New research shows that many voters don’t come back ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌

[link removed]

Sixty years ago this month, the Senate passed the Voting Rights Act, a historic breakthrough in a chamber long dominated by segregationists. Now, through cases like Shelby County v. Holder, the Supreme Court has stripped the strongest enforcement tools from that law, and voter suppression is once again on the rise.

States have enacted dozens of laws that make it harder for citizens to vote. What impact will they have in next year’s vital midterm elections?

The Brennan Center has provided compelling evidence that these laws directly suppress the vote. Our newest research shows, even more significantly, that eligible voters turned away from casting a ballot once are much less likely to try again in later elections. They give up, it seems. Voter suppression can last years, perhaps a lifetime. That is a deeply disturbing finding, suggesting that even small effects of these new laws have cascading effects.

Social scientists Kevin Morris and Coryn Grange, along with political scientists at Barnard College and Tennessee State University, studied the effects of S.B. 1

[link removed]

, a Texas law that made it much harder to vote by mail. Our research

[link removed]

has already shown that the state rejected thousands of mail ballot requests and mail-in votes during the 2022 primary — disproportionately those of nonwhite voters.

Now, from the new research, we know that voters whose ballots were rejected in that primary were significantly less likely to vote in later elections. Specifically, voters whose mail ballot requests were rejected in the 2022 primary were 16 percentage points less likely to vote in the 2022 general election. And the trend continued for the 2024 primary election.

To be clear: These citizens are not disinterested slackers. They are routine voters who have properly cast ballots year after year — 85 percent of those whose mail-in votes or ballot requests were rejected had voted in the 2016, 2018, and 2020 general elections.

This is one more strong piece of evidence that the recent wave of restrictive voting laws will have a great and growing impact. Last year, a Brennan Center study

[link removed]

that relied on a voter file with nearly 1 billion records showed that the gap between the participation rates of white voters and nonwhite voters has grown across the country — but grew at twice the rate in counties once monitored by a robust Voting Rights Act.

Some have suggested that the tumult over these new voting laws was sound and fury that ultimately signified little. Sure, they say, these laws may have had bad intent, but their impact has been negligible.

As it turns out, voter suppression laws . . . suppress the vote. Who’d have thought it?

A further disturbing outcome emerges. Texas now limits voting by mail to those who are 65 or older. These are hardcore voters, dutiful citizens, bleeding blue or red. Even they are deterred. There is every reason to think that barriers to participation even more effectively turn off younger voters at the start of their civic participation. A long line at a polling place, a demand to produce a birth certificate, or a technical error on a ballot can reverberate throughout a lifetime.

Political analyst Michael Podhorzer has astutely observed

[link removed]

that a “generational replacement” is being engineered: “Older and established voters keep up their voting habits, while new restrictions stymie younger voters.” Our research shows the effects of voter suppression on older voters, but it also underscores how potent silent disenfranchisement can be.

So, what do we do about this?

The Brennan Center has sued, along with other voting rights groups, to challenge S.B. 1. We’ve won some victories

[link removed]

, but the case drags on. Recent Supreme Court rulings, including the 2021 Brnovich case, have made it even harder for voters to win.

There is no substitute, ultimately, for national legislation. There’s the wrong kind of measure: the SAVE Act, which effectively would require Americans to produce a passport or a birth certificate to register to vote. Our research shows that 21 million people lack ready access

[link removed]

to those documents. The House passed this voter suppression bill, but there is reason to hope that opponents have the votes to block it in the Senate.

The right kind of national legislation would expand access while strengthening election administration and security. The Freedom to Vote Act would set baseline national standards to ensure that ballots cannot be discarded for minor errors and discrepancies, and it would bar many state restrictions on mail and early voting. The John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act would restore the strength of the Voting Rights Act.

These reforms came achingly close to enactment a few years ago. We predicted then that if the federal courts and Congress did not protect the freedom to vote, states would be left unchecked to abuse the rights of their people. Sadly, that has happened. Congress should once again be prepared to act.

Campaigns and parties must once again step up to defend voting rights against burdensome regulations, not only for their political success but for the sake of democracy. As progressives tussle over new agendas, core democratic protections must remain at the center of concern.

And voters must do their part. Citizens in every state need to stand their ground and not be deterred from obstacles faced at the polls because of unjust voting restrictions. History has taught us that progress depends on the resilience of individuals in the face of countless attempts to deny them the right to vote.

It’s fitting that this new, hard evidence comes from Texas. When President Lyndon Johnson proposed the Voting Rights Act in 1965, he was reacting to the courage of the marchers in Selma, Alabama. He also drew on personal experience from teaching in a small Hill Country elementary school. “Somehow you never forget what poverty and hatred can do when you see its scars on the hopeful face of a young child,” he told Congress. “I never thought then, in 1928, that I would be standing here in 1965. It never even occurred to me in my fondest dreams that I might have the chance to help the sons and daughters of those students and to help people like them all over this country.”

“But now I do have that chance — and I’ll let you in on a secret — I mean to use it.”

Let’s hope lessons from Texas lead the way to progress once again.





Preventing Use of the National Guard for Civilian Law Enforcement

The Posse Comitatus Act generally prohibits federal armed forces from conducting law enforcement in the United States, but there is a risk that the president could interpret a loophole relating to the National Guard to allow him to get around the law. “Fortunately, these problems are amenable to legislative solution,” writes Elizabeth Goitein, who urges Congress and the states to strengthen safeguards against the use of the military on U.S. soil. Read more

[link removed]

Attempts to Undermine Biden’s Federal Death Row Commutations

A lawsuit is challenging an executive order that would see the 37 people whose death sentences President Biden commuted imprisoned in “conditions consistent with the monstrosity of their crimes.” Specifically, they would be transferred to a notorious federal supermax prison where people are kept alone in tiny cells for up to 23 hours a day. “In the United States, neither judges nor presidents have the authority to impose cruel or degrading conditions as punishment,” writes Brianna Seid. “A person’s punishment is defined by their sentence — whether death, life imprisonment, or a fixed term — not the conditions of their confinement.” Read more

[link removed]

The Emoluments Clauses, Explained

The Constitution’s Emoluments Clauses are anticorruption safeguards that essentially bar the president from receiving tangible benefits from states or foreign countries. President Trump’s cryptocurrency transactions, real estate deals, and interactions with foreign officials raise questions as to whether those actions violate the clauses. In their explanation of how the clauses work and are enforced, Eric Petry and Daniel Weiner write that “Now more than ever, it is critical that Congress take action to give them real effect.” Read more

[link removed]





Coming Up

VIRTUAL EVENT: The Guarantee of Birthright Citizenship

[link removed]

Thursday, June 12, 12:30–1:30 p.m. ET



On the first day of his second term in office, President Donald Trump issued an executive order purporting to strip U.S. citizenship from the children of undocumented immigrants. The order directly conflicts with the plain language of the 14th Amendment, which states that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” And it defies more than a century of case law.



The executive order was met with a wave of court rulings blocking its enforcement, and the Supreme Court has already heard arguments on the issue. What historical currents led to the ratification of the amendment’s Citizenship Clause? How did courts interpret its guarantees in the decades following? And how do today’s attacks on birthright citizenship relate to historical attempts to deny citizenship to people born and living in the United States?



Join the Brennan Center virtually for a discussion with leading experts on the historical and legal dimensions of the attack on birthright citizenship. RSVP today

[link removed]



Produced in partnership with the Organization of American Historian

Want to keep up with Brennan Center Live events? Subscribe to the events newsletter.

[link removed]





News

Emile Ayoub on U.S. spy agencies and data protection // THE INTERCEPT

[link removed]

Larry Norden on an executive order targeting barcodes on ballots // ASSOCIATED PRESS

[link removed]

Eric Petry on Trump’s dinner with his meme coin investors // THE HILL

[link removed]

Michael Waldman on Trump and the Emoluments Clauses // CIVIL DISCOURSE

[link removed]

Daniel Weiner on the Trump administration’s investigation into ActBlue // ASSOCIATED PRESS

[link removed]

Feedback on this newsletter? Email us at [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]







[link removed]

Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law

120 Broadway, Suite 1750 New York, NY 10271

646-292-8310

tel:646-292-8310

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Support Brennan Center

[link removed]

View Online

[link removed]

Want to change how you receive these emails or unsubscribe? Click here

[link removed]

to update your preferences.

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]