Voter suppression

Voter suppression is the use of government and/or other efforts to reduce the number of votes that parties, candidates or initiatives might otherwise obtain in an election. This is an overview article. Many topics are explored in greater depth in individual articles.

Examples of voter suppression in 2011-2012
Many states have recently implemented voting restrictions by enacting voter id laws, by making it harder to register, purging voter roles, and by cutting back on early voting.

Voter ID Laws
Voter I.D. laws are measures purported to ensure that registered voters are who they says they are and not an impersonator trying to cast a ballot in someone else's name. The laws, most of which have been passed in the last several years, require that registered voters show ID before they're allowed to vote. Exactly what they need to show varies. Some states require a government-issued photo, while in others a current utility bill or bank statement is sufficient.

Voting law opponents contend these laws disproportionately affect elderly, minority and low-income groups that tend to vote Democratic. Obtaining photo ID can be costly and burdensome, with even free state ID requiring documents like a birth certificate that can cost up to $25 in some places. According to a study from NYU's Brennan Center, 11 percent of voting-age citizens lack necessary photo ID while many people in rural areas have trouble accessing ID offices. During closing arguments in a recent case over Texas's voter ID law, a lawyer for the state brushed aside these obstacles as the "reality to life of choosing to live in that part of Texas."

Attorney General Eric Holder and others have compared the laws to a poll tax, in which Southern states during the Jim Crow era imposed voting fees, which discouraged blacks, and even some poor whites -- until the passage of grandfather clauses -- from voting.

Given the sometimes costly steps required to obtain needed documents today, legal scholars argue that photo ID laws create a new "financial barrier to the ballot box."

Felon Disenfranchisement Changes
Florida & Iowa

Challenges to Voters' Legitimacy, Poll Watching, Intimidation, etc.
True the Vote

Methods of voter suppression
In the past many citizens, especially racial minorities, were legally restricted from voting in large numbers (see Jim Crow and Felon disenfranchisement below). It was illegal for women to vote until 1920. Today various schemes to purge large numbers of voters from registration lists are used. In addition eligible citizens can often be deterred -- or suppressed -- from casting a ballot if voting entails too much cost, time or risk or by creating the perception that voting makes no difference.

Jim Crow laws
In the Southern United States after the Civil War, African-Americans were prevented from participating in elections by the use of various barriers to registration and voting, called "Jim Crow" laws. (These same laws also laid the legal framework for segregation.) Some of the most common Jim Crow tactics included poll taxes (in which a voter has to pay a fee to vote, and the fees are often high enough to prevent most poor or minority voters from being able to cast a ballot), literacy tests with specific exemptions for "grandfathered" (white) voters, and difficult or impossible registration requirements.

These laws remained in effect until the 1965 Voting Rights Act made most race-based disenfranchisement illegal. In addition, Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act contained provisions for increased oversight and enforcement in those areas of the United States where racial discrimination in voting was historically most prevalent. (Map of Section 5-covered jurisdictions.)

Felon disenfranchisement
Felon disenfranchisement is the policy of not allowing those with felony convictions to vote. The United States is one of the only democracies in the world with this system, and laws vary from state to state. According to the Sentencing Project's Report on Felony Disenfranchisement Laws, September, 2008:
 * 48 states and the District of Columbia prohibit those currently incarcerated for a felony offense from voting. (Maine and Vermont are the exceptions.)
 * 35 states do not allow felons to vote while on parole; 30 states do not allow felons to vote while on probation.
 * Kentucky and Virginia ban voting by those convicted of a felony for life. An additional nine states permanently ban voters for certain offenses or require a waiting period after all sentences have been served before a felon can apply to have voting rights restored.
 * For states that do offer a path for restoration of voting rights, the process can often be very difficult. De facto disenfranchisement occurs when those eligible to vote are unable to do so due to poor information provided by state and local election officials or an unwillingness to assist felons.

The impact of felon disenfranchisement is powerful, with an estimated 5.3 million Americans unable to vote in the 2004 election. It disproportionally affects African American men, with approximately 13% of the total population nationwide unable to vote, seven times the national average.

There is a growing movement to restore voting rights to those who have served their sentences, with groups such as the American Parole and Probation Association approving a "Resolution Supporting Restoration of Voting Rights" in 2007, and in February 2008 Sen. Russ Feingold and Rep. John Conyers introduced the Democracy Restoration Act of 2008. (In the House: H.R. 7136, In the Senate: S. 3640)

Voter roll purges
Voter rolls, or voter registration lists, are the gateway to voting. Unless your name appears on the voter rolls, you cannot cast a regular ballot. Yet state and local officials regularly remove — or “purge” — names from voter rolls. Thirty-nine states and the District of Columbia reported purging more than 13 million voters from registration rolls between 2004 and 2006.

Purges, if done properly, are an important way to ensure that voter rolls are accurate, by removing duplicate names, and people who have moved, died, or are otherwise ineligible. Frequently, however, eligible, registered citizens show up to vote and discover their names have been removed from the voter lists. Myrna Pérez of the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law writes, "States maintain voter rolls in an inconsistent and unaccountable manner. Officials strike voters from the rolls through a process that is shrouded in secrecy, prone to error, and vulnerable to manipulation." .

Manipulation of the process can be a way to deny potential opposition voters access to the polls. Partisan election officials have been known to use the process to remove large numbers of targeted voters from districts that heavily represent the opposing party from the voter rolls. For more information on types of voter roll purges and examples from the 2008 election, visit:

Deceptive practices
Deceptive practices include misinforming voters about whether they can vote, where to vote, when to vote and how to vote. A Common Cause report on the 2008 election pointed out that these practices have expanded from flyers and phone calls to include online practices. From the report, "Most of these emails said that given the high turnout expected, Republicans were to vote on Tuesday, Democrats on Wednesday. An email went to the entire student body of George Mason University that appeared to be from the provost of the school making this same claim. There were robocalls in Florida and Nevada telling people they could vote by phone and calls in Virginia fraudulently telling people the wrong place to vote. In the days prior to the election there were emails in places like Texas and Florida with misleading information about straight ticket voting and voter identification rules."

The Election Protection Wiki tracked a widespread effort in which text messages were sent to Democrats in several states, advising them they should avoid the lines and vote Wednesday. This happened in Missouri, Florida, Minnesota, Montana, Idaho, Pennsylvania, New Mexico, Virginia and other states. Similarly voters in Missouri and other states reported receiving robo-calls with a similar message. Also, in Florida Democratic voters were called and told they could avoid lines by voting by phone, given a number to call, and after "voting" were told they didn't have to go to the polls.

Vote caging
Vote caging is the practice of using bulk mailings to build lists of voters to challenge. Mail marked "Do Not Forward" is sent to voters in a certain demographic, or in areas that vote heavily for the other party; if the letter is returned as undeliverable, voters at that address are added to a "challenge list" or removed from the voting rolls. When these voters go to the polls, they find that their registration has been canceled or may be required to vote using a provisional ballot.

This practice ignores that people can stop or forward their mail while on vacation, in long-term medical care, if they are military personnel serving overseas, or under other circumstances where they may still maintain the address as their legal residence.

The term is also used to refer to any scheme which targets large groups of voters based on their race, economic status, or political affiliation. In 2008, a plan by the Republican Party in Michican to challenge the registration of voters foreclosed from their homes was blocked after extensive negative coverage before it could keep people from voting.

Partisan election administration
In many states, the officials responsible for overseeing elections are themselves partisan electeds, some of whom also hold positions of responsibility in the same campaigns they are charged with overseeing. This creates a natural conflict of interest. The most well-known instance of this is Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris in the 2000 election, who was also co-chair of the Bush-Cheney campaign in Florida; she oversaw the removal of tens of thousands of names from the voter rolls based on admittedly-inaccurate lists of felons, the vast majority of whom were minorities or from primarily Democratic precincts.

The revision of the election monitoring structure, or the creation of conduct guidelines for Secretaries of State, is an active topic of election reform. To learn more, visit Election reform proposals.

Inequality in Election Day resources
By providing more polling places, poll workers and/or voting machines in some precincts than others election officials can create long lines that discourage people from voting, while making voting easy for others. In Ohio during the 2004 elections minority areas were provided with fewer resources than areas that tended to vote for conservatives, resulting in very long lines. In the 2004 elections, Wyoming spent $2.15 per voter while California spent $3.99 per voter. In contrast, Canada spends $9.51 per voter.

Voter role purge in the 2000 Florida election
Prior to the 2000 election, Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris and Governor Jeb Bush hired Database Technologies to purge 82,389 voters whose names matched or were similar to those of ex-felons. An investigation by Leon County Elections Supervisor Ion Sancho revealed that 95% of those purged in his county were, in fact, legally entitled to vote. Greg Palast of the BBC found that more than half those wrongly purged were African-Americans, even though African-Americans represent only about 11% of the electorate and that the purge list contained almost no Hispanics, notwithstanding Florida’s sizable Hispanic population. (In Florida, Hispanics vote mostly Republican, and African Americans vote overwhelmingly Democratic.)

2002 Election NH "Phone Jamming" Case
Republican officials attempted to reduce the number of Democratic voters by paying professional telemarketers in Idaho to make repeated hang-up calls to block Democrats' ride-to-the-polls phone lines on election day.

2004 presidential election
In the 2004 U.S. presidential election, some voters got phone calls with false information intended to keep them from voting--saying that their voting place had been changed or that voting would take place on Wednesday as well as on Tuesday.

Other allegations surfaced in several states that the group called Voters Outreach of America had collected and submitted Republican voter registration forms while inappropriately disposing of Democratic registration forms. .

Michigan Republican state legislator John Pappageorge was quoted as saying, "If we do not suppress the Detroit vote, we're going to have a tough time in this election." .

Four employees of John Kerry's campaign were convicted in 2006 of slashing the tires of 25 vans rented by the state Republican Party which were to be used for driving Republican monitors to the polls. At the campaign workers' sentencing, Judge Michael B. Brennan told the defendants, "Voter suppression has no place in our country. Your crime took away that right to vote for some citizens."

U.S. Senate election in Virginia, 2006
Secretary of the Virginia State Board of Elections Jean Jensen concluded that the incidents of voter suppression appeared widespread and deliberate. Documented incidents of voter suppression include: The FBI has since launched an investigation into the suppression attempts.
 * Democratic voters receiving calls incorrectly informing them voting will lead to arrest.
 * Widespread calls fraudulently claiming to be "Webb Volunteers," falsely telling voters their voting location had changed.
 * Fliers paid for by the Republican Party, stating "SKIP THIS ELECTION" caused was allegedly an attempt to suppress African-American turnout.

2008 United States Presidential Election
Prior to the 2008 United States Presidential Election, in September 16, 2008, Obama legal counsel announced that they would be seeking an injunction to stop an alleged caging scheme in Michigan wherein the state Republican party would use home foreclosure lists to challenge voters still using their foreclosed home as a primary address at the polls. Michigan GOP officials called the suit "desperate."

On October 5, 2008 the Republican Lt. Governor of Montana, John Bohlinger, accused the Montana Republican Party of vote caging to purge 6,000 voters from three counties which trend Democratic. These purges included decorated war veterans and active duty soldiers.

A review of states' records by The New York Times found unlawful actions leading to widespread voter purges.

A dispute between the Social Security Administration commissioner and the National Association of Secretaries of State about the use of the Social Security database to test the validity of voters led to the shutdown of the database over the Columbus Day holiday weekend.

Selected state reports
For a complete list of state-by-state reports, see the index.

Colorado
For more information, visit Colorado election threats

Colorado has faced an string of increasingly contentious court hearings this fall.
 * In late November the count of the number of voters who had been purged was raised to 44,000. More than 300 of the voters purged with the justification of removing voters who had died, etc. demanded provisional ballots on Election Day.
 * In Early October it was revealed that Colorado Secretary of State Mike Kaufman had invalidated up to 35,000 new registrations due to an irregularity in the forms.
 * On October 25th, 2008 the Advancement Project filed suit to stop the purges, and have all voters removed during the 90-day no-purge period reinstated."
 * On October 29th a settlement was reached. The terms of the settlement required Coffman to create a list of all voters removed within the 90-day no-purge period; voters on that list will be required to vote on a provisional ballot, but those ballots will have a presumption of eligibility unless proven otherwise.
 * On October 31st an emergency hearing was held, when it was discovered that Secretary of State Coffman had continued to remove names for the voter rolls. U.S. District Judge John Kane ordered an immediate halt, and the reinstatement of 146 voters removed since 9 p.m. October 29, 2008. "There has been a violation of federal law, and that must cease and stop immediately," Judge Kane said from the bench. "That is the order." In statements to the Rocky Mountain news, Coffman insisted that Wednesday's settlement did not preclude the removal of additional names, but indicated that he will comply with Judge Kane's order.

Florida
For more information, visit Florida election threats

In 2008, Florida voter rolls have seen the removal of tens of thousands of names.


 * In early September, it was found that Florida Republicans were sending "Do Not Forward" mail, and using returns to compile "challenge lists”.


 * Volusia County Republicans announced in mid-October that they would use home foreclosure lists to challenge voters at the polls on election day.


 * An Oct 27, 2008 CNN story stated that many Florida voters have been purged from the voter rolls without legitimate reason. The report says that "officials found that 75 percent of about 20,000 voter registration applications from a three-week period in September were mismatched due to typographical and administrative errors.


 * As of Oct 28, 2008, Florida's "no-match no-vote" list had grown to 12,165, according to an updated version released by the state this week. Search the "no-match" list here. The list, which is heavily comprised of Hispanic and African-American voters, requires voters to confirm their identities in advance or face casting a provisional ballot at the polls.

Georgia
For more information, visit Georgia election threats.

Polls in Georgia may be among the most chaotic on election day, as a flurry of reports of purges and planned challenges have plagued the run up to the election:


 * Secretary of State Karen Handel made a point of reminding voters that anyone can challenge another voter's eligibility at the polls, requiring them to vote on a "challenge ballot" (which will not be included in that day's totals) and appear before the board of elections at a later date.


 * Also according to Secretary of State Karen Handel, over 4,500 voters whose registrations were challenged on citizenship grounds must appear before their county election board with documentation to prove their citizenship before election day. If they do not, they may be required to vote using "challenged" paper ballots that will not be included in their district's vote totals.

Indiana
In Indiana, a series of challenges to registration and early voting centers have been raised:


 * Indiana Secretary of State Todd Rokita questioned the validity of over 1400 voter registration forms submitted by ACORN on October 22, 2008, calling for a criminal investigation.


 * On October 23 a Superior Court Judge ordered that early voting sites in Gary, Hammond and East Chicago must remain open, a ruling that followed reports that Lake County Republicans were blocking satellite early voting centers in the heavily-Democratic areas.

Ohio
For more information, visit Ohio election threats.

Record numbers of new registrannts and a series of problems related to incorectly filled out or poorly constructed forms have led to widespread voter disenfranchisement in Ohio, but several more overt instances of voter suppression have also been reported:


 * The Ohio Republican party sued the Ohio Secretary of State in September to attempt to block 666,000 new voter registrations, with a federal court ruling on 10/15 that Ohio had until the following Friday to set up a system to verify their eligibility, . which threatened to disenfranchise more than 200,000 of the newly-registered Ohio voters. —a move blocked two days later by the U.S. Supreme Court


 * Sheriff Gene Fischer of Greene County, a Republican, announced an investigation and requested the information on 300 new registrants, leading to charges of voter intimidation and vote suppression.

Pennsylvania
For more information, visit Pennsylvania election threats.

National reports of problems with ACORN-submitted voter registrations have led to a series of challenges in Pennsylvania:


 * In Delaware County, 250 voter-registration applications were rejected and 4,000 more are under investigation. The Delaware County Voter Registration Commission, a three-member commission with two Republicans—reactivated after having not met for 15 years—is rejecting the registration applications based on criteria that no other county uses.


 * The Republican party filed suit (ultimately dismissed ) seeking to force ACORN to turn over the records for their 140,000 registrations in the state.

Virginia
For more information, visit Virginia election threats.

Virginia has seen some of the more brazen efforts at voter suppression, highlights include:


 * The Washington Post reported that students at Old Dominion University received questioinaires from the Nofolk elections board investigating whether they were listed as dependents in their parents' tax filings, where their cars were registerd, and which state issued their driver's license.


 * Official-looking flyers were circulated in Hampton Roads Virginia announcing that Republicans are supposed to vote on November 4, 2008, while Democrats are to come to the polls on November 5.

Wisconsin
For more information, visit Wisconsin election threats.

In Wisconsin, Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen (co-chair of John McCain's campaign in Wisconsin) has moved to challenge new voters in a number of ways:


 * A suit (since dismissed) was filed seeking to purge names from the voter registration list if they did not exactly match state drivers, death and felony databases. Efforts were also made to force a check going back to January 2006.


 * After the lawsuit was thrown out, Van Hollen announced plans to deploy a force of 50 state attorneys to challenge voters at the polls.

Related SourceWatch articles

 * Electoral fraud
 * Felon disenfranchisement
 * Voter roll purges
 * Voter role purge in the 2000 Florida election
 * Voter caging
 * Voter fraud
 * American Center for Voting Rights
 * ChoicePoint (was Database Technologies; a.k.a. DBT Online or DBT)

External resources
Books
 * Steven F. Freeman and Joel Bleifuss, Was the 2004 Presidential Election Stolen? Exit Polls, Election Fraud, and the Official Count, (New York: Seven Stories Press, 2006) Chapter 2. Florida sets the stage


 * Greg Palast, The Best Democracy Money Can Buy (London: Pluto Press, 2002), 44–47

Websites
 * Bradblog


 * Voter Suppression Documented at the Voter Suppression Wiki.

Films
 * American Blackout http://www.americanblackout.com/


 * "Voter Purges," a Report from the Brennan Center for Justice, September 30, 2008.


 * "Report Shows Voting Problems In 10 Swing States," Common Cause, September 17, 2008


 * "Voter Suppression/Voter Fraud Clearinghouse," Perry O, Newsvine, September 12, 2008


 * "The New Face of Jim Crow: Voter Suppression in America," People For The American Way, August 2006


 * Vote Fraud, Intimidation & Suppression In The 2004 Presidential Election, American Center For Voting Rights

External articles

 * Michael Peshkin, "Are Long Lines the ‘New Poll Tax’?" In These Times, November 25, 2008.


 * "The Basics of Voter Suppression Tactics," The Public Record, November 4, 2008.


 * "Thousands Face Mix-Ups In Voter Registrations," Washington Post, October 18, 2008.


 * Michigan and New Mexico: mass purges in very poor native New Mexican pueblos and Detroit's "war-zone" investigated by Greg Palast of the BBC (October 11, 2008) 14 min video

"Tens of thousands of eligible voters in at least six swing states have been removed from the rolls or have been blocked from registering in ways that appear to violate federal law, according to a review of state records and Social Security data by The New York Times."
 * Ian Urbina, "States’ Purges of Voter Rolls Appear Illegal," New York Times, October 9, 2008.


 * Kim Zetter, "Voter Database Glitches Could Disenfranchise Thousands," Wired, September 17, 2008


 * "What Have You Heard About Voter Suppression?," rikyrah, Jack & Jill Politics, September 16, 2008


 * What the heck is vote caging, and why does nobody care? Dahlia Lithwick, Slate, May 31, 2007


 * Art Levine, The Republican War on Voting, American Prospect, April 1, 2008.


 * NOW on PBS interview reviewing the likelihood and forms of Voter Suppression likely in 2008


 * Stealing democracy Spencer Overton, Stealing Democracy, June 5, 2006