride team have put together a helpful guide for ensuring that transgender and nonbinary voters have what they need to navigate updating identity documents and accessing the ballot box for upcoming elections.
VOTER ID INFO FOR TRANS AND NONBINARY VOTERS ([link removed])


** THE MARKUP
------------------------------------------------------------

The Markup is VRL’s weekly legislative update for voting rights insiders. If you’d like to get insights straight to your inbox each Monday, head here to sign up ([link removed]) .

Here’s a brief update on what we’re watching this week, and a sneak peek into what you can expect from The Markup each week:

Restrictive legislation advances in North Carolina. The North Carolina Senate passed S.B. 747 ([link removed]) on Wednesday, a bill that would force election officials to throw away valid mail ballots if they are received after Election Day. Under current law, mail ballots are counted if they are postmarked by Election Day and received within three days of the election. S.B. 747 would also require that elections officials reject mail ballots based on unreliable signature-matching technology, despite the fact that current North Carolina law ([link removed]) already requires that mail ballots be double verified (via a copy of a photo ID and either notarization or two witness signatures); and make same-day registration more difficult, requiring voters to cast provisional ballots that may not be counted. The Senate also passed S.B. 749
([link removed]) , which would give the legislature itself the power to appoint state and county election boards, which could result in deadlocked boards unable to act. Both bills will now go to the House of Representatives for consideration.

SUBSCRIBE NOW ([link removed])
Did someone forward this to you? Sign up here to get your own edition of The Lever, delivered fresh each month. ([link removed])

============================================================
** Voting Rights Lab ([link removed])

611 Pennsylvania Ave SE | Suite 201 | Washington, DC 20003

We're grateful for your interest and support, but if you'd prefer not to receive emails from the Voting Rights Lab, click here to ** unsubscribe ([link removed])
.