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, 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.

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, we found that in years since the Shelby decision gutted the Voting Rights Act, all 15 of these states 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.

WHAT WE'RE READING

North Carolina S.B. 747 (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 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 –  and S.B. 749 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.
 

FROM OUR PARTNERS - VoteRiders and HeadCount
 

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.

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 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 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, 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.