Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Voter suppression claims undermine important causes and democracy itself

Opinion

Hillary Clinton

Hillary Clinton's unsubstantiated claims earlier this year about voter suppression are emblematic of ongoing Democratic efforts to blame their 2016 loss on "the system," writes Hill.

Win McNamee/Getty Images

Hill is director of operations for Take Back Our Republic, which advocates for returning political power to individuals.

Hyper-partisanship is not a phenomenon unique to the last several years of American politics. While the presidencies of Barack Obama and Donald Trump have fueled increasingly polarized extremes, our nation has survived intense division before.

Yet, there is something that feels different about the wave of absurd claims that could shake the foundation of our democracy.

Beginning with Trump's shocking victory in 2016, the political left has clearly struggled to come to grips with the fact that the issues the president ran on actually resonate with the American people. Unfortunately, rather than evaluate their messaging, candidates or positions, many have chosen to opt for unproven calls of cheating.


With the Mueller Report now concluded, there is still political fallout and likely further investigations. But, barring further evidence, it is impossible to avoid the simple conclusion: There was no cheating by the Trump campaign that accounts for his 2016 victory.

In other words, Donald Trump won the presidency because the American voters put him into office. Not nefarious deeds. Not the Russians. The American people.

Despite the lack of evidence, Democrats are struggling to let go of this phony investigation that has hindered more than two years of the duly elected presidency. Moreover, there continue to be blatantly false assertions that seek to ascribe the blame of a loss to cheating.

Consider Hillary Clinton's assertion earlier this year that 40,000-80,000 voters in Wisconsin were turned away because of the color of their skin or their age. No evidence was offered. There has been no widespread reporting or claims of racism or ageism at Wisconsin polling places. But, it makes for a good applause line and places the blame of defeat at the feet of "the system."

She also made the claim that Georgia had fewer registered voters in 2016 than in previous years. Again, this is provably false. In fact, recent studies have shown that Georgia has actually led the way in registering new voters under Republican leadership.

It doesn't stop with Hillary Clinton, though.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren is among those to pick up on the allegation of "massive voter suppression" in Georgia and elsewhere, saying that "if all the votes are counted" her side would win every time. Therefore, any Democrat's loss is the fault of "the system."

Another presidential hopeful, Sen. Kamala Harris, has similarly promoted the false narrative that Stacey Abrams and Andrew Gillum are the legitimate governors of Georgia and Florida respectively, again with no evidence of voter suppression to substantiate her claim. It's the fault of "the system."

And, then there's Abrams herself. Her campaign and her nonprofit are now under numerous investigations for misuse of funds and improper coordination. Yet, she is the one who alleges cheating by the other side. Among her examples of voter suppression, she has cited "long lines."

On that, she has a point ... to a degree. In many cases, lines were, in fact, long across Georgia. That's because a record number of voters, including a historic number of minorities, turned out to vote. The 2018 gubernatorial race featured 3.9 million voters, a nearly 50 percent increase over the 2014 turnout. Long lines, yes. Voter suppression, no.

Yet, to anyone who will listen, Abrams insists that she won, is the rightful governor and the only reason she isn't is, well, "the system" (a claim she has successfully utilized to vault her into the national spotlight, giving the response to the State of the Union and being seen as a possible presidential candidate).

This false narrative is fueling increasing anger among the liberal base and leading to drastic calls to fundamentally change the system – with proposals like eliminating the Electoral College or stacking the Supreme Court gaining intense support among Democratic primary voters.

A fundamental faith in democracy has been shaken – without evidence, without rationale, and without clear, thoughtful debate. "The system" has been blamed for the sake of political convenience.

But, let's be clear: The system does have problems. Our organization, Take Back Our Republic, exists to call attention to many of those problems and to secure a government that better represents the people it's supposed to serve. This mission, however, is hindered by this barrage of false allegations.

First, the current "voter suppression myth" or cheating accusations undermine the very real and terrible history of voting in seasons of our nation's history. Recently, 20 secretaries of state (eight Democrats, 12 Republicans) gathered in Alabama for a "voting rights history" tour to learn more about the suppression that occurred.

We applaud this trip as it is imperative that we never forget where we have come from. However, this recent push to equate non-suppression issues like "long lines" with the problems of our history does a disservice to those who fought for the rights now fully enjoyed.

Second, false attacks against "the system" may excite a segment of the active voter base, but it actually discourages many from participating at all. Why bother voting if your vote doesn't count? Why get involved if your action leads to nowhere?

Accepting a loss and committing to a redoubling of efforts can encourage people to stay involved. Claiming a false win that cannot be enjoyed because of an unbreakable, all-powerful "system" leads most to disengage entirely, believing their voice will never matter.

Third, false narratives about problems with the system put many in a defensive posture and hinder addressing real issues. Addressing Russian and Chinese interference, campaign finance problems and lobbying reform need to be on the agenda in our nation's capital. Yet, because of the increased partisanship and falsehoods, little progress can be made on these areas that have bipartisan support.

It's time for those who seek to lead to step up and use responsible rhetoric. It's time for real solutions about real problems. As the campaign season heats up, candidates for president and down ballot should eschew cheap applause lines that undermine democracy and instead opt for solutions that can empower American voters.

This is our hope for 2020 and beyond, and, if such candidates are elected, we can achieve real gains for the future.

Read More

U.S. President Barack Obama speaking on the phone in the Oval Office.

U.S. President Barack Obama talks President Barack Obama talks with President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan during a phone call from the Oval Office on November 2, 2009 in Washington, DC.

Getty Images, The White House

‘Obama, You're 15 Years Too Late!’

The mid-decade redistricting fight continues, while the word “hypocrisy” has become increasingly common in the media.

The origin of mid-decade redistricting dates back to the early history of the United States. However, its resurgence and legal acceptance primarily stem from the Texas redistricting effort in 2003, a controversial move by the Republican Party to redraw the state's congressional districts, and the 2006 U.S. Supreme Court decision in League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry. This decision, which confirmed that mid-decade redistricting is not prohibited by federal law, was a significant turning point in the acceptance of this practice.

Keep ReadingShow less
Hand of a person casting a ballot at a polling station during voting.

Gerrymandering silences communities and distorts elections. Proportional representation offers a proven path to fairer maps and real democracy.

Getty Images, bizoo_n

Gerrymandering Today, Gerrymandering Tomorrow, Gerrymandering Forever

In 1963, Alabama Governor George Wallace declared, "Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever." (Watch the video of his speech.) As a politically aware high school senior, I was shocked by the venom and anger in his voice—the open, defiant embrace of systematic disenfranchisement, so different from the quieter racism I knew growing up outside Boston.

Today, watching politicians openly rig elections, I feel that same disbelief—especially seeing Republican leaders embrace that same systematic approach: gerrymandering now, gerrymandering tomorrow, gerrymandering forever.

Keep ReadingShow less
An oversized ballot box surrounded by people.

Young people worldwide form new parties to reshape politics—yet America’s two-party system blocks them.

Getty Images, J Studios

No Country for Young Politicians—and How To Fix That

In democracies around the world, young people have started new political parties whenever the establishment has sidelined their views or excluded them from policymaking. These parties have sometimes reinvigorated political competition, compelled established parties to take previously neglected issues seriously, or encouraged incumbent leaders to find better ways to include and reach out to young voters.

In Europe, a trio in their twenties started Volt in 2017 as a pan-European response to Brexit, and the party has managed to win seats in the European Parliament and in some national legislatures. In Germany, young people concerned about climate change created Klimaliste, a party committed to limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, as per the Paris Agreement. Although the party hasn’t won seats at the federal level, they have managed to win some municipal elections. In Chile, leaders of the 2011 student protests, who then won seats as independent candidates, created political parties like Revolución Democrática and Convergencia Social to institutionalize their movements. In 2022, one of these former student leaders, Gabriel Boric, became the president of Chile at 36 years old.

Keep ReadingShow less
How To Fix Gerrymandering: A Fair-Share Rule for Congressional Redistricting

Demonstrators gather outside of The United States Supreme Court during an oral arguments in Gill v. Whitford to call for an end to partisan gerrymandering on October 3, 2017 in Washington, DC

Getty Images, Olivier Douliery

How To Fix Gerrymandering: A Fair-Share Rule for Congressional Redistricting

The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground. ~ Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Col. Edward Carrington, Paris, 27 May 1788

The Problem We Face

The U.S. House of Representatives was designed as the chamber of Congress most directly tethered to the people. Article I of the Constitution mandates that seats be apportioned among the states according to population and that members face election every two years—design features meant to keep representatives responsive to shifting public sentiment. Unlike the Senate, which prioritizes state sovereignty and representation, the House translates raw population counts into political voice: each House district is to contain roughly the same number of residents, ensuring that every citizen’s vote carries comparable weight. In principle, then, the House serves as the nation’s demographic mirror, channeling the diverse preferences of the electorate into lawmaking and acting as a safeguard against unresponsive or oligarchic governance.

Nationally, the mismatch between the overall popular vote and the partisan split in House seats is small, with less than a 1% tilt. But state-level results tell a different story. Take Connecticut: Democrats hold all five seats despite Republicans winning over 40% of the statewide vote. In Oklahoma, the inverse occurs—Republicans control every seat even though Democrats consistently earn around 40% of the vote.

Keep ReadingShow less