Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

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

Members of a women's softball team cheerfully join hands during practice on a sunny day, showcasing team spirit, cooperation, and enthusiasm for the sport.

Do trans women have a strength advantage? A look at studies on hormone therapy, muscle mass, and why it should determine eligibility in women's sports.

luza studios/Getty Images

Trans Females Are Not Biological Males - Let Them Play on Female Teams

Most Americans, Democrats as well as Republicans—many following the lead of President Trump—feel that it is not right for trans females to participate in women's sports. But the trans community, supported by those on the left wing of the Democratic Party, insists that this is part of ensuring the rights of trans people. The issue has been divisive among Democrats.

This is a complex issue. On the one hand, boys are boys, and girls are girls. That's the basic fact behind male and female sports, other than some intramural school sports that have boys and girls on the same team. Because boys are biologically stronger and faster than girls, separate leagues have been developed for both. This has nothing to do with gender identity; it is just a reflection of biological fact.

Keep ReadingShow less
Muslim woman in headscarf and hijab prays with her hands up in air while holding prayer beads in mosque.Religion praying concept

What the fight over The Meadow, formerly EPIC City, reveals about pluralism, Pew data on Muslim Americans, and the duties of both sides.

magical_light/Getty Images

Freedom Without Friction: Navigating Identity and Public Life in Pluralistic America

America runs on a deal nobody signed but everyone is expected to honor. Host communities open their schools, their courts, and their markets. Newcomers, in turn, fold into the civic mainstream instead of asking their new country to rearrange itself around them. It isn’t written into any statute, yet it has been the quiet engine behind two and a half centuries of messy, mostly successful assimilation.

That deal is being argued out right now on a stretch of prairie forty minutes northeast of Dallas.

Keep ReadingShow less
​Attendees monitor results during an election night event.

Attendees monitor results during an election night event for Minnesota Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan, who won the Minnesota Democratic Senate primary on Aug. 11, 2026.

Ellen Schmidt/AP

Everyone Wants To Win Working-Class Voters. But Have They Realized Many Are Women?

Congressional candidate JoAnna Mendoza can quickly rattle off prices from the grocery store in the small town of Eloy, Arizona, where she grew up. A couple of months ago, a pound of ground beef was going for about $13, a tomato was $1.50 and “a freaking cucumber was like $3.”

She knows because she’s a single mom to a 10-year-old, and she’s struggled with the same things most working women are facing: finding a steady job, a good pediatrician and childcare that isn’t going to break the bank. Mendoza’s parents were farmworkers, and she spent 20 years in the military because there were few economic opportunities for her back home. Now she’s running for a seat in the U.S. House to represent Arizona’s 6th congressional district.

Keep ReadingShow less