Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

'Cost of voting' a barrier to the poor – but it can be overcome, scholars say

Georgia voters

The report says the cost of voting in Georgia has led to declining access to medical care in rural communities since the state out of the Medicaid expansion under the Obamacare.

Jessica McGowan/Getty Images

Structural barriers have created a "cost to voting" that disproportionately affects low-income Americans and reduces their participation in the electoral process, according to a report issued Tuesday by a group of academics.

"Those with fewer resources — time, money, information — are 'priced out' of participating due to factors such as election timing, voter identification requirements, felony disenfranchisement, and inefficient election management," the report concludes. "The result is that wealthier people vote at much higher rates than others."

Narrowing the pool of voters, in turn, produces consequences on society, such as increasing inequality, hindering economic growth and weakening public health, according to the report, which draws on existing social science research to summarize the problem. It also offers seven recommendations to lower the "cost of voting" as well as ensure more secure and fair elections.


That research suggests barriers to voting have contributed to rising inequality because poorer people, who are inclined to support the government playing a strong role in leveling economic disparities, hold less sway with politicians than wealthier Americans, who are more likely to vote as well as make political donations.

Dwindling political engagement by those with low incomes also breeds public health consequences. The report points to Georgia, where access to medical care in the state's rural communities has declined in the years since the state declined to expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act.

The report also details a host of other socio-economic problems caused by inequality, from stunting business investment and diminishing the purchasing power of a shrinking middle class to weakening the support for capitalism among the young and fostering political polarization.

"For all of these reasons, it is vitally important to advance electoral reforms, while maintaining the security of the electoral process," say the authors, Kelsie George and Samantha Perlman.

The report, "Securing Fair Elections: Challenges to Voting in the U.S. and Georgia," was issued by the Scholars Strategy Network, an association of academics and researchers who write about public policy in ways they hope are accessible to the general public.

Recommendations to increase engagement include enfranchising felons, eliminating voter ID requirements, reducing long lines at the polls on Election Day and changing the timing of local elections to coincide with state and federal elections, which research suggests is one of the most effective strategies to boost turnout.

Using voting machines that print paper ballots, adopting nonpartisan redistricting practices and judiciously eliminating ineligible names from voter registration lists would promote secure, fair elections, the report concludes.


Read More

multiethnic American voters participating in the US election, showcasing the concept of choice in a democracy

Presidents who lost the popular vote often faced economic turmoil. See the pattern from Harrison to Trump and how a 50-state strategy could change it.

Alan Mazzocco/Getty Images

Path Forward from Economic Consequences of Non-Popular Vote Presidents

While losing the popular vote does not inherently cause economic ruin, the structural political weakness of entering office without a democratic majority mandate often compounded the economic challenges their administrations faced. These terms were marked by distinct economic hardships, structural imbalances, or severe financial crises.

Destabilizing Partisan Protectionism

Keep ReadingShow less
Diverse People At Voting Booth. Vote Here Elections Sign

A political scientist examines how automatic voter registration is quietly turning non-affiliation into America's largest voting bloc.

AndreyPopov/Getty Images

When Neither Party Is the Default: Rethinking Representation As America’s Electorate Changes

For most of my career as a political scientist, representation was the central theme of my teaching and research. Early on, I studied how legislators understood their responsibilities to constituents — whether they saw themselves as delegates carrying out constituent mandates, trustees exercising independent judgment, or politicos combining both. That work asked a question that still matters: What does it mean to represent the public in a changing democracy?

Today I find myself asking a related question: What happens when the electorate changes but the institutions built to represent it do not?

Keep ReadingShow less
A person looks out at the North Tower pool at the 9/11 Memorial and Museum ahead of the 25th anniversary of the attack on the World Trade Center on September 7, 2026, in New York City.

A person looks out at the North Tower pool at the 9/11 Memorial and Museum ahead of the 25th anniversary of the attack on the World Trade Center on September 7, 2026, in New York City.

Gary Hershorn/Getty Images

How 9/11’s Memory Continues to Shape American Citizenship

Twenty‑five years after September 11th, the burden of that day continues to affect us in ways that are difficult to express. It was a moment of profound loss, but also one that revealed both the vulnerability and resilience of our national fabric. The memories remain vivid for many of us: where we were, what we felt, and how the world appeared to change in an instant. Even now, a quarter century later, the impact of that morning continues to shape how we understand our country, our responsibilities, and our relationships with one another.

To help us all reflect on that day, I invited four contributors to the Fulcrum to share reflections not to revisit the tragedy, but to commemorate the ways it has persisted in our consciousness twenty-five years later.

Keep ReadingShow less
Close-up shot of a Black woman's hands receiving a mail-in ballot to vote in a USA Presidential, Senatorial, Congressional, or local election

An immigrant's perspective on why America's election debate over security vs. access is a false choice — and how USPS mail ballot rules fit in.

Jeremy Poland/Getty Images

Ballot Security and Voter Access Are Not Opposites: What the USPS Ballot Rule Gets Right

I came to the United States from India in 1982. In Indian elections, I watched officials check voter identity and mark a voter’s finger with indelible ink. Party representatives observed the process. The system was imperfect, as every large democracy is, but it sent a simple message: casting one vote is a serious civic act, and the process should make that clear.

When I later became an American citizen and cast my first ballot, the experience felt very different. A poll worker found my name on a list and handed me a ballot. In my precinct, there was no photo identification check. I was surprised—not because I expected voting to be difficult, but because I expected a system as consequential as an election to have clear, visible safeguards.

Keep ReadingShow less