Tag: voting rights

New Alabama Legislation Restricts Absentee Voting Infringing on Voting Rights

By Delisha Valacheril  

Image 1: Absentee Ballot. Source: Yahoo Images

 

In the United States, the right to vote is heralded as a cornerstone of democracy, in which every citizen can access the ballot box. However, recent legislation in Alabama has cast a shadow over this fundamental right, prompting a fierce legal battle to uphold the principles of democracy and accessibility in the electoral process. Alabama Senate Bill SB1 imposes stringent restrictions on absentee ballot assistance. The new law imposes misdemeanor penalties for returning someone else’s ballot application or distributing an absentee ballot application containing a voter’s personal data, like their name. The payment of someone to distribute, order, collect, deliver, finish, or prefill another person’s absentee ballot application is a felony act that carries a maximum 20-year jail sentence. Aimed at combating “ballot harvesting,” a type of voter fraud that involves submitting completed ballots by third-party individuals rather than by voters themselves, the legislation criminalizes certain forms of aid provided to vulnerable voters, including the blind, disabled, and illiterate, who rely on assistance to exercise their constitutional right to vote. Extensive research, however, shows that voter impersonation is essentially nonexistent, fraud is extremely rare, and many purported cases of fraud are actually errors made by administrators or voters. The Brennan Center’s seminal report, The Truth About Voter Fraud, conclusively demonstrated that most allegations of fraud turn out to be baseless and that most of the few remaining allegations reveal irregularities and other forms of election misconduct.

Image 2: Voting Rights Act of 1965 plaque in Alabama. Source: Yahoo Images

Historical Context

The restrictions that accompany this new law not only infringe upon fundamental constitutional rights but also perpetuate a legacy of voter suppression that has long plagued Alabama’s electoral system. This has been rooted in the state’s constitution since 1901. When delegates gathered to rewrite the constitution, Chairman John Knox opened the proceedings, saying their goal was “to establish white supremacy in this state.” During Jim Crow segregation, Alabama implemented numerous laws and practices to disenfranchise Black voters. These discriminatory practices included poll taxes, literacy tests, and grandfather clauses, which limited Black people’s right to vote. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was passed as a result of the first failed march for voting rights from Selma to Montgomery, which was called “Bloody Sunday” and concluded with an attack on protesters. There have been several instances in Alabama’s history that contributed to systemic voter suppression.

Since then, there have been various forms of voter disenfranchisement in terms of redistricting, strict voter ID laws, and lack of accessibility for absentee voting. In Alabama, absentee voting is allowed only with a specific excuse. Voters must expect to be away from their county on Election Day, have a physical disability, or be scheduled to work a shift of 10 or more hours on Election Day to request an absentee ballot. This policy is completely unnecessary and imposes outdated, inconvenient restrictions on eligible voters. The challenges faced by low-income individuals, rural communities, Black Alabamans, the elderly, and those with disabilities have only worsened as a result of Alabama’s inability to enact these reforms. The lack of accessibility in Alabama’s election system was not intended with these marginalized populations in mind.

Image 3: Disabled person waiting in line to vote. Source: Yahoo Images

Implications

SB1 adds to these restrictions because now people who have a valid excuse, such as a disability, are penalized for using absentee ballots. One of the law’s key provisions prohibits individuals from assisting others with absentee ballots, criminalizing acts as benign as providing a stamp or sticker to a neighbor in need. Due to restricted transit alternatives or physical disabilities, voting is already difficult for many residents, such as homebound individuals, retirees, and the elderly. This is designed with a blatant disregard for vulnerable voting groups under the pretense of preventing voter fraud. Allowing this form of blanket prohibition not only undermines the spirit of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which sought to remove barriers to voting for marginalized communities, but also stifles the efforts of grassroots organizations striving to empower voters.

Alabama’s law creates new hurdles to voting, escalates already-existing inequities, and criminalizes assistance that helps marginalized voters participate in the political process. Enacted amidst heightened partisan tension due to the 2024 presidential election, the law has sparked widespread condemnation from civil rights organizations and voting advocacy groups. The Alabama State Conference of the NAACP, the League of Women Voters, Greater Birmingham Ministries, and Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program are A few years ago, a similar case was presented to the US Supreme Court, Milligan v. Allen, in which a coalition of civil rights organizations sued against the state’s enacted congressional redistricting, stating it was racial gerrymandering, the map-drawing process was intentionally used to benefit a particular race. The Court upheld the district court’s decision and required Alabama to create a second majority Black congressional district in compliance with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

Image 4: Protest sign that urges for protecting voting rights. Source: Yahoo Images

Final Thoughts

This problem goes beyond party politics and touches on democracy. Regardless of circumstances, everyone deserves unrestricted access to the ballot box in a country built on equality and freedom. The court dispute is a harrowing reminder of the continuous fight to preserve voting rights and protect democratic principles for future generations as it plays out. SB1 perpetuates obstacles that Alabamians with disabilities, the elderly, and home-bound individuals encounter daily. These people oftentimes have to travel further, wait in longer lines, and jump through more bureaucratic hoops than other people. Absentee voting increases accessibility, allowing these voters’ voices to be heard. Restrictive legislation like this is designed to keep eligible voters out of the voting booth. Twenty-eight states already have no excuse for absentee voting in place for November. Criminalizing assistance that provides access to the voting process to others limits participation for Alabama’s most vulnerable citizens.

Voter fraud is wrong, but rather than enacting laws that will make it more difficult for millions of eligible Americans to exercise their right to vote, we should focus on finding answers to real issues. All Alabama citizens need to be able to vote in the November election, and they need to be able to trust the results. This can be achieved by countering the misinformation about mail-in/absentee voting. Instead of passing SB1, voters must appeal to Congress to supply the necessary funds to help states with less experience processing absentee ballots. Voter fraud is a serious issue; however, the right to vote is a Constitutional right enshrined in this country’s foundation. Before preventing any fraud, protecting all citizen’s right to vote should be paramount. Despite all the obstacles in this unprecedented moment, Americans will vote this year, possibly in record numbers. It’s not a matter of whether tens of millions will do so by mail but whether they will have their voices heard.

Black Voter Suppression in Alabama: Congressional Redistricting Goes to Supreme Court

v1
People demand their rights in Washington, D.C. Source: Yahoo Images

On Monday, February 7, 2022, the United State Supreme Court blocked the creation of a second majority-Black congressional district in the state of Alabama for the 2022 election. This action further undermines the significance and precedent of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, a monumental piece of legislation that continues to fight for the equality of the voices and votes of people of color.  

Context 

The issue of the redrawing of the AL congressional map arose earlier this year after a court case was brought forth by the ACLU of Alabama and NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc. (LDF). In 2021, the Alabama legislature, which has a GOP majority, was given the responsibility of redrawing the map in accordance with the 2020 census. The legislature drew only one majority Black district, which was not reflective of the census that shows 27% of Alabama’s residents identify as Black. The plaintiffs argued that because of this drawing, “Black voters have less opportunity than other Alabamians to elect candidates of their choice to Congress.” The panel of district court judges included two district judges appointed by President Donald Trump and a court of appeals judge appointed by President Bill Clinton. On January 24, 2022, the district court ordered the state to draw a new map, agreeing with the plaintiff that the initial drawing likely violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which bans racial discrimination in voting policies. The court gave the state two weeks to draw a new plan that includes two majority-Black districts. Failure to do so within the time period would result in the task being delegated to an expert.  

The defense – the state – plead for the order to be put on hold while they appealed. The court turned down the plea, claiming the request was “effectively an unsupported motion for reconsideration” as the case had been characterized as a “straightforward Section Two case, not a legal unicorn.”  

Alabama Goes to the Supreme Court 

On January 28th, the state turned to the Supreme Court, asking the justices to freeze the district court’s order. The court granted said request and set the dispute for an oral argument in the fall. The decision was a 5-4 decision, with Chief Justice Roberts, Justices Kagan, Breyer, and Sotomayor dissenting. In her dissenting opinion, Justice Kagan emphasized that normally, a litigant asks the Supreme Court to freeze the lower-court order because it believes that the lower court got the law wrong. In this case, however, she argues that the district court made the proper, legal decision. Putting the ruling on hold “forces black Alabamians to suffer what under that law is clear voter dilution.”  

Justice Brett Kavanaugh responded to Kagan’s dissent with his concurring opinion which highlighted two points: one, that the Court’s decision is simply putting the district court’s order on hold until the Supreme Court can review it in the fall; and two, that the Purcell principle – the idea that federal courts should not change state election rules shortly before an election – is applicable to the situation. Kagan’s response was that it is not too late to require Alabama to redraw its maps prior to the election, as the district court’s initial two-week deadline did. Alabama’s primary election is not until May 24, 2022, giving the legislation plenty of time to properly allocate congressional districts as per 2020 census.  

Implications of SCOTUS’s Decision 

Black Alabamians like Evan Milligan, one of the four voters who sued Alabama for its new map, sees the ruling as a significant setback for Black voters like him. This fight is a personal one for him, a lifelong resident of Montgomery, the endpoint of the 1965 march from Selma that prompted Congress to pass the Voting Rights Act. Milligan shared that he lived in a home with four generations where the right to vote was sacred: “It was a house with a lot of conversation about the legacy of voting rights work and just the amount of resiliency and struggle that Black families have encountered, particularly in the Deep South and Alabama.” He is not the only one who is scared of such a legacy being tarred by a Supreme Court decision.  

Harvard Law School Professor Nicholas Stephanopoulos, an expert in redistricting, commented on the impact a SCOTUS ruling in favor of Alabama could have: “If the court accepted Alabama’s argument, that would be the end of Section 2 as we know it. It would become harder for plaintiffs to win Section 2 cases, and states could eliminate many existing minority opportunity districts without violating the statute.” The Supreme Court’s opinion in the fall could set a dangerous precedent for congressional district mapmaking nationwide, eroding the legacy and applicability of the Voting Rights Act.  

The Republican state legislators, who maintain the Alabama legislation currently, have continuously made the argument that the redrawing of the map makes the congressional district designation a matter of race. They argue the consideration of race in drawing electoral maps must be limited, which is why the legislation “adopted a map that used ‘race-neutral’ criteria.” Even in the district court case, the state argued the creation of a second majority-Black district would divide the suburbs of Mobile. The argument was rejected by the lower court, which noted that the school districts in Mobile were divided in precisely the same way. There would virtually be no difficulty in applying the new map; the only noticeable difference would be the recognition of a second majority-Black congressional district.  

v2
A mural at the Birmingham Civil Rights Institute. Source: Blog author.

Next Steps 

Despite the disappointing Supreme Court’s decision, Alabama’s black population has always persevered in the fight for civil rights, including the right to vote. It will only continue to do so.  

I encourage all of you to follow this issue closely, read about the Voting Rights Act (specifically Section 2), vote in the primaries (May 24), and continue learning about the various policies and legislation that have been made possible by Black social justice and civil rights advocates.  

Voter Fraud and Voter Suppression: America’s Legacy of Eliminating the Right to Vote

vote 1
Polling Station. Source: Pete. Creative Commons.

Ever since Joe Biden secured enough electoral college votes to be considered the President-Elect, the word “fraud” has been used in many capacities. Donald Trump and other prominent Republicans have been calling for recounts of the votes in many states, due to claims of voter fraud. The New York Times published an article where top election officials in all 50 states reported if they saw any evidence of fraud and none of them were able to report an issue. The only one that did not respond at all was Texas, where the Lieutenant Governor offered a $1 million reward for any form of evidence of fraud. In the 2016 election, Trump also claimed fraud occurred, even going so far as to appointing a commission for the 2016 election. This commission was unable to find any credible evidence for fraud. There have been instances throughout history of individual level voter fraud. There are even some cases of more organized instances of voter fraud such as in Chicago in 1982 and in Brooklyn in 1984. However, these cases were never to the extent that could swing a presidential election and since then jurisdictions have tightened their laws and technology surrounding voting has evolved.

With this have come many claims that mail in ballots could be the source of any possible voting fraud. While mail in ballots have always been used (think absentee ballots), there was a significant increase of usage this year due to the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic. In the last two federal presidential elections, nearly one in four Americans voted by using the mail in ballot system. There have been increases in voting by mail in ballots over the years and even with these increases, fraud rates have remained very, very small. There are many tools to address some very valid security concerns when it comes to mail in ballots. The primary method for determining and preventing mail in voter fraud is identity verification. Each voter is required to include personal identifying information such as their address, driver’s license number, or the last four digits of their Social Security number. This information is used to match the mail in ballot with the information stored on voter registration rolls. The signature on every ballot is matched with the corresponding signature on the voter registration record. Bar codes are also utilized to track ballot processing and help voters understand where their ballot is in the process. The bar codes are also used to help states identify any possible duplicate ballots. Similarly, ballot tracking programs allow the United States Postal Service to track a ballot from drop off to delivery. Anyone who commits voter fraud by using mail in ballots is considered a felon and could receive $10,000 in fines.

vote 2
Vote by Mail. Source: outtacontext. Creative Commons.

This current focus on alleged voter fraud completely disregards the systemic disenfranchisement of people of color within the United States, especially in regards to their right to vote. Despite non-Hispanic white people being a shrinking percentage of the United States, they have held tightly onto their political power through discriminatory practices that go back many centuries. In the 2020 election, this power was very clearly shrinking and more desperate attempts to hold on to it were made. These included slowing down the mail by taking away funding from the United States Postal Service, hurriedly appointing a Supreme Court justice, shutting down polling places in Black communities, refusing to count people of color in the 2020 census, calling for the election to be over before all of the ballots have been counted, and not allowing public schools and government agencies to discuss the long American history of disenfranchising non-white voters. In 2013, the Supreme Court ruled in the Shelby County v. Holder decision to remove the “preclearance” requirement. The preclearance requirement required states with a history of discrimination against non-white voters to get federal authorization for any changes they make to voting laws and rules. After the removal of this requirement, discrimination against BIPOC communities has persisted in many states, if not all.

One such state where we can clearly see the effects of the Shelby County v. Holder case is Georgia. In Georgia, the demographics have been rapidly changing and it has become a battleground state in elections over the past few years. Brian Kemp, the Republican Secretary of State of Georgia, worked hard to close polling places in Black communities, eliminate resources for election officials in Black communities, and removing people of color from voting lists. In Georgia counties like Fulton and Cobb that are becoming more and more diverse by the year, the wait time for voting was over 6 hours. The consolidation of polling locations due to the pandemic did contribute to the extended wait time. In some areas, Georgians waited for 11 hours to vote. In others, people waited in line and voted, all within 10 minutes. An analysis from Propublica found that within Georgia, predominately black precincts were more likely to have the longest wait times for voting even though those were the areas where a majority of new voter registrations occurred. It was largely due to these tactics that Stacy Abrams narrowly lost the Georgia governor race to Kemp. Since then, Abrams has been a champion for Black voters, pulling together one of the biggest voter registration campaigns in Georgia and in the United States. It is thanks to her hard work that Georgia flipped blue during the 2020 presidential race.

vote 3
Voting Lines. Source: bunnicula. Creative Commons.

In 2018, Stacy Abrams began a large voter registration project in Georgia and it is to her effort that Biden owes his victory in Georgia. In the 2016 election, 500,000 black Americans voted in Georgia. In 2020, more than twice this number voted, making 1.2 million black voters in Georgia this year. Of all of the new voters in Georgia, registered after November 2018, half are black and 45% are under 30, two demographics that tend to vote bluer. Many other black women worked with Abrams to ensure this victory. Such advocates include Nsé Ufot, Helen Butler, Deborah Scott, and Tamieka Atkins. This is a long and mostly overlooked tradition of black women leading the charge for voting rights

Despite the adamant refusal to acknowledge the history of oppression of people of color by white people, these 2020 voter suppression tactics are reminiscent of the voter suppression measures used during the Jim Crow era. During this era, poll taxes, literacy tests, intimidation factors were used to keep Black and low income populations from voting. Now, officials in Florida require people convicted of a felony, primarily black men due to over policing, to pay all of their court fines and fees before allowing them to vote. Some states, including Texas, have determined that officials do not have to notify voters if their absentee ballot was rejected. Fake poll watchers are encouraged by the sitting President to intimidate voters. The claims of voter fraud largely aimed at black and Latino communities have not changed in the years between the Jim Crow era and 2020.This is not just a problem within the southern states, as it is often believed. Proof of voter oppression is found in New York, Connecticut, and New Hampshire along with many other states. When discussing voter fraud, it is important to discuss all of the injustices voters have faced this election cycle. The refusal to change current discriminatory policies and the persistent continuation of new voter suppression tactics show an inherent disregard for the rights of many communities. It is clear that no election changing voter fraud has occurred this election cycle, however the conversation remains centered around this subject instead of addressing the number of people of color who were unable to vote due to purposeful legislation created by largely white lawmakers.