It’s been five years since Shelby v. Holder was decided. In that Supreme Court decision, section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which gave the federal government oversight over aspects of the election process in places with a history of racial discrimination with respect to elections, was deemed inoperable. This gave much power back to the states. Since then, the fears of those opposed to the decision have come to fruition, as states have limit access to the polls, with a disproportionate affect being on low-income and minority areas. As one can see from the image above, polling places have been shuttered in significant numbers across the south.
This issue was brought recently to national attention because of events in Randolph County, Georgia. There, an attempt to close seven of nine polling places in the county was rebuffed. That outcome is, however, the exception and not the rule. In total, over 1,000 polling places have been shuttered across the South. Not all such closures are sinister, admittedly. Budget constraints, changes in population density, and the growth of early/absentee voting, for example, can lead to closings. That said, it is beyond a doubt, however, that a significant number of the polling place closures are because of political machinations.
Regardless of the reason, almost every closure of a polling place creates additional burdens on those affected, to the detriment of being able to vote. Distances to polling places increase, often significantly. Lines at polling places become longer, often to such a degree where voters are deterred and leave. Workers at remaining polling places become overwhelmed and make mistakes. Complicating matters, such changes are often made shortly before an election and with limited notice to the affected areas.
That this is happening so quickly and in such large numbers is not a surprise. Local election officials can and do operate with relatively little opposition or scrutiny—that’s not to castigate them, that’s just how America’s electoral system is set up. It does, however, raise questions that should be answered—for example, how many changes to polling places are done with the taint of impropriety? In any event, challenges to such actions can only be done through prohibitively expensive court challenges, with no guarantee of success. Even if these challenges are successful, the likelihood that they will be resolved before the election in question is low, further deterring pursuit thereto. As a result, such decisions are more often than not beyond the reach of those in many of the areas affected. It is worth noting that all of the state legislatures highlighted in the map above are controlled by Republicans, which means that party exerts control over elections, and, once again, shows that party’s success in gaming the system.
None of this is insurmountable, of course, but it does take organization to overcome. Most fundamentally, it takes winning elections in order to gain control of the offices that make these decisions. Get out of the vote efforts will have to continue to grow as more and more people are affected. Other steps include continued litigation efforts where possible and greater vigilance to respond quickly when such disenfranchisement steps are taken. Please note — this is not about party, at least not to me. This is about ensuring the right to vote.In any event, while the outcome in Randolph County was positive, it is the exception to what is becoming an overwhelming rule, or, perhaps better said, the overwhelming ruling of Shelby.
Vote.
Get out the Vote.
Sources:
civilrightsdocs.info/…
whowhatwhy.org/…
politics.myajc.com/…
www.nytimes.com/…
www.ncsl.org/...