Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Ensuring election integrity should not come at the cost of compromising voter access

Woman voting in Austin, Texas

Measures that increase burdens on voters should be deemed politically unacceptable unless they are absolutely essential writer Garber and Davis-Roberts.

Sergio Flores/AFP via Getty Images
Garber is an international elections expert and a member of the Carter Center's U.S. election expert team. Davis-Roberts is an associate director in the center's Democracy Program.

Proposed election law changes in Texas, Michigan, Wisconsin and elsewhere have again brought to the forefront debates about how best to balance election integrity and voter access. While governments are obliged to guarantee both, the current trend limiting access signals that state legislatures are prioritizing the former at the expense of the latter.

The current round of restrictive legislation has been fueled by unsubstantiated claims of massive election fraud in the 2020 election. However, the laws now being debated in state capitals around the country reflect a mindset that has been promoted by conservative advocacy groups for decades. The Heritage Foundation has been at the forefront of this effort, and its February 2021 report provided the intellectual ballast for the current efforts to restrict voter access.

The report contends that "errors and omissions by election officials and careless, shoddy election practices and procedures" have caused problems for voters and that reform is necessary "to ensure voters will have faith in our elections."

In reality, a closer look at the Heritage Foundation's database indicates that illegal voting of the kind the proposed and enacted bills purport to prevent is actually a rare occurrence in the United States, where state election officials have multiple safeguards to protect against wholesale fraud. Moreover, the states have effective measures in place to catch and punish election fraud and other offenses, as demonstrated by the few cases emerging from the 2020 election cycle and by the aggressive response of prosecuting officials.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

While many of the general principles presented in the Heritage Foundation report are unobjectionable on their face, its proposed legislative solutions are likely to discourage many eligible voters from participating in the next round of elections.

Seemingly neutral policies — setting voter registration deadlines well in advance of Election Day, limiting absentee voting to individuals with a prescribed excuse, limiting the number of days for early in-person voting, and limiting the number and prescribing the placement of drop boxes for mail voting—will inevitably decrease voter turnout without substantially reducing opportunities to commit voter fraud.

In the post-Reconstruction era, for example, black voters were stricken from the registration rolls by all sorts of legal and political stratagems. Undoubtedly, advocates in the 19th century presented the legislative underpinnings of their disenfranchisement efforts as the application of neutral principles, as the Heritage Foundation does today.

Election reform legislation should be based on well-established international election standards. As elaborated in a just-published report by The Carter Center, these standards, first and foremost, establish the fundamental right of all eligible citizens to participate in the selection of their representatives. A corollary to this right is the obligation of states to take proactive measures to ensure the full and effective enjoyment of the right to vote by making the casting of a ballot as simple as possible. Thus, for example, all states must provide access to voting for individuals with reduced mobility or other disabilities.

International standards also recognize that states have the obligation to ensure that the integrity of the process is not compromised by fraud or by malfeasance and that committing fraud is both difficult and easily detectable. The relevant question is whether proposed legislative measures represent the least restrictive approach possible to secure the integrity of elections. Measures that increase burdens on voters, reduce voter access, or curtail practices that citizens have relied upon for voting in previous elections should be deemed both politically unacceptable and violative of democratic norms, unless they are absolutely essential.

Voter confidence in many states has been undermined by widespread unsubstantiated claims of fraud and irregularities. In this context, the most important step to increase voter confidence is for all candidates to abide by and publicly defend transparent election results and judicial decisions on election challenges. Candidates should be encouraged to sign onto codes of conduct explicitly including this commitment.

The proposed restrictive election legislation in Texas, Georgia and elsewhere will undoubtedly be challenged in courts across the country. The outcome of these cases is not guaranteed. In the months preceding the next round of elections, voting rights groups must prepare a massive voter education campaign to ensure that all eligible voters understand the changes that have been made and how to comply with whatever new requirements are in place in their respective jurisdictions.

The future of American democracy is at stake.

Read More

Blurred image of an orchestra
Melpomenem/Getty Images

The ideal democracy: An orchestra in harmony

Frazier is an assistant professor at the Crump College of Law at St. Thomas University. Starting this summer, he will serve as a Tarbell fellow.

In the symphony of our democracy, we can find a compelling analogy with an orchestra. The interplay of musicians trained in different instruments, each contributing to the grand musical tapestry, offers lessons for our democratic system. As we navigate the complexities of governance, let us draw inspiration from the orchestra's structure, dynamics and philosophy.

Keep ReadingShow less
David French

New York Times columnist David French was removed from the agenda of a faith-basd gathering because we was too "divisive."

Macmillan Publishers

Is canceling David French good for civic life?

Harwood is president and founder of The Harwood Institute. This is the latest entry in his series based on the "Enough. Time to Build.” campaign, which calls on community leaders and active citizens to step forward and build together.

On June 10-14, the Presbyterian Church in America held its annual denominational assembly in Richmond, Va. The PCA created considerable national buzz in the lead-up when it abruptly canceled a panel discussion featuring David French, the highly regarded author and New York Times columnist.

The panel carried the innocuous-sounding title, “How to Be Supportive of Your Pastor and Church Leaders in a Polarized Political Year.” The reason for canceling it? French, himself a long-time PCA member, was deemed too “divisive.” This despite being a well-known, self-identified “conservative” and PCA adherent. Ironically, the loudest and most divisive voices won the day.

Keep ReadingShow less
Fannie Lou Hamer

Fannie Lou Hamer testifies at the Democratic National Convention in 1964.

Bettmann/Getty Images

60 years later, it's time to restart the Freedom Summer

Johnson is a United Methodist pastor, the author of "Holding Up Your Corner: Talking About Race in Your Community" and program director for the Bridge Alliance, which houses The Fulcrum.

Sixty years have passed since Freedom Summer, that pivotal season of 1964 when hundreds of young activists descended upon an unforgiving landscape, driven by a fierce determination to shatter the chains of racial oppression. As our nation teeters on the precipice of another transformative moment, the echoes of that fateful summer reverberate across the years, reminding us that freedom remains an unfinished work.

At the heart of this struggle stood Fannie Lou Hamer, a sharecropper's daughter whose voice thundered like a prophet's in the wilderness, signaling injustice. Her story is one of unyielding defiance, of a spirit that the brutal lash of bigotry could not break. When Hamer testified before the Democratic National Convention in 1964, her words, laced with the pain of beatings and the fire of righteous indignation, laid bare the festering wound of racial terror that had long plagued our nation. Her resilience in the face of such adversity is a testament to the power of the human spirit.

Keep ReadingShow less
Kamala Harris waiving as she exits an airplane

If President Joe Biden steps aside and endorses Vice President Kamala Harris, her position could be strengthened by a ranked-choice vote among convention delegates.

Anadolu/Getty Images

How best to prepare for a brokered convention

Richie is co-founder and senior advisor of FairVote.

As the political world hangs on whether Joe Biden continues his presidential campaign, an obvious question is how the Democratic Party might pick a new nominee. Its options are limited, given the primary season is long past and the Aug. 19 convention is only weeks away. But they are worth getting right for this year and future presidential cycles.

Suppose Biden endorses Vice President Kamala Harris and asks his delegates to follow his lead. She’s vetted, has close relationships across the party, and could inherit the Biden-Harris campaign and its cash reserves without a hitch. As Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.) suggested, however, Harris would benefit from a mini-primary among delegates before the convention – either concluding at the virtual roll call that is already planned or at the in-person convention.

Keep ReadingShow less