VOTING RIGHTS PROTECTING AND PROMOTING
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
PROTECTING AND PROMOTING
VOTING RIGHTS
By June Park
INTRODUCTION
In 2016, the late U.S. Congressman and civil rights activist John
Lewis said to a group of young people, “The vote is precious. It is
the most powerful non-violent tool we have in a democratic society,
and we must use it.” In the United States, voting is the cornerstone
of democracy. As citizens, we have not only the right but also the
duty to vote. By voting, we participate in the political process, hold
elected officials accountable, have our voices heard, and ultimately
promote a healthy democracy. As the saying goes, “Your Voice, Your
Vote.”
However, the United States is facing a voting rights crisis.
Problems like lower voter turnout, voter suppression, and
The late U.S. concerns for election security have plagued modern American
representative and history. According to the U.S. Census, the 2020 election saw a
civil rights activist, record high voter turnout of 66.8% (Fabina, 2021). Instead of
celebrating the increased voter turnout, the response to the 2020
John Lewis
Associated Press election has been divided. In 2021, the nation, once again, finds
itself embroiled in debates about the intricacies of voting, such as
who should vote and how to vote. To answer these questions, some
have moved to expand voting rights and accessibility, while others
have moved to restrict access to the ballot box to help ensure
election security.
No matter what the opinion on voting rights might be, the
reality is that the United States is at a crossroad of what the future
of voting, and by extension, what the future of democracy, will look
like.HARVARD MODEL CONGRESS
EXPLANATION OF THE ISSUE
Historical Development
The history of voting rights in America is one of selective
It has only been 151 enfranchisement, meaning that only select groups have historically
years since black had the right to vote. It has only been 151 years since black men
men could vote, 101 could vote, 101 years since women could vote, and 50 years since 18
years since women to 21 year-olds could vote with the ratification of the 15th, 19th, and
could vote, and 50 26th Amendments, respectively (USAGov, 2021).
However, even after the ratification of these suffrage-expanding
years since 18- amendments, many minority voters were still not able to exercise
year-olds could their right to vote until years later. Following the end of
vote with the Reconstruction, Jim Crow laws in the South enforced racial
ratification of the segregation and prevented minorities, especially black voters, from
15th, 19th, and 26th exercising their right to vote through intimidation, violence, literacy
Amendments tests, poll taxes, grandfather clauses, and many other
disenfranchisement tools (Kennedy, 2021). As a result, federal laws
respectively like the Civil Rights Acts and Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA)
were passed over the years to prohibit discrimination in voting and
help minority groups exercise their right to vote (USAGov, 2021).
However, the reality is that even in 2021, many problems
surrounding voting still plague American democracy.
Scope of the Problem
The aftermath of the 2016 and 2020 elections have
reinvigorated debates about voting rights in the United States. At
the core of these debates is a fundamental question: what are the
greatest threats to voting rights in 2021? There are many different
answers to this question, and as a result, there are even more
diverse solutions required to protect and promote voting rights.
However, this briefing focuses on three main threats to voting
rights: low voter turnout, restrictive voting laws and tactics, and
election security.
Low Voter Turnout
Healthy democracies are strengthened by the participation of all
eligible citizens. High voter turnout that includes voters of all
different backgrounds and experiences results in a truly
representative government. However, according to the Pew
Research Center, the United States has historically trailed most
developed countries in voter turnout. Since 1976, voter turnout in
the United States has hovered between 50 – 58%, while Sweden
had a turnout of 82.1% in 2018 and South Korea had a turnout of
77.9% in 2017 (DeSilver, 2020). This low voter turnout crisis
becomes even more worrisome when examining certain subsections
© HARVARD MODEL CONGRESS 2023 – REDISTRIBUTION OR REPRODUCTION PROHIBITED 2HARVARD MODEL CONGRESS
of the voting-eligible population — especially marginalized groups.
Young voters are substantially less likely to vote than their older
counterparts; in 2016, only 39% of Americans aged 18-29 voted
(McAndrew and Smyton, 2021). The voter turnouts of racial and
ethnic minority voters, especially Hispanic and Asian American
voters, are lower than those of their white counterparts (Igielnik
Map of youth voter and Budiman, 2020). However, apathy is not the only reason why
turnout in 2020 by young and minority voters do not vote. According to a survey
states; the darker conducted by FiveThirtyEight, “almost one-quarter (22%) of young
the purple, the people said that when they didn’t end up casting a ballot, they had
higher the turnout actually wanted to but couldn’t,” meaning young people are more
CIRCLE at likely to experience voting barriers such as not receiving their ballot
Tisch College on time, missing voter registration deadlines, having trouble
finding or accessing the polls, and more (Thomson-DeVeaux et al.,
2020). Often marginalized groups face voter suppression when
trying to exercise their right to vote.
However, efforts must be However, there is reason to hope that these trends can
taken to ensure that the change. The 2020 election saw a record high voter turnout of
voter turnout of the 2020 66.8%, along with increased turnout among minority and
election is not just a one- marginalized groups. Turnout showed distinct increases exceeding
time anomaly 6 points or higher from 2016 among Asian American, Latino or
Hispanic voters (Fabina, 2021). While older voters still voted at
higher rates than their younger counterparts, more than 50% of
young voters turned out to vote (Frey, 2021). However, efforts must
be taken to ensure that the voter turnout of the 2020 election is not
just a one-time anomaly but the beginnings of a new pattern.
Whatever the reasons behind low voter turnout – apathy,
disillusionment, voter suppression, etc. – solutions must be
implemented to promote and protect voting rights.
Restrictive Voting Laws and Tactics
What are the greatest According to the May 2021 Voting Laws Roundup from the
threats to voting rights in Brennan Center for Justice, “between January 1 and May 14, 2021,
2021? at least 14 states enacted 22 new laws that restrict access to the
vote.” In addition, lawmakers have introduced at least 389
restrictive bills in 48 states in the 2021 legislative sessions. These
new state-level voting laws are deemed restrictive if they make it
harder for Americans to register, stay on the rolls, and/or vote, as
compared to existing state laws (Brennan Center for Justice, 2021).
Many of these restrictive laws arose in backlash to the 2020
election’s historic voter turnout and unprecedented vote-by-mail
usage. State lawmakers have imposed restrictive voting rights laws
and tactics such as restrictions on both mail voting and in-person
voting, new or stricter voter ID requirements, voter roll purge
practices, and barriers to voter registration (Brennan Center for
Justice, 2021). On March 25, 2021, Georgia signed the Election
Integrity Act of 2021 into law, which curtails the use of drop boxes
© HARVARD MODEL CONGRESS 2023 – REDISTRIBUTION OR REPRODUCTION PROHIBITED 3HARVARD MODEL CONGRESS
for ballot returns, requires photo identification to vote by mail, and
eliminates early voting on Sundays when many black churches (
whose members often vote for Democratic candidates)
encourage churchgoers to vote after Sunday services in an initiative
known as “souls to the polls” (Zurcher, 2021). Many voting rights
An example of an activists argue that these restrictive voting laws and tactics, like the
outdated voting one passed in Georgia, will especially suppress voters of color who
machine from already are more likely to face voting barriers.
Georgia that has
recently been Election Security
recommended to be The foundation of democracy lies in free and fair elections.
replaced However, compromises to election and voting security puts our very
11alive.com
democracy at risk. In 2016, Russian operatives interfered in the
2016 election through disinformation on social media, stolen
campaign emails, and attacks on voting systems (Cassidy, 2020).
Russian hackers were able to take advantage of the vulnerabilities
in the voting systems to even breach at least one state’s registration
America’s election database and infect the computers at a voting technology company
security is at risk if (Brennan Center for Justice, 2019). Another concern of election
we continue to use security is the nation’s aging voting infrastructure. In 2018, 41
states used electronic voting and tabulation systems that were at
outdated machines least 10 years old, increasing the risk of failures and crashes. In
and methods that put addition, the Brennan Center states, “poor ballot design and
votes at risk of malfunctioning machines lead to confusion, long lines at the polls,
cyberattacks and and lost votes—issues that hit low-income and minority voters
machine failure. hardest” (Brennan Center, 2019). America’s election security is at
risk if we continue to use outdated, inefficient machines and
methods that put votes at risk of cyberattacks and machine failure.
Congressional Action
Recognizing that the protection and promotion of voting rights
Voter roll purges – requires federal laws beyond existing constitutional amendments,
an often-flawed Congress has passed several bills surrounding this topic. One of the
process of cleaning up most comprehensive voting rights acts ever enacted is the Voting
voter rolls by deleting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA). This act prohibited racial
names from discrimination in elections by banning the use of literacy tests,
registration lists providing for federal oversight of voter registration in areas where
less than 50 percent of the non-white population had not registered
to vote, and more (History.com Editors, 2021). However, the
Supreme Court’s 2013 ruling in Shelby v. Holder significantly
weakened the VRA’s protections by “invalidating the formula
naming jurisdictions that had to pass federal scrutiny under the
Voting Rights Act, referred to as “preclearance,” in order to pass
any new elections or voting laws” (Newkirk II, 2018). This cleared
the path for states to pass laws that disenfranchise voters and
especially discriminate against voters of color.
© HARVARD MODEL CONGRESS 2023 – REDISTRIBUTION OR REPRODUCTION PROHIBITED 4HARVARD MODEL CONGRESS
Recently, Congress has taken action to restore voting rights that
many believe have been infringed upon by the ruling in Shelby v.
Holder. The first bill is known as the For the People Act of
2021 (HR 1/S 1). Described by Democrats as “a bold,
comprehensive package of democracy reforms,” the For the People
Act focuses on three pillars: voting and elections, money in politics,
John Lewis Voting
and ethics and accountability. Regarding voting rights, “it includes
Rights Advancement
things like automatic voter registration, expanding absentee voting,
Act (S 4263) –
guaranteeing the ability to vote early, blocking voter purges, and
a bill targeting the issue
restoring the right to vote to people who have completed their
of racism and
felony sentences” (Riestenberg, 2021). The second bill is known as
discrimination in voting
the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act (S 4263).
by strengthening the
This bill directly targets the issue of racism and discrimination in
provisions of the VRA
voting by strengthening the provisions of the VRA struck down by
struck down by Shelby v.
Shelby v. Holder through a new coverage formula for
Holder through a new
preclearance (Pérez and Lau, 2021).
coverage formula for
Currently, these two bills are at a standstill because many
preclearance
Republican senators have shown no interest in voting for either.
The other path to enact these bills into law would be to eliminate
the filibuster so that only the votes of the 50 Democrats (and the
tie-breaking vote of the Vice President) are needed. However, there
is pushback from certain Democratic senators, including Sen.
Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ), who view
eliminating the filibuster as a dangerous precedent (Stevenson,
2021).
Other Policy Action
While many states, like Georgia, have acted at the state-level to
pass acts that have restrict ed voting rights , other states,
inspired by the 2020 election, have worked to pass expansive
voting rights acts at the state-level. According to the Brennan
Center, these state laws focused on expanding early voting, making
mail voting easier, and improving accessibility for voters with
disabilities. In addition, New York and Washington passed laws
(NY SB 830B, WA HB 1078) to restore voting rights to people with
past convictions (Brennan Center for Justice, 2021).
Many grassroots voting rights organizations, like Stacey Abrams’
Fair Fight, have worked tirelessly to help enfranchise marginalized
voters. Stacey Abrams’ efforts to increase voter registration and
turnout in Georgia have led her to be described as “the architect of
the Democrats’ unexpected victories in both of Georgia’s US Senate
runoff elections” (Fedor, 2021). She is one of the many women of
color who reached out to communities of color and other
marginalized communities to help them register to vote and
ultimately get involved in the democratic process.
© HARVARD MODEL CONGRESS 2023 – REDISTRIBUTION OR REPRODUCTION PROHIBITED 5HARVARD MODEL CONGRESS
IDEOLOGICAL VIEWPOINTS
Conservative View
Conservatives have Conservatives have generally interpreted protecting and
generally interpreted promoting voter rights as increasing electoral security. They argue
protecting and that “casting a vote is a privilege of citizenship to be earned and
promoting voter safeguarded with restrictions and security” (Ewing, 2020). In fact,
rights as increasing voter fraud is one of the major concerns regarding voter rights.
According to the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank,
electoral security their Election Fraud Database “has documented nearly 1,300
instances of voter fraud from across the country, and the number
continues to grow” (James, 2020). Certain conservative members of
Liberals have Congress, such as Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), have
generally interpreted continuously argued that there was expansive voter fraud in the
protecting and 2020 election of President Joe Biden and even tried to challenge the
promoting voting results of the Electoral College (Greene, 2021). However, many
conservatives, including Senate M inority L eader Mitch
rights as increasing
McConnell (R-KY), have acknowledged that President Biden won
voting accessibility. the Electoral College (Watkins, 2020). Still, the policy
recommendations proposed by conservatives revolve around
protecting the security and integrity of the vote through measures
like strict voter ID laws, constant review and even purges of voter
rolls, restrictions to vote-by-mail, and more.
Liberal View
Liberals have Liberals have generally interpreted protecting and promoting
generally interpreted voting rights as increasing voting accessibility. They argue that
protecting and “voting is a right and that the barriers to casting a ballot should be
promoting voting as low as practical” (Ewing, 2020). They tend to support voting
rights as increasing rights initiatives that enfranchise voters, especially marginalized
groups, to increase voter turnout. The current democratic-
voting accessibility.
controlled Congress has pushed to enact both the For the People
Act and John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, which
create “new national standards that expands the freedom to vote
and makes our elections more accessible” and “protects the right to
vote” respectively (Riestenberg, 2021). Liberals support expanded
voting methods like voting by mail or early voting, national and
automatic voter registration, and elimination of restrictive voting
laws like strict voter ID laws and voter roll purges. However,
more moderate members of Congress are in favor of passing a
bipartisan voting rights bills, even if it means compromising on
some of the key voting rights provisions.
© HARVARD MODEL CONGRESS 2023 – REDISTRIBUTION OR REPRODUCTION PROHIBITED 6HARVARD MODEL CONGRESS
AREAS OF DEBATE
Below are four highly debated, potential solutions to the three
problems raised earlier: low voter turnout, restrictive voting laws
and tactics, and election security. While these are only four areas of
debate, there are many other policy ideas and initiatives that
protect and promote voting rights. The For the People Act alone is
886 pages long. Think of these areas of debate as beginning points
for your research.
Automatic voter Expand Accessibility to Voter Registration and Voting
registration (AVR)
– a tool in which Supporters argue that expanding accessibility to voter
citizens are registration and voting will combat restrictive voting laws and
automatically tactics and even increase voter turnout. This solution can take many
registered to vote shapes and forms but some of the most common ways of expanding
when they provide accessibility to voting include automatic voter registration
information to (AVR) and universal voting by mail (also known as no-excuse
government agencies absentee voting).
like the Department of The purpose behind AVR is to modernize voter registration
Motor Vehicles unless processes to increase voter registration rates and, by extension,
they affirmatively voter turnout. Supporters of AVR believe that being unregistered is
decline one of the main obstacles that prevent some people from voting.
Therefore, AVR seeks to register as many people as possible
(Rakich, 2019). As of February 2021, AVR has already been
enacted by 19 states and the District of Columbia (Brennan Center
for Justice, 2021). Under the For the People Act’s version of AVR,
“when eligible citizens provide information to government agencies
like the Department of Motor Vehicles, they are automatically
registered to vote (or have their existing registration information
updated) unless they affirmatively decline. In other words, AVR
shifts voter registration from an “opt-in” to an “opt-out”
approach” (Brennan Center for Justice, 2021). But opponents of
AVR, including Commissioner Christy McCormick of the Election
Assistance Commission, argue that “automatic voter registration
does not necessarily increase turnout and that it would expose more
AVR shifts voter people's voter information to be hacked” (Theobald, 2019). There
registration from an are also other ideas to increase voter registration that could be
“opt-in” to an “opt- enacted alongside or without AVR like online voter registration and
out” approach. same-day voter registration.
Following the 2020 election and health and safety concerns
during the COVID-19 pandemic, voting by mail has emerged as a
divisive way of casting ballots. According to a Pew Research Center
survey, 46% of voters voted by mail during the 2020 election (Pew
Research Center, 2020). Supporters of voting by mail push for
universal voting by mail (aka: no-excuse absentee voting) where
any eligible voter can vote by mail, unlike with strict absentee
© HARVARD MODEL CONGRESS 2023 – REDISTRIBUTION OR REPRODUCTION PROHIBITED 7HARVARD MODEL CONGRESS
voting requirements where voters often must give an acceptable
reason why they are voting by mail. Opponents of expanded voting
by mail initiatives argue that it gives a partisan advantage and/or
increases electoral fraud. However, supporters counter that neither
party gains an advantage with voting by mail and there is no
evidence that mail ballots increase voter fraud (West, 2020).
AVR and universal voting by mail are only two mechanisms
of expanded voter registration and voting. Other examples include
early voting and making election day a national holiday.
Political Perspectives on this Solution
The liberal view would support the expansion of accessibility to
Universal voting voter registration and voting. In fact, both AVR and universal
by mail – also voting by mail are provisions in the For the People Act, which
known as no-excuse has been supported by many liberals. These expansions will
absentee voting; especially help increase accessibility for marginalized groups like
under such a system, voters of color and young voters by removing as many barriers to
any eligible vote by voting as possible.
mail without having The conservative view would not support this solution based on
to give a reason why election security and integrity. They would argue that the “opt-in”
nature of AVR strips citizens of their choice to register. In addition,
many conservatives stand by the idea that increased numbers of
mail-in ballots are directly linked to increased voter fraud.
Promote Electoral Integrity
Supporters of electoral integrity often cite voter fraud as a key
issue to address. They advocate for measures like stricter voter ID
laws and voter roll purges, which they view as necessary for
creating public confidence in the electoral process. Some state
lawmakers argue that stricter voter ID laws, voter roll purges, and
similar measures make it “easy to vote and hard to cheat” (Huey-
Burns and Brewster, 2021).
According to the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank
that supports stricter voter ID laws, “voter ID laws don’t 'suppress’
anyone’s vote.” Specifically, they argue that “voter registration and
turnout rates did not change to any significant extent after voter ID
laws took effect” and instead that stricter voter ID laws “ensure the
integrity and security of the election process” (Heritage Foundation,
2021). Another nuance of the argument in favor of stricter voter ID
laws is that access to an acceptable ID is easy and crucial to ensure
46% of voters voted that the voter is who they say they are (Spakovsky and Anderson,
2021). However, opponents of stricter voter ID laws argue that
by mail during the voter ID laws reduce voter turnout, and that millions of Americans
2020 election. do not have one of the forms of identification states accept for
voting. In fact, opponents argue that voters who are low-income,
racial and ethnic minorities, the elderly, and people with disabilities
are most disadvantaged by strict voter ID laws (ACLU, 2017).
© HARVARD MODEL CONGRESS 2023 – REDISTRIBUTION OR REPRODUCTION PROHIBITED 8HARVARD MODEL CONGRESS
Another method of promoting electoral integrity according to
some is voter roll purges, which supports argue ensure accurate,
up-to-date voter registration lists. Doing this requires going beyond
just “verifying and comparing voter registration lists with state
death records” and “doing the same thing with the databases
maintained by state motor vehicle departments… to find
information relevant to registration, such as address changes,
deaths, citizenship status, or other factors affecting eligibility”
(Spakovsky and Anderson, 2021). However, opponents of voter roll
purges argue that states that purge voter rolls go beyond their
Supporters argue that duty of keeping voter registration records up to date by “purging
states must ensure people from the rolls solely because they have skipped voting in
accurate, up-to-date several consecutive elections and they have not responded to a
voter registration lists letter asking them to confirm where they live” (Smith, 2020).
through voter roll Nonetheless, stricter voter ID laws and voter roll purges are
purges. methods of promoting electoral integrity. There are many other
similar methods that would also promote electoral integrity.
Political Perspectives on this Solution
The conservative view would support the promotion of
enhanced security measures. In fact, many conservative state
legislatures have passed bills with stricter voter ID laws and voter
roll purges initiatives, which have often become law. In addition,
conservatives believe that one of the greatest threats to voting rights
is voter fraud and as a result believe that possibly restrictive
methods will best prevent voter fraud and preserve the sanctity of
the vote for the majority.
The liberal view would not support this solution based on what
they would likely see as voter suppression of minority voters. These
“restrictive” measures would put the burden on minority and
marginalized voters. In addition, liberals insist that voter fraud is
a rare occurrence and prefer to not base policy in an “unfounded
fear.”
Update and Upgrade Election Security
Updating and upgrading America’s aging voting infrastructure,
like voting machines, is crucial to protecting election security. Many
of the current voting machines across the United States are woefully
out of date and vulnerable to both cyber-attacks, which raise
concerns of foreign intervention, and machine failures, which create
long lines for those trying to cast their ballot and even lose some
ballots. The Brennan Center suggests upgrading voting machines
and registration databases, creating simple, easy-to-read ballot
design and instructions, and more oversight on voting machines
(Brennan Center, 2019). The For the People Act includes a
subtitle that would “require all jurisdictions to use paper ballots
that voters can mark by hand or with a ballot marking device”
© HARVARD MODEL CONGRESS 2023 – REDISTRIBUTION OR REPRODUCTION PROHIBITED 9HARVARD MODEL CONGRESS
(Brennan Center, 2019). Supporters of paper ballot voting machines
argue that the addition of paper ballots leave a physical record (aka
a paper audit trail) of the vote for the confirmation of the voter and
election officials (Gambhir and Karsten, 2019). However,
opponents raise the concern of the expensive price tag associated
with voting infrastructure, especially voting machines. In New
Jersey, officials estimate that replacing the state’s aged fleet of
A paper ballot voting machines could cost between $60 million and $80 million,
voting machine in
which New Jersey currently must pay for by itself. This price tag
Montogomery
only includes the cost of voting machines and not personnel
County,
training and other additional costs (Pillets, 2020).
Pennsylvania
The Philadelphia Political Perspectives on this Solution
Inquirer
Compared to the previous two areas of debates, this area of
debate is potentially where both the liberal and conservative view
could agree. Both sides agree that increasing election security is
crucial and updating and upgrading voter machines is a popular
policy choice. Financial support for election infrastructure is a key
provision in the For the People Act, which many liberals support.
In 2019, Republican state legislators in Georgia ignored the
objections of their Democratic counterparts and paid $100 million
for new voting machines without hand-marked paper ballots.
However, the Georgian Republican party committee has recently
recommended getting rid of these same voting machines and
replacing them with hand-marked paper ballot voting machines
(Richards, 2021).
BUDGETARY CONSIDERATIONS
Protecting and promoting voting rights can either be expensive
or not depending on the methods implemented by Congress.
Measures like implementing AVR will have minimal costs if based
upon already-existing databases like the Department of Motor
Vehicles’ database. However, other measures like updating and
upgrading voting infrastructure, especially voting machines, have a
hefty price tag. The Congressional Budget estimates that the For the
People Act will cost $2.6 billion, of which $1.5 billion will go
towards states and counties to purchase new voting technology
(Polit, 2019). Therefore, it is important to consider costs of
solutions, especially whether the money will come from the federal
or state government.
© HARVARD MODEL CONGRESS 2023 – REDISTRIBUTION OR REPRODUCTION PROHIBITED 10HARVARD MODEL CONGRESS
CONCLUSION
Often, voting rights are taken for granted in the United States.
For many people, however, the right to vote has only been recently
extended to them. The United States is facing a voting rights crisis
from all angles: lower voter turnout, restrictive voting laws and
tactics, election security crises, and aging election infrastructure.
Just Americans vote The next “big election” – the Congressional midterm election – is in
2022, but the pathway to reforming voting and elections has been
like their rights blocked by partisanship and division. As representatives, it is your
depend on it, responsibility now to chart the future of voting rights with whatever
deliberate in session measures you believe will best protect and promote voting rights.
like the future of The decisions you make will affect who can vote and how they can
democracy depends vote.
on it. You are more than welcome to use any, some, or all the
solutions above, but you should also include your own ideas for
solutions. Just as many Americans vote like their rights depend on
it, deliberate in this session like the future of our democracy
depends on it. The truth is that it does.
GUIDE TO FURTHER RESEARCH
Hopefully, this briefing has given you a solid foundation to begin
your own research into voting rights. It should be emphasized that
this briefing is only a snapshot of the extremely broad and complex
topic of voting rights, meaning that there are many other problems
and solutions out there to be researched! It is highly suggested that
you stay within the three broad problems with voting rights given in
this briefing – low voter turnout, restrictive voting laws and tactics,
and election security. Still, you are encouraged to research and
come up with your own innovative solutions beyond those
presented in this briefing. There are many policy ideas, such as
felon enfranchisement, so think outside of the box. Keep an eye
on the For the People Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights
Advancement Act. In addition, websites like the Brennan Center for
Justice, ACLU, Pew Research Center, the Heritage Foundation, and
news sources are great places to dive deeper into the state of voting
rights. Good luck!
GLOSSARY
Automatic voter registration (AVR) – a tool in which
citizens are automatically registered to vote when they provide
Vote!
Henry Ford College
© HARVARD MODEL CONGRESS 2023 – REDISTRIBUTION OR REPRODUCTION PROHIBITED 11HARVARD MODEL CONGRESS
information to government agencies like the Department of Motor
Vehicles unless they affirmatively decline
Filibuster – a tactic employed by opponents of a proposed law
to prevent a measure from being brought to a vote; 60 votes are
required to invoke cloture or end the debate and bring the bill to a
final vote
For the People Act of 2021 (HR 1/S 1) – a bill addressing
voter access, election integrity and security, campaign finance, and
ethics for the three branches of government
John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act (S 4263) –
a bill targeting the issue of racism and discrimination in voting by
strengthening the provisions of the VRA struck down by Shelby v.
Holder through a new coverage formula for preclearance
Shelby v. Holder – the 2013 Supreme Court case that
significantly weakened the Voting Rights Act’s protections
Voter roll purges – an often-flawed process of cleaning up
voter rolls by deleting names from registration lists
Voter suppression – any effort that can prevent eligible
voters from registering to vote or voting, including tactics like
making voting less convenient, physically intimidating, and even
physically attacking prospective voters
Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA) – a comprehensive voting
rights and civil rights legislation that prohibited racial
discrimination in elections
Universal voting by mail – also known as no-excuse
absentee voting; under such a system, any eligible vote by mail
without having to give a reason why
© HARVARD MODEL CONGRESS 2023 – REDISTRIBUTION OR REPRODUCTION PROHIBITED 12HARVARD MODEL CONGRESS
BIBLIOGRAPHY
ACLU. “Oppose Voter ID Legislation - Fact Sheet.” American Civil
Liberties Union, 2017, https://www.aclu.org/other/oppose-
voter-id-legislation-fact-sheet.
Brennan Center for Justice. Annotated Guide to the For the People
Act of 2021 | Brennan Center for Justice. 18 Mar. 2021,
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/policy-
solutions/annotated-guide-people-act-2021.
Recommendations to Defend America’s Election Infrastructure |
Brennan Center for Justice. 23 Oct. 2019,
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-
reports/recommendations-defend-americas-election-
infrastructure.
Voting Laws Roundup: May 2021 | Brennan Center for Justice.
28 May 2021, https://www.brennancenter.org/our-
work/research-reports/voting-laws-roundup-may-2021.
Cassidy, Christina, A. “Lessons Learned from 2016, but US Faces
New Election Threats.” AP NEWS, 26 Jan. 2020,
https://apnews.com/article/ap-top-news-elections-voting-
hillary-clinton-hacking-502ea2d593ed7ae74162c8eb46290b8a.
DeSilver, Drew. “In Past Elections, U.S. Trailed Most Developed
Countries in Voter Turnout.” Pew Research Center, 3 Nov. 2020,
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/11/03/in-past-
elections-u-s-trailed-most-developed-countries-in-voter-
turnout/.
Ewing, Philip. “Voting And Elections Divide Republicans And
Democrats Like Little Else. Here’s Why.” NPR.Org, 12 June
2020, https://www.npr.org/2020/06/12/873878423/voting-
and-elections-divide-republicans-and-democrats-like-little-else-
heres-why.
Fabina, Jacob. “Record High Turnout in 2020 General Election.”
The United States Census Bureau, 29 Apr. 2021,
https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2021/04/record-high-
turnout-in-2020-general-election.html.
Fedor, Lauren. “Stacey Abrams: The Political Strategist Who Won
Georgia.” Financial Times, 8 Jan. 2021,
https://www.ft.com/content/8af50180-bbab-4595-a32b-
fe9af205f1ce.
© HARVARD MODEL CONGRESS 2023 – REDISTRIBUTION OR REPRODUCTION PROHIBITED 13HARVARD MODEL CONGRESS
Frey, William H. “Turnout in 2020 Election Spiked among Both
Democratic and Republican Voting Groups, New Census Data
Shows.” Brookings, 4 May 2021,
https://www.brookings.edu/research/turnout-in-2020-spiked-
among-both-democratic-and-republican-voting-groups-new-
census-data-shows/.
Gambhir, Raj, K., and Jack Karsten. “Why Paper Is Considered
State-of-the-Art Voting Technology.” Brookings, 14 Aug. 2019,
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/techtank/2019/08/14/why-
paper-is-considered-state-of-the-art-voting-technology/.
Greene, Marjorie, T. “Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) Announces
Support for Mo Brooks’ Electoral College Challenge.”
Representative Marjorie Greene, 3 Jan. 2021,
http://greene.house.gov/media/press-releases/marjorie-taylor-
greene-r-ga-announces-support-mo-brooks-electoral-college.
History.com Editors. “Voting Rights Act of 1965.” HISTORY, 26
Jan. 2021, https://www.history.com/topics/black-
history/voting-rights-act.
Huey-Burns, Caitlin, and Adam Brewster. Republicans Unite on
“Election Integrity” Message for Coming Elections. 22 Mar.
2021, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/republicans-election-
integrity-message/.
Igielnik, Ruth, and Abby Budiman. “The Changing Racial and
Ethnic Composition of the U.S. Electorate.” Pew Research
Center, 23 Sept. 2020,
https://www.pewresearch.org/2020/09/23/the-changing-
racial-and-ethnic-composition-of-the-u-s-electorate/.
James, Kay, C. “Solutions 2020 | The Heritage Foundation.”
Solutions 2020 | The Heritage Foundation, July 2020,
https://www.heritage.org/solutions.
Kennedy, Lesley. “Voting Rights in the United States: Timeline.”
HISTORY, 19 Apr. 2021,
https://www.history.com/news/voting-rights-timeline.
McAndrew, Jen, and Robin Smyton. “Half of Young People Voted in
2020, Major Increase From 2016.” Tufts Now, 29 Apr. 2021,
https://now.tufts.edu/news-releases/half-young-people-voted-
2020-major-increase-2016.
Newkirk II, Vann R. “How a Pivotal Voting Rights Act Case Broke
America.” The Atlantic, 10 July 2018,
© HARVARD MODEL CONGRESS 2023 – REDISTRIBUTION OR REPRODUCTION PROHIBITED 14HARVARD MODEL CONGRESS
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/07/how-
shelby-county-broke-america/564707/.
Pérez, Myrna, and Tim Lau. How to Restore and Strengthen the
Voting Rights Act | Brennan Center for Justice. 28 Jan. 2021,
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-
reports/how-to-restore-and-strengthen-voting-rights-act.
Pew Research Center. “The 2020 Voting Experience: Coronavirus,
Mail Concerns Factored into Deciding How to Vote.” Pew
Research Center - U.S. Politics & Policy, 20 Nov. 2020,
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2020/11/20/the-voting-
experience-in-2020/.
Pillets, Jeff. “Replacing NJ’s Voting Machines: Costs,
Complications.” NJ Spotlight News, 21 Dec. 2020,
https://www.njspotlight.com/2020/12/replacing-nj-voting-
machines-costly-complicated-closed-market-few-companies-
hidden-costs-security-hacking/.
Polit, Kate. CBO: H.R. 1 Would Cost $2.6B, Mostly for Election
Security. 4 Mar. 2019, https://www.meritalk.com/articles/cbo-
h-r-1-would-cost-2-6b-mostly-for-election-security/.
Rakich, Nathaniel. “What Happened When 2.2 Million People Were
Automatically Registered To Vote.” FiveThirtyEight, 10 Oct.
2019, https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-happened-
when-2-2-million-people-were-automatically-registered-to-
vote/.
Richards, Doug. “Georgia GOP to State: Dump New Voting
Machines.” 11Alive.Com, 9 Feb. 2021,
https://www.11alive.com/article/news/local/vote/dump-voting-
machines-gop/85-a0c0e1f4-c527-4b52-8755-ad21e3e1810e.
Riestenberg, Jay. “Should Congress Pass the For the People Act or
John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act? Answer: They
Must Pass Both.” Common Cause, 26 Mar. 2021,
https://www.commoncause.org/democracy-wire/should-
congress-pass-the-for-the-people-act-or-john-lewis-voting-
rights-advancement-act-answer-they-must-pass-both/.
Smith, Paul, M. “Use It or Lose It”: The Problem of Purges from the
Registration Rolls of Voters Who Don’t Vote Regularly. 10 Feb.
2020,
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human
_rights_magazine_home/voting-rights/-use-it-or-lose-it---the-
problem-of-purges-from-the-registration0/.
© HARVARD MODEL CONGRESS 2023 – REDISTRIBUTION OR REPRODUCTION PROHIBITED 15HARVARD MODEL CONGRESS
Spakovsky, Hans von, and Jessica Anderson. “The New York Times
Can’t Get Basic Facts Right on Election Reform.” The Heritage
Foundation, 29 May 2021, https://www.heritage.org/election-
integrity/commentary/the-new-york-times-cant-get-basic-facts-
right-election-reform.
Stevenson, Peter, W. “The Filibuster, Explained.” Washington Post,
9 Apr. 2021,
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/04/09/what-
is-filibuster/.
Theobald, Bill. “Top U.S. Election Official Opposes Automatic Voter
Registration.” The Fulcrum, 14 Aug. 2019,
https://thefulcrum.us/automatic-voter-registration-
2639823562.
Thomson-DeVeaux, Amelia, et al. “Why Younger Americans Don’t
Vote More Often (*No, It’s Not Apathy).” FiveThirtyEight, 30
Oct. 2020, https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-younger-
americans-dont-vote-more-often-no-its-not-apathy/.
USAGov. Voting and Election Laws | USAGov. 18 May 2021,
https://www.usa.gov/voting-laws.
Watkins, Morgan. “Sen. Mitch McConnell Acknowledges Joe Biden
Won the Election.” The Courier-Journal, 15 Dec. 2020,
https://www.courier-
journal.com/story/news/politics/2020/12/15/mitch-mcconnell-
acknowledges-joe-biden-won-2020-election/3903229001/.
West, Darrell M. “How Does Vote-by-Mail Work and Does It
Increase Election Fraud?” Brookings, 22 June 2020,
https://www.brookings.edu/policy2020/votervital/how-does-
vote-by-mail-work-and-does-it-increase-election-fraud/.
Zurcher, Anthony. “Voting Rights: How the Battle Is Unfolding
across the US.” BBC News, 4 Mar. 2021. www.bbc.com,
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56287375
© HARVARD MODEL CONGRESS 2023 – REDISTRIBUTION OR REPRODUCTION PROHIBITED 16You can also read
