Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

People of color are being deterred from voting

people voting

Votersin Midlothian, Va., fill in their ballots during the state''s March 5 primary.

Matt McClain/The Washington Post via Getty Images

Waldman is president of the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law.

The racial turnout gap — the difference in voter participation between white Americans and Americans of color — nearly closed in 2008. This was part of a 40-year trend that began with the civil rights revolution of the 1960s, including the passage of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. And the closing gap was an encouraging measure of progress.

Unfortunately, this progress is now reversing. A landmark Brennan Center report shows that, for the last decade, the racial turnout gap has been widening.


Many factors contribute to voter participation, but the data shows that a 2013 Supreme Court decision has played a major role in exacerbating the racial turnout gap.

In Shelby County v. Holder, the Supreme Court suspended a key provision of the Voting Rights Act. Section 5 required jurisdictions with a history of racial discrimination to obtain federal approval before changing their voting rules. It was perhaps the nation’s most important check on voter suppression.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg memorably summarized the absurdity of Shelby County’s logic this way: “Throwing out preclearance when it has worked and is continuing to work to stop discriminatory changes is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet.”

Several states, freed from federal review by Shelby County, have passed dozens of new laws making it harder to vote. That trend is ongoing: last year alone, at least 14 states passed 17 restrictive voting laws.

Shelby County and the resulting restrictive voting laws set the stage for a national experiment on voter suppression. My colleagues Kevin Morris, senior research fellow and voting policy scholar, and Coryn Grange, research associate in voting rights, compiled nearly 1 billion vote records across 14 years. We believe it’s the most comprehensive set of such data ever collected.

The data shows that the racial turnout gap is growing almost twice as quickly in regions that used to be covered by Section 5 than in the rest of the country. This accelerated reversal helps quantify the effect of losing Section 5 on voters of color, as well as the link between the voter suppression laws made possible by Shelby County and depressed turnout in these communities.

In the 2022 elections, the white-Black turnout gap in formerly covered regions was 5 percentage points higher than it would have been had the Voting Rights Act remained in effect. This is the Shelby County effect — hundreds of thousands of voters of color now sit out elections in places where voter suppression has flourished.

The effect remains present even when taking account of the traditional drivers of voter participation. We controlled for income and education, for example, and the turnout gap remains. This study is strong evidence that voter suppression carries real consequences for voters of color.

Public response to the Brennan Center’s findings has been encouraging. The New York Times featured the report in its Sunday print edition, and many other national outlets covered the study and quoted experts who vouched for its integrity.

Now we will dig further into the reasons for this widening turnout gap. Two dozen social scientists presented papers at a conference at NYU School of Law, “The Racial Turnout Gap in the 21st Century.” They explored the full array of factors at work — voting laws, social trends, political alienation, party mobilization and more.

I hope you’ll read the report. In recent years, the “but actually” crowd has claimed that voter suppression isn’t a real problem. We believe this new data — to repeat, 1 billion vote records — should be the final word in this debate.

This article was first published March 6 in Waldman's weekly newsletter, “The Briefing.”


Read More

How Fairness, Stability and Freedom Can Help Us Build Demand for Transformative, Structural Change

Claiming Contested Values

FrameWorks Institute

How Fairness, Stability and Freedom Can Help Us Build Demand for Transformative, Structural Change

Claiming Contested Values: How Fairness, Stability and Freedom Can Help Us Build Demand for Transformative, Structural Change, produced by the FrameWorks Institute, explores how widely shared yet politically contested values can be used to strengthen public support for systemic reform. Values are central to how advocates communicate the importance of their work, and they can motivate collective action toward big, structural changes. This has become especially urgent in a climate where executive orders are targeting diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives, and some nonprofits are being labeled as threats based on their stated missions. Many civil society organizations are now grappling with how to communicate their values effectively and safely.

The report focuses on Fairness, Stability, and Freedom because they resonate across the U.S. public and are used by communicators across the political spectrum. Unlike values more closely associated with one ideological camp — such as Tradition on the right or Solidarity on the left — these three values are broadly recognizable but highly contested. Each contains multiple variants, and their impact depends on how clearly advocates define them and how they are paired with specific issues.

Keep ReadingShow less
Barbershops Are Helping Black Boys See Themselves as Readers

One of the barbershops participating in the Barbershop Books program.

Photo courtesy of Alvin Irby

Barbershops Are Helping Black Boys See Themselves as Readers

Barbershop Books, an organization whose award‑winning literacy programs celebrate, amplify, and affirm the interests of Black boys while inspiring kids to read for fun, has spent more than a decade transforming everyday community spaces into joyful reading hubs. That mission was on full display this Martin Luther King Jr. Day, when the organization partnered with a neighborhood barbershop in the Bronx—Flava In Ya Hair—to offer free haircuts and free children’s books to local families.

As families examined stacks of Dog Man, Fly Guy, Captain Underpants, and Diary of a Wimpy Kid, barbershop owner Patrick shared that growing up, reading was associated with negative school experiences and used as a punishment at home. “Go in your room and read!” he said.

Keep ReadingShow less
We Can’t Let Hegseth Win His War on Women

We Can’t Let Hegseth Win His War on Women

When Hegseth ordered all top brass to assemble in Quantico in September, he declared women could either meet male standards for combat roles or get cut. Strong message, except the military was already doing that, so Hegseth was either oblivious or ignoring decades of history. Confusion aside, it reaffirmed a goal Hegseth has made clear since his Fox News days, when he said, “I'm straight up saying we should not have women in combat roles.” Now, as of January 6th, the Pentagon is planning a six-month review of women in ground combat jobs. It may come as no surprise, but this thinly veiled anti-woman agenda has no tactical security advantage.

When integrating women into combat roles was brought to Congress in 1993, a summary of findings submitted that, “although logical, such a policy would [erode] the civilizing notion that men should protect . . . women.” Archaic notions of the patriarchy almost outweighed logic; instead, luckily, as combat roles have become available to them, more and more women are now serving, increasing military readiness. As it turns out, women are highly effective in combat. Khris Fuhr, a West Point graduate who worked on gender integration at Army Forces Command, calls this new review "a solution for a problem that doesn't exist." She says an Army study between 2018 to 2023 showed women didn’t just perform well in ground combat units but sometimes scored even better than their male counterparts.

Keep ReadingShow less