A new report highlights the risks of mixing firearms with voting. ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌  ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌  ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌  ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌  ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌  ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ 
Brennan Center for Justice The Briefing
No one should have to worry about encountering a gun while voting, but only 12 states and Washington, DC, prohibit open and concealed carry of firearms at poll sites.
Banning guns wherever votes are cast shouldn’t be controversial. Think about it — the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision was the most sweeping expansion of gun rights in the history of the country. It wiped out vital public safety laws in six states and invited dozens of lawsuits challenging others across the nation. And yet Justice Clarence Thomas acknowledged that Americans have always agreed there are certain places where guns simply do not belong. He specifically named three of them: legislative assemblies, courthouses, and polling places.
It is, in short, constitutionally sound to ban guns where Americans vote. But states have not kept up with the profusion of guns and their new constitutional protection.
In a report published this week, my colleagues Sean Morales-Doyle and Robyn Sanders, along with Allison Anderman and Jessica Ojeda of Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, issue a call to prohibit guns wherever election administration occurs: at or near polling places, ballot drop boxes, election offices, and ballot-counting facilities.
The report comes at a critical moment. For more than 20 years, lobbyists have pushed to loosen restrictions on firearms in legislatures and in the courts. Twenty-seven states now allow people to carry a gun in public without a permit or background check, up from just two in 2010. States that have tried to hold the line against the proliferation of guns have run into a series of U.S. Supreme Court decisions striking down restrictions on who can carry a weapon, and where. As a result, there are now more guns than people in the United States.
The spread of guns has coincided — perhaps not entirely coincidentally — with the rise of extreme political polarization and political violence. You know the facts. Election officials have been forced into hiding. Domestic terrorists have threatened actors at nearly every level of government. Police foiled a plot to kidnap the governor of Michigan. And an armed mob attempted on January 6, 2021, to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power after a lawful election.
Tamping down the rising tensions about political disagreements so that violence is never on the table will be the work of generations. It will require a cultural shift and a degree of political bravery and will that many of our leaders can’t seem to muster. But getting guns away from voting sites is something we can and should do right now. It’s common sense, it’s constitutional, and it’s absolutely necessary.

 
Bolstering Voting Rights for All
Today, members of Congress reintroduced the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, a bill that would restore the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to full strength. Damaging Supreme Court rulings, the growing racial turnout gap, and a wave of restrictive state voting laws underscore the urgent need for this essential civil rights legislation. Our new resource details the voting rights challenges the bill would address and how it would help solve them. Read more
A Chance to Correct Campaign Finance Failures
The Federal Election Commission has long failed to enforce campaign finance laws, allowing dark money and foreign spending to flood U.S. elections unchecked. Tomorrow, a House committee will question the agency for the first time in more than a decade, presenting an opportunity to push the FEC to do a better job of improving regulations and upholding the laws already on the books. As Daniel Weiner notes, “Any system of rules is only as good as the body that enforces them.” READ MORE
ABA President on Courtroom Bias
Public trust in the courts depends on widespread belief in judges’ impartiality. But studies show that judges are just as susceptible to unconscious racial, gender, and other types of biases as the rest of us. There needs to be a renewed commitment to well-developed, sustained, mandatory training for judges to reduce bias and ensure their decisions are truly impartial, according to a new State Court Report essay by American Bar Association President Mary Smith, Illinois First Appellate District Justice Michael B. Hyman, and University of New Hampshire Professor Sarah E. Redfield. Read more
The Fight for Fair Maps Reaches Another State Supreme Court
Today, the Kentucky Supreme Court became the latest state court to consider whether legal challenges to gerrymandered voting maps are justiciable under its state constitution. While many state courts have delivered wins against partisan gerrymandering in recent years, few of these have been in the South. A positive ruling for the plaintiffs in Kentucky “would offer hope — and a potential model — for voters across the highly gerrymandered region,” Michael Li writes in State Court Report. Read more
A Promising Anti-Gerrymandering Tool
The United States has struggled to eradicate gerrymandering, in part because almost all American state and congressional elections use single-member districts. As such, districts that a party wins by extremely narrow margins can produce comfortable legislative majorities, creating an incentive for partisan map drawers to manipulate district lines in their favor. One way this problem might be blunted is by switching to a multimember district model in which seats are proportionally allocated to parties based on the votes won. In Democracy Journal, Michael Li and Peter Miller explore the potential benefits of this model and highlight the additional research needed to assess whether it’s a solution worth pursuing. READ MORE

 
Coming Up
Tuesday, September 26, 1–2 p.m. ET
 
Under the banner of the Spanish-language website Brennan en español, the Brennan Center is excited to announce a panel of political luminaries focused on the Latino electorate. Hear from changemakers leading the youngest generations into power at a live virtual conversation with speakers María Teresa Kumar of Voto Latino, Arizona State Rep. Alma Hernandez, Santiago Mayer of Voters of Tomorrow, and moderator and journalist Paola Ramos. RSVP today
 
Produced in partnership with Voto Latino Foundation
 
Thursday, September 28, 1–2 p.m. ET
 
Join us for a live event with The Court at War author and Georgetown Law professor Cliff Sloan, with moderator to be announced, to learn about the little-known story of how President Franklin D. Roosevelt altered the most powerful court in the country and the consequences that produced today’s Supreme Court. RSVP today
Want to keep up with Brennan Center Live events? Subscribe to the events newsletter.

 
News
  • Patrick Berry on the restoration of voting rights in Mississippi // LAW360
  • Andrew Garber on election deniers’ new tool to undermine elections // CNN
  • Michael Li on the latest twist in Alabama’s redistricting fight // REUTERS
  • Stephanie Wylie on bail reform efforts // FINANCIAL TIMES

 
 
Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law
120 Broadway, Suite 1750 New York, NY 10271
646-292-8310
Want to change how you receive these emails or unsubscribe? Click here to update your preferences.
Facebook Twitter Instagram LinkedIn YouTube Website