Introduction
The urge to win elections shapes the decisions to suppress voters today in the same way it did during the Reconstruction era. The modalities applied in the American South depend on the balance between external restrictions and internal factors. Violent suppression dominates when a state’s capacity to apply formal legal tactics is limited and external actors apply restrictions. An increase in internal capacities and a decline in external barriers results in the adoption of centralized, legislative, and non-violent methods of voter suppression, as is the case in the resource-rich American South. The victims of such tactics are usually minorities, the poor, or people with disabilities whose political participation is likely to cause a paradigm shift in the political landscape. The desire to maintain power prompts dominant political entities to apply strategies that serve their vested interests. The violent and often brutal intimidation tactics seen in America’s early eras have been replaced by centralized, legally backed strategies designed to disenfranchise minorities to fulfill heinous political agendas in the country’s Southern states.
Voter Suppression in the United States
The right to vote is fundamental in the practice of democracy. Southern states were required to rewrite their constitutions before being re-admitted to the Union. The leadership’s attempts to re-establish control over African Americans were thwarted by the fact that such moves would require substantial policy changes (Epperly et al., 2019). There were numerous attempts by white Southern Democratic leaders to reverse black suffrage. The intensity of party competition prompted governments across the United States to engage in voter suppression tactics to alter electoral fortunes (Epperly et al., 2019). The most common voter suppression tactic employed in the South was violence. It is worth noting that efforts to suppress voting in the South in the 1860s were largely unsuccessful because the ruling republican party enforced federal legislation, which facilitated the consolidation of Civil War victories (Epperly et al., 2019). The achievement of the aforementioned objective required the civic participation of the blacks in the South.
The inability of the Southern political leaders to institute legal and constitutional forms of suppression prompted the adoption of alternative strategies. Intimidation and decentralized violence soon became the preferred forms of voter suppression. For instance, the Edgefield Plan, which was implemented in South Carolina and proposed by Martin W. Gary, a former Confederate General, used violence to dissuade people from voting (Epperly et al., 2019). The general created a scheme designed to create citizen militias that were tasked with the suppression of black participation in electoral processes. Their efforts were largely successful, as evidenced by the extremely low voter turnout among black communities in the South. There was some concern, however, among politicians in the South that excessive violence would prompt the federal government to occupy the region in order to monitor elections. It was time to implement a strategy that would not draw too much attention from the central government.
The quest for an institutionalized and non-violent means of voter suppression began in earnest. The White majority sought to disenfranchise the African American population by law. The success experienced through violence put Democrats back in control of Southern states, thus paving the way for the redesign of electoral institutions. A significant number of Supreme Court rulings in the 1870s negatively impacted Reconstruction-era gains and facilitated the re-establishment of Democrat-controlled governments in the region (Duignan, 2021). The political elite then proceeded to implement measures that would significantly limit the minority’s ability to participate in election processes. The interplay between external constraints and external capacities was critical in the determination of the suppression tactics that were employed in the region.
Contemporary Voter Suppression
Attempts to promote voter suppression are still prevalent in the United States. A number of Southern states have employed numerous seemingly inert policies, such as voter identification restrictions as a means of discriminating against minorities, the disabled, and the poor. The current voter suppression actions are motivated by the political parties’ desire to win. State-level elections have a bearing on each of the dominant parties’ control. Epperly et al. (2019) argue that the expansion of voter restriction in the South is attributed to the fact that Republicans have regained unified control in a majority of state governments for the first time in years. The current actions are similar to the post-Civil War era seeing as state governments are applying the law to maintain and protect their newly gained power.
The new laws are designed to target minorities, disabled individuals, and the poor. Policymakers are in a position to target specific individuals quite effectively. For instance, access to detailed data allowed Republicans in North Carolina to restrict voting at specific times and places that were frequented by African Americans (Epperly et al., 2019). The desire to restrict voting among the youth is spurred by the increasing loyalty the age group has shown toward the Democratic Party.
The United States has witnessed a significant decline in external constraints. Republicans in Washington D.C., often overlook voter suppression in Democratic constituencies because such tactics are essential for the Grand Old Party’s grip on power (Epperly et al., 2019). In addition, there is a high number of Republican judges with the capacity to control institutions of government and limit any efforts designed to protect voting rights. For instance, Republican appointees to the Supreme Court played a critical role in the weakening of the Voting Rights Act, which made it easier for states to implement voter suppression measures (Epperly et al., 2019). In essence, new voting laws did not require to be pre-cleared by federal judges. As a result, Republican-run states have experienced an unprecedented rise in voter suppression legislation. The increase in internal capacity and a decline in federal oversight have facilitated the application of institutionalized forms of voter suppression.
The Case of Texas
The current situation in Texas exemplifies voter suppression in the South. The desire to restrict voting in the state is attributed to the belief that the voting process lacks transparency. The persistent assertions that the elections were fraudulent resulted in the passage of Senate Bill 1 (SB1), which is the state’s latest attempt to restrict voting within its jurisdiction (Slattery, 2021). Texas has a rich history of voter suppression as indicated by a study that demonstrated that it is harder to vote in the state than anywhere else in the country (Slattery, 2021). Rural and white voters have long maintained the balance of power in the region. However, Texas is becoming more diverse and urban, which threatens the existing political dynamic significantly.
The new law suppresses voting through institutionalized tactics that, on the surface, appear to favor all the state’s residents. SB1 institutes significant restrictions on online voter registration, which disenfranchise a significant portion of the population. In Texas, voters are required to register a minimum of 30 days before the election via applications that must be handed in or mailed (Harris, 2022). The only exception is for individuals renewing their driver’s licenses online. On such an occasion, individuals are allowed to vote at the same time.
The proposed law enhances the severity of limitations regarding individuals that can vote via e-mail. While many states across the United States allow voters to cast their ballots by mail, only individuals aged 65 or older, disabled, incarcerated, or severely ill, are allowed to cast their votes via e-mail (Harris, 2022). The severity of voter suppression was demonstrated by the state’s refusal to permit e-mail voting despite the increased risk of exposure to COVID-19. SB1 Effectively bans local officials from providing e-mail voting facilities without express permission (Harris, 2022). In addition, the new law makes it extremely difficult for individuals who do not speak English or have a disability to vote via mail. The law stipulates that mail-in ballots may be rejected for minor errors such as incorrectly written driver’s license numbers or social security details (Harris, 2022). The increased scrutiny proposed by SB1 means that many votes from minorities and individuals with disability will be deemed invalid.
SB1 is likely to increase wait times at polling stations across Texas. Texas is renowned for high voter turnouts during elections. However, its stringent identification requirements mean that long lines are often seen in areas frequented by minority populations. The aforementioned populations are likely to be dissuaded from voting, given the fact that they are unlikely to have acceptable forms of identification. Efforts to increase in-person voting, such as 24-hour voting sessions to address the needs of people working long-hour schedules, have been thwarted by SB1 (Harris, 2022). In effect, disabled individuals who have difficulties accessing polling stations and minority individuals who are more likely to have multiple jobs and work long hours will face serious challenges when voting.
The increased restrictions on assistance for individuals with disabilities or limited English proficiency limits access to voting. The federal Voting Rights Act stipulates that people with disabilities or those experiencing difficulties speaking English should be assisted at the polling station (Harris, 2022). However, SB1 restricts assistance to marking and reading ballot papers. Assistants are prohibited from answering questions intended to provide clarification or aiding people with disability to navigate polling stations (Harris, 2022). It is also worth considering the fact that voting regulations in Texas threaten voters with criminal penalties for errors. A significant number of individuals have been prosecuted for misunderstanding specific elements of the state’s election laws. The Texas Legislature has been instrumental in crafting additional criminal and civil penalties for the additional voting requirements detailed in SB1 (Harris, 2022). The result is a highly restrictive atmosphere that discourages individuals from exercising their civic duty freely.
Opposing Viewpoints
There are schools of thought that contend that the implementation of new laws, such as SB1, has a limited impact on the overall voting outcomes. They contend that the limitations on voter assistance, online voting, and registration are designed to maintain the integrity of the election process. In addition, individuals that may be affected by the rules can implement countermeasures to avoid being victimized by the policies, which they contend, do not in any way target a specific group of people.
The aforementioned viewpoints could not be further from the truth. A study conducted by Tomaino and Carmon (2022) and published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences noted that individuals who faced a high number of obstacles were less likely to vote. Individuals with limited resources are unfairly affected by apparently trivial barriers. For instance, traveling long distances or standing for extended durations is particularly burdensome for disabled individuals or the poor (Tomaino & Carmon, 2022). In addition, the inability to engage in voting outside work or via mail makes it difficult for people working multiple jobs or caring for their children to exercise their civic rights (Tomaino & Carmon, 2022). Therefore, restrictive measures have a significant impact on the affected population’s ability to participate in the voting exercise.
Conclusion
Voter suppression in the United States has undergone a transformation from the use of violent and often brutal intimidation tactics to centralized, legally backed strategies. While the methodologies may have changed, the objective remains the same. The political elite is determined to disenfranchise minorities, the poor, and the disabled to fulfill heinous political agendas in the Southern states. The contemporary political environment is shaped by increased internal capacity and limited external oversight. As a result, states such as Texas are able to pass restrictive policies that limit the disenfranchised population’s ability to exercise their civic duty. The public must understand the deleterious effects of such actions and support the implementation of measures designed to protect the people’s constitutional right to vote.
References
Duignan, B. (2021). Voter suppression. Britannica. Web.
Epperly, B., Witko, C., Strickler, R., & White, P. (2019). Rule by violence, rule by law: Lynching, Jim Crow, and the continuing evolution of voter suppression in the U.S. Perspectives on Politics, 18(3), 756-769. Web.
Harris, A. (2022). 5 ways Texas suppresses the vote — and how to make your vote count. American Civil Liberties Union of Texas. Web.
Slattery, J. (2021). Texas voting law is just the latest in voter suppression efforts. Bloomberg Law. Web.
Tomaino, G. & Carmon, Z. (2022). Americans underestimate the impact of voter suppression. Insead. Web.