Restrictive voting laws are disproportionately hurting people of color.
([link removed])
This week, I’ve turned The Briefing over to my colleague Kevin Morris, a researcher in our Democracy Program, reporting on a new analysis that shows how restrictive voting laws disproportionately impact communities of color.
—Michael Waldman
Since the January 6 insurrection, dozens of states have enacted restrictive voting laws. Race played a big role
([link removed])
in where these measures were introduced and passed, and their effects will fall especially hard on voters of color.
Two laws — one in Arizona and one in Georgia — demonstrate how the legislation will disproportionately impact communities of color, making it more difficult for them to vote.
Before Arizona legislators passed Senate Bill 1485 last year, registered voters could sign up to automatically receive a mail ballot for every election. Whether or not the voter actually participated, they could still count on getting a ballot for the next contest, which made voting easier.
Though the new law won’t be in effect for the midterms, in the future, voters will be booted off the mail voting list
([link removed])
if they go four years without casting a mail ballot — even if the state has no reason to think they’ve moved or are otherwise ineligible.
Our analysis shows that this change will have major, racially disparate effects. Latino and Black voters on the mail voting list are more than twice as likely to be at risk of removal as white voters. The changes spell problems for the state’s large Native American community too: Arizonans who reside on tribal lands are twice as likely to be at risk of being dropped from the mail voting list as those living elsewhere. While it’s important to note that these voters wouldn’t be “purged” — they could still vote in person or renew their request for a mail ballot — low-frequency voters might not realize they didn’t receive a mail ballot until it’s too late to get to a polling place.
Georgia presents a slightly more complex picture. There, state lawmakers passed multiple restrictive voting bills. In the recent primary, however, turnout increased. Some pundits declared this proof that the restrictive voting bills didn’t matter because people were still voting.
Not so fast.
While overall turnout did increase, so too did the white-Black turnout gap
([link removed])
. This year, white turnout was 6 percentage points higher than Black turnout, far higher than in any primary in recent years.
This doesn’t prove that Georgia’s new restrictive bills caused the turnout gap to widen, but it does show that things are moving in the wrong direction in the Peach State.
We’re less than 90 days away from the first major general election in which these new bills will be in effect around the country, and activists and researchers will need to study their impacts. But the early returns suggest that the restrictive voting bills adopted in so many states will disproportionately impact voters of color, and those impacts may have powerful effects on our elections.
The situation is another reminder of how the Supreme Court’s gutting of the Voting Rights Act, which would likely have prevented many of these laws from taking effect, has hurt the most vulnerable voters. Only Congress can fix this mess, and the time until the midterms is ticking away.
Making Money Off Incarcerated People
Mass incarceration has created a thriving system that commodifies human beings. A new Brennan Center explainer examines the growing trade in custodial beds in local jails and other detention facilities — a “market” that harms both those in custody and taxpayers. To fix it, we need more reforms and fewer people behind bars. Read more
([link removed])
Who Won This Decade’s Redistricting Battles?
The latest redistricting cycle has produced mixed results for fair representation. On the one hand, partisan gerrymandering continued to skew maps, and there are now fewer competitive congressional districts
([link removed])
than at any point in the last five decades. On the other hand, thanks to efforts by courts and commissions, both parties still have viable paths to win control of the House in future elections. “That, at some level, is a small if not completely satisfactory victory for democracy,” Michael Li and Chris Leaverton write. Read more
([link removed])
Inside the Case that Could Upend Our Elections
This fall, the Supreme Court will hear a pivotal gerrymandering case that hinges on the “independent state legislature theory,” a misreading of the Constitution that purports to give state legislators near absolute power over federal elections. In Moore v. Harper, the Court will determine whether the North Carolina Supreme Court has the power to strike down a legislature-drawn map that was deemed unconstitutional. A new Brennan Center explainer breaks down the facts of the case and what’s at stake for our democracy if this radical theory is adopted. Read more
([link removed])
News
Lauren-Brooke Eisen and Hernandez Stroud on Biden’s justice system reform program // THE HILL
([link removed])
Douglas Keith on the increasing prominence of judicial elections // WALL STREET JOURNAL
([link removed])
Sean Morales-Doyle on legal safeguards in place that prevent election deniers from thwarting an election // WASHINGTON POST
([link removed])
Hernandez Stroud on the federal takeover of a “severely deficient” Mississippi jail // ASSOCIATED PRESS
([link removed])
Ian Vandewalker on financing in election administration races // KJZZ
([link removed])
Feedback on this newsletter? Email us at
[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]
Support Brennan Center
[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])
