Trending Now
We have updated our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for Eurasia Group and its affiliates, including GZERO Media, to clarify the types of data we collect, how we collect it, how we use data and with whom we share data. By using our website you consent to our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy, including the transfer of your personal data to the United States from your country of residence, and our use of cookies described in our Cookie Policy.
{{ subpage.title }}
Graph of poll closures and voter ID laws in US states
Graphic Truth: The great poll closure
In 2013, the Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act in the case Shelby v. Holder, fundamentally transforming voting in the US.
39,844 polling places have closed down in the years since, primarily in communities of color. Fewer places to vote means it is harder, and sometimes impossible, for voters of color, with disabilities, or low incomes to vote.
The Shelby decision: In 13 states with a history of racial discrimination, the Voting Rights Act required that any changes to election administration be reviewed to ensure they did not disadvantage minority voters. The Shelby decision took away this oversight.
The effects were immediate. Within 24 hours Texas, Mississippi, and Alabama implemented voting laws that had been previously ruled discriminatory.
Voter ID laws:Studies have found that strict photo ID requirements to vote depress turnout and disproportionately harm voters of color.
In Kansas, over 63,000 people were blocked from registering to vote after the state implemented its ID law, most of whom were eligible voters. In Georgia, an "exact match" law resulted in over 51,000 people being flagged, 80% of whom were Black, Latino, or Asian. Under the law, discrepancies like having “Tom” on a voter registration form, but “Thomas” driver’s license would be grounds for voter status to be suspended.
Poll closures: Without federal oversight, polls have been closed in communities of color en masse.
In Arizona's largest county, Maricopa – where four in ten residents are people of color – polling places were reduced by 70% after Shelby, leading to voters having to wait up to five hours in 2016.
In the absence of VRA oversight, communities of color who fear they are being disenfranchised have limited legal recourse.
A voter exits a polling station in Selma, Alabama.
SCOTUS backs Voting Rights Act
In a surprising decision on Thursday, the US Supreme Court ruled in favor of voting rights advocates, deciding — in a 5-to-4 vote — that Alabama has carved up the congressional map to dilute the power of Black voters.
What’s this case about? After conducting the census in 2020, the deep-red state left only one out of seven districts majority Black despite the fact that Black voters make up 27% of the vote statewide.
A lower appeals court had previously ruled against Alabama, saying the map needed to be redrawn to be more favorable to Black residents. SCOTUS, for its part, last year put its decision on hold, meaning that the US midterm elections were held according to this now-defunct gerrymandered map.
Indeed, the outcome — in which Justice Brett Kavanaugh and Chief Justice John Roberts, two conservatives, sided with the court’s three liberal justices — surprised many who feared that the majority-conservative court might back Republican-dominated states trying to strip back the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which prohibits racial discrimination in voting.
Still, in handing down his decision, Roberts wrote that there were remaining concerns that the original law in question “may impermissibly elevate race in the allocation of political power within the States.” But for now, it sets a precedent for other states trying to pull similar tricks.
Want to learn more? Tune in here to Ian Bremmer’s interview with Yale Law School Senior Research Fellow Emily Bazelon on the latest episode of GZERO World. Bazelon, the host of Slate’s Political Gabfest podcast, unpacks some of the big cases argued before the court this term.
Midterm fights in court
Welcome back to our new daily feature, Midterm Matters, where we pick a red-hot US midterms story and separate the signal (what you need to know) from the noise (what everyone is yelling about).
Less than two weeks before the US midterm elections, more than 100 lawsuits have been filed related to things like mail-in voting, access to the ballot box, voting registration, voting machines, and poll watchers. Does that mean some of the results will be contested? Perhaps. But there's more to it.
Noise: Most of the lawsuits come from Republicans. That's no surprise given that former President Donald Trump, the undisputed leader of the GOP, still denies he lost the 2020 election to President Joe Biden and requires Republican hopefuls to agree publicly to get his endorsement. Democrats are bracing for a deluge of contested results from losing GOP candidates, many of whom have already said they won't accept defeat.
Signal: Election-related lawsuits are as American as apple pie. After all, the 2000 presidential election turned into a legal battle in Florida – over those pesky hanging chads – that was ultimately decided by the top judicial authority in the country: the Supreme Court.
This time, there are three interesting developments. First, the volume of lawsuits far exceeds the average for a midterm vote, which makes challenges more likely. Second, scores of Trump-backed Republican candidates are seeking state offices that directly supervise elections and certify results. Trump failed to get Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to find him 11,000 votes in Georgia, but if there’s a Round Two, he might succeed in Arizona (another swing state Trump lost), where GOP hopeful Mark Finchem is running as a proud election denier.
Third, Democrats have also gone to court, in their case mainly to get more people to vote — where the party stands to benefit. While that might be a good thing for democracy, it also raises the question: will at least some Dems refuse to concede over voter suppression laws passed by Republican-led states?
Upshot: Some results will be contested in 2022. But the bigger court battle over election results will come in 2024. And it’ll be very bad if both sides refuse, for different reasons, to accept the outcome.
Clarence Page: Why Black voting rights matter
When the 1965 Voting Rights Act was passed, Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Clarence Page had just finished high school.
This legislation changed the lives of Black people in America because Jim Crow laws had virtually prevented Blacks from voting in the South with impossible poll questions and literacy tests, he said in an interview with Ian Bremmer on GZERO World.
But the Supreme Court gutted the law in 2013, allowing states to pass new voting legislation that progressives say restricts Black access to the ballot box.
The 2022 midterm elections will be the first major test of these laws — which Democrats in Congress are unlikely to be able to stop. How will this all affect Black turnout in November?
Page explains that if Trump loyalists win in key states, their legislatures — not voters — may end up deciding the next US presidential race.
What may happen in 2024 reminds him of 1876, when the end of Reconstruction after the Civil War, along with a disputed presidential election, ushered in the Jim Crow laws that ended ability to vote in Alabama.
Page asks, “Are we going to get rid of these last vestiges of discrimination from the Jim Crow era?"
The Supreme Court’s role on Black voting rights
When the 1965 Voting Rights Act was passed, Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Clarence Page had just finished high school. This legislation changed the lives of Black people in America because Jim Crow laws had virtually prevented Blacks from voting in the South, he said in an interview with Ian Bremmer on GZERO World.
But in 2013, the Supreme Court gutted the law by taking away pre-clearance for states, which had blocked states — especially the former Confederate ones — from changing their voting laws based on racial discrimination.
At the time of the SCOTUS ruling, Chief Justice John Roberts said pre-clearance wasn't needed anymore. But many disagree.
Now, Page says Republicans tend to benefit from making it harder to vote, while Democrats want to make it easier.
"We're getting right at the heart of what democracy is all about, when we're at loggerheads over who should be allowed to vote and, and who shouldn't."
Watch this episode of GZERO World with Ian Bremmer: Black voter suppression in 2022
Podcast: It’s getting harder for Black Americans to vote, warns journalist Clarence Page
Listen: Voter suppression is a front and center issue. But it’s not always black and white…or red and blue. Black voters continue to turn out in smaller numbers than white voters. How much of that is due to conscious efforts to make voting harder? Pulitzer Prize-winning Chicago Tribune columnist Clarence Page joins Ian Bremmer on the GZERO World podcast to discuss the past and future of the struggle for Black voting rights in America. Page warns that if Trump loyalists win in key states, their legislatures — not voters — may end up deciding the next US presidential race.
Subscribe to the GZERO World Podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, or your preferred podcast platform, to receive new episodes as soon as they're published.- Why do Black people feel "erased" from American history? - GZERO ... ›
- Voting reform bill will likely be blocked, but still a key issue for ... ›
- Podcast: How we got here: Evaluating 1619 and US history with ... ›
- The Graphic Truth: Black representation in the US Congress ... ›
- Podcast: Grading Biden on foreign policy with journalist Robin ... ›