Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Some states are making it harder to vote, some are making it easier. Will they affect turnout?

counting ballots for California recall

Mail-in ballots for the California recall election are processed in Pomona on Sept. 9, 2021

Frederic J. Brown/AFP via Getty Images)

Miller is an associate professor of political science at the University of Dayton.

There’s been a good deal of crying foul about what are being called anti-democratic new state laws that make it harder to vote.

But it turns out such laws might have little impact on voter turnout and vote margins in an election.

That’s according to a February 2022 analysis by Sabato’s Crystal Ball, a newsletter that provides nonpartisan election analysis.


The 2020 presidential election had the highest voter turnout of the past century, with 66.8% of citizens 18 years and older voting in the election.

Robust voter turnout could be the difference maker in the 2022 midterm election. Voter turnout for midterm elections is typically lower than for presidential elections.

All 435 seats in the House of Representatives and 35 of the 100 Senate seats will be up for grabs during the election. Democrats hold slim majorities in both chambers. If Republicans are able to increase the number, they will likely flip control of both chambers in their favor.

As a political scientist, I study state voting and elections rules. Voting is important to a healthy democracy because it is how we consent to being governed and let elected officials know what policies we want.

Voting laws also protect against voter fraud. Thanks to these laws, election fraud in the United States is very rare and typically has no impact on the election outcome.

Sometimes these rules can create burdens for citizens who want to vote. This can lead to citizens’ losing trust in their government. Citizens’ losing trust in the government can be harmful to our democracy.

It is too soon to say the full effect that these new voting laws will have in shaping the 2022 elections.

How states changed voting laws

New laws might not make voting easier or harder

During the 2021 legislative sessions, 36 states adopted legislation that change the way citizens vote.

Most of these recent laws don’t make voting easier or harder. They make the process easier for the state and local officials who run elections.

For example, a new law in Utah improves communication between the Social Security Administration and election officials to ensure that dead voters are removed from voter registration lists.

States making it harder to vote

Nineteen states, meanwhile, enacted 33 laws that can make it harder for Americans to vote, according to the Brennan Center for Justice.

In Texas, for example, a 2021 law requires voters to provide part of their Social Security or driver’s license number on their mail-in ballot request. The number must match the one voters used when they registered to vote. Two million registered voters in Texas lacked one of the two numbers in their voter file that they gave when they registered to vote.

A large number of mail-in ballot requests for Texas’ March 2022 primary have been rejected because of this change. Texas has also limited the hours for early voting locations and banned the popular trend of drive-through voting.

In Georgia, voters requesting absentee ballots must now provide a photo ID when they request a mail ballot and when they return it.

Georgia also joined Texas, Iowa and Kansas in passing a law forbidding county and state election officials from automatically sending mail-in or absentee ballot requests to registered voters.

In some cases, things are getting easier

Twenty-five states, meanwhile, have passed 62 laws since 2020 that could make voting easier.

Delaware and Hawaii joined 20 other states that now automatically register citizens to vote when they turn 18. Early research shows that automatic voter registration may modestly increase voter turnout.

Some states made it easier for specific groups of voters. For example, in Maine, students can use their student photo ID to vote. In North Dakota, students can share a letter from a college or university to vote. Indiana now allows a document issued by a Native American tribe or band to serve as valid ID to vote.

Ten states – including California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois and Kentucky – increased access to mail ballot drop boxes and locations in 2021.

Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, New Mexico, Nevada and Vermont passed bills that protect or ease voter access to polling places. Maryland’s bill requires counties to offer a minimum number of early voting centers based on population. Vermont will now allow outdoor and drive-up voting. Starting with the 2022 primary election, all voting in Hawaii will be by mail.

These changes give voters more options or simply make it easier to vote and may help increase turnout.

What will happen in 2022?

Many voting rights activists expect that turnout will decrease in states that made voting harder and increase in states that made it easier.

The answer may not be that simple.

Scholars don’t agree about how voting rules affect voter turnout. Studies don’t consistently show that individual voting laws lower voter turnout.

But a state’s overall collection of voting laws can have more sway during elections. Scholars call the combined effect of voting laws “ the cost of voting.” When the cost of voting grows higher, overall turnout decreases.

Turnout in the 2020 presidential election was unusually high, even with some state laws that voting rights advocates believe made it harder for people of color and other groups to vote.

Voting laws are not the only influencers of voter turnout. But adding extra hurdles to voting may lead to frustration that keeps some voters at home. The upcoming midterm elections will provide clarity about whether these new voting laws have a measurable impact on voter turnout.


Read More

Paul Ehrlich was wrong about everything

Crowd of people walking on a street.

Andy Andrews//Getty Images

Paul Ehrlich was wrong about everything

Biologist and author Paul Ehrlich, the most influential Chicken Little of the last century, died at the age of 93 this week. His 1968 book, “The Population Bomb,” launched decades of institutional panic in government, entertainment and journalism.

Ehrlich’s core neo-Malthusian argument was that overpopulation would exhaust the supply of food and natural resources, leading to a cascade of catastrophes around the world. “The Population Bomb” opens with a bold prediction, “The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Bravado Isn’t a Strategy: Why the Iran War Has No Endgame

People clear rubble in a house in the Beryanak District after it was damaged by missile attacks two days before, on March 15, 2026 in Tehran, Iran. The United States and Israel continued their joint attack on Iran that began on February 28. Iran retaliated by firing waves of missiles and drones at Israel, and targeting U.S. allies in the region.

Getty Images, Majid Saeedi

Bravado Isn’t a Strategy: Why the Iran War Has No Endgame

Most of what we have heard from the administration as it pertains to the Iran War is swagger and bro-talk. A few days into the war, the White House released a social media video that combined footage of the bombardment with clips from video games. Not long after, it released a second video, titled “Justice the American Way,” that mixed images of the U.S. military with scenes from movies like Gladiator and Top Gun Maverick.

Speaking to reporters at the Pentagon, War Secretary Pete Hegseth boasted of “death and destruction from the sky all day long.” “They are toast, and they know it,” he said. “This was never meant to be a fair fight... we are punching them while they’re down.”

Keep ReadingShow less
A student in uniform walking through a campus.

A Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) cadet walks through campus November 7, 2003 in Princeton, New Jersey.

Getty Images, Spencer Platt

Hegseth is Dumbing Down the Military (on Purpose)

One day before the United States began an ill-defined and illegal war of indefinite length with Iran, Pete Hegseth angrily attacked a different enemy: the Ivy League. The Secretary of War denounced Ivy League universities as "woke breeding grounds of toxic indoctrination” and then eliminated long-standing college fellowship programs with more than a dozen elite colleges, which had historically served as a pipeline for service members to the upper ranks of military leadership. Of the schools now on Hegseth’s "no-fly list," four sit in the top ten of the World’s Top Universities for 2026. So, why does the Secretary of War not want his armed forces to have the best education available? Because he wants a military without a brain.

For a guy obsessed with being the strongest and most lethal force in the world, cutting access to world-class schools is a bizarre gambit. It does reveal Hegseth doesn’t consider intelligence a factor–let alone an asset–in strength or lethality. That tracks. Hegseth alleges the Ivies infect officers with “globalist and radical ideologies that do not improve our fighting ranks…” God forbid the tip of the sword of our foreign policy has knowledge of international cooperation and global interconnectedness. The Ivy League has its own issues, but the Pentagon’s claim that they "fail to deliver rigorous education grounded in realism” is almost laughable. I’m a veteran Lieutenant Commander with two Ivy League degrees, both paid for with military tuition assistance, and I promise: it was rigorous. Meanwhile, are Hegseth’s performative politics grounded in reality? Attacking Harvard on social media the eve of initiating a new war with a foreign adversary is disgraceful, and even delusional.

Keep ReadingShow less
Are We Prepared for a World Where AI Isn’t at Work?
Person working at a desk with a laptop and books.

Are We Prepared for a World Where AI Isn’t at Work?

Draft an important email without using AI. Write it from scratch — no suggestions, no autocomplete, and no prompt to ChatGPT to compose or revise the email.

Now ask yourself: Did it feel slower? Harder? Slightly uncomfortable?

Keep ReadingShow less