Reclaim Democracy!

49 Ways to Disenfranchise or Suppress Voters

by

(& How to Prevent Most of Them)

Last updated April 17, 2021

U.S. elections overseers called the 2020 election, “The most secure in history,” and state election officials of both major parties agreed. Yet inclusiveness is no less important than security, and attacks on voting rights are escalating. During just the first seven weeks of 2021, legislators across 43 states proposed more than 250 bills to restrict voting.

Our collection below summarizes the most impactful tactics and structures that impede voting or deny equal voting power, with examples. We also provide an overview of legislative and constitutional solutions to voter suppression. Most urgent among these, the “For the People Act” would preclude nearly every tactic described in #1-#43. See our FPA overview and action recommendations.

Reclaim Democracy! is a non-partisan organization, but fair and accurate reporting on voter suppression can be “balanced,” as the Republican Party is the force behind almost all examples cited here. While we focus on the most common or impactful tactics, this list is not comprehensive.

I. Active Vote Suppression and Disenfranchisement Methods

  1. Obstructing Citizen Initiatives Through Onerous Rules
  2. District Gerrymandering
  3. Prison Gerrymandering
  4. Judicial Gerrymandering
  5. Purging Voter Rolls
  6. Oppressive Requirements for Voter Registration
  7. Voter Pre-Registration
  8. Denying Registrations or Ballots
  9. Barring Ex-Convicts from Voting 
  10. Denying Citizenship to People Born in US Territories
  11. Restricting Access to Voter Registration Materials
  12. Burdensome Voter ID Requirements
  13. Veiled Poll Taxes and Requiring ID to Vote by Mail
  14. Burdensome Address Requirements
  15. Disinformation 
  16. Inadequate Early Voting Options
  17. Delaying Implementation of Voter Access Laws
  18. Forcing Citizens to Choose Between Safety or Voting
  19. Age Discrimination
  20. Requiring Witnesses or Notarization for Absentee Ballots
  21. Obstructing (or Banning) Ballot Drop-off
  22. Signature Challenges on Mail-in Ballots
  23. Partisan Scrutiny of Voter Registrations
  24. Insufficient Number of Polling Places
  25. Insufficient Voting Equipment
  26. Blocking Free Voter Shuttles
  27. Ban Mobile Voting
  28. Voter Intimidation
  29. Intimidating Poll Workers & Election Officials
  30. Leaving No Time for Error
  31. Making Citizens Doubt Our Votes Will Count
  32. Impeding Students from Voting
  33. Impeding GOTV Drives
  34. Banning Ballot Collection
  35. Denying Voters an Opportunity to Fix Errors
  36. Inadequate Ballot Security
  37. Sabotaging The US Postal Service
  38. Strip Voters’ Choice of Power When the Opposition Wins
  39. Challenge Electoral College Votes
  40. Allocate Electoral Votes by Congressional District
  41. The Duopoly Restricting Competition
  42. Suffocate Funding for Elections Operations
  43. Manipulating the Census

II. Voter Suppression Tactics in State Bills, Not Yet Enacted

  1. Criminalizing Provision of Basic Supplies
  2. Discarding Citizens’ Votes for President
  3. Unreasonable Residency Requirements

III. Structural Barriers to Voting and Equal Representation

  1. Denying Representation to Citizens Living Outside of States
  2. The Electoral College
  3. The U.S. Senate

IV. Taking the Initiative to Affirm Our Democratic Rights

I. Active Vote Suppression and Disenfranchisement

1. Obstructing Citizen Initiatives Through Onerous Rules
A 2021 Missouri bill would require signatures from 15% of voters in every congressional district in the state just to place a question for the ballot. Despite the lower percentage, an Idaho proposal requiring endorsement from 6% of voters in every state district would be a burdensome and costly feat. Extreme signature-gathering requirements would transform the initiative process by requiring huge bankrolls to succeed.

In Utah, a dark-money group is behind a bill to obstruct initiatives with more subtle, but no less burdensome tactics. In another approach, Missouri, Arizona, and other states would require any new initiative be approved by a supermajority to win. In each case above, Republicans propose to obstruct citizen-lawmaking after their constituents passed progressive ballot initiatives.

2. District Gerrymandering
The dominant political party, rather than a public-serving body, draws voting districts in most states, and typically aim to favor the party in power and minimize competition. In 2012, Pennsylvanians cast 83,000 more votes for Democratic than Republican U.S. House candidates, but Rs won 13 of 18 seats.

Without reform, the situation is likely to worsen following the 2020 census after the SCOTUS ruled that federal courts lack authority to ensure fair voting districts. Republicans control redistricting in 20 states and Democrats in seven (the rests have independent commissions or divided government). All About Redistricting and FairVote are great sources to learn more.

2020 state election results as an effect of gerrymandering.
Gerrymandering delivers minority rule in the WI state assembly

3. Prison Gerrymandering
Inmates often are counted for apportioning legislative seats where they are imprisoned, yet they cannot vote. This shifts political power to (mostly) rural areas like Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan’s meandering district — crafted to include three prisons housing more than 12,000 inmates!

4. Judicial Gerrymandering 
Pennsylvania Republicans are pushing a state constitutional amendment to radically alter its appeals courts by electing judges based on newly created districts (drawn by Republicans) instead of statewide elections. The state’s appellate judges have protected voters from anti-democratic schemes in the past, as the state’s Supreme Court rejected a Republican lawsuit to overthrow the 2020 presidential election results. Thankfully, the proposed plan would have to be ratified by Pennsylvania voters. 

5. Purging Voter Rolls
Wisconsin, Florida, Georgia and Ohio are among many states aggressively purging voter rolls — using lack of voting as a trigger to rescind registration. After not voting for as few as two elections, a bulk mailing may be sent instructing a voter to verify their registration or be removed from the rolls. These notices may appear to be junk mail. Ohio’s data demonstrates a high percentage of active voters simply sit out some elections. Learn more. Bills to accelerate voter purges were pending in AL, AZ, CA, HI, MI, MO, MS, NH, NJ, PA, SC, SD, TX, UT as of March 15.

6. Oppressive Requirements for Voter Registration
Alabama, Georgia, and Kansas all have required birth certificates or passports to register, leaving tens of thousands of citizens unable to vote because they lack the documentation. This can be costly and time-consuming (and for some, nearly impossible) to acquire. Learn more.

7. Voter Pre-Registration
In Oneida County, New York, 2,400 people submitted timely registration forms in 2020, but were never registered. The district’s congressional race went undecided for three months and the margin was just over 100 votes. We support automatic federal registration (as most democracies have), enabling citizens to register online and on Election Day. Learn more about automatic voting registration.

8. Denying Registrations or Ballots
A pending federal lawsuit claims Georgia prevented 53,000 voter registrations, before the 2018 election. The rejections came from Georgia’s “exact match” policy, which flags applications with hyphenated names, extra spaces, and nicknames. In 2020, Republicans invalidated 100,000 absentee ballot requests on this technicality. More than 6,500 absentee ballot requests were denied in Ohio in 2018 due to signature issues. This powerful voter suppression tactic can impede significant portions of people.

9. Barring Ex-Convicts from Voting
Many states withhold the vote from people who’ve completed sentences for a felony, disenfranchising more than six million citizens. Such laws originated with racist intent and disenfranchise Black citizens at nearly four times the rate of others today.

In 2018, Florida voters overwhelmingly voted to restore voting rights to ex-felons. However, the Florida Supreme Court approved Gov. DeSantis’s (R) scheme to deny voters’ will and refuse to reinstate voting rights if any fines or fees are outstanding. Arkansas employs the same discriminatory scheme. Learn more.

10. Denying Citizenship to People Born in US Territories
The Department of Justice, under both Obama and Trump, fought to deny voting rights to American Samoans who legally are “nationals,” not citizens. The 10th Circuit Appeals Court heard arguments in Fitisemanu v. United States in Sep., 2020.

11. Restricting Access to Voter Registration Materials
On the wave of the coronavirus pandemic, all registered Georgia voters received absentee ballot applications, resulting in record numbers of absentee voting in the 2020 election. The 2021 Georgia voting law made this practice illegal. In the heavily Latino and urban Harris County (Houston), Texas, the local U.S. Post Office branch refused to carry voter registration materials.

12. Burdensome Voter ID Requirements
Voter ID requirement vary widely among states, but people impersonating another voter is almost unheard of nationwide, since few people will risk years in prison for a lottery ticket’s chance of turning an election. Laws requiring some form of ID generates little opposition, but laws that require certain forms of state ID and reject others often aim to suppress students, those with low-income, and people of color — the groups least likely to have a drivers license or passport. About 11% of eligible voters lack official government ID. Efforts to enact strict new ID laws consistently promote false stories of voter impersonation.

13. Veiled Poll Taxes and Requiring ID to Vote by Mail
Among the provisions in Georgia’s bundle of new regulations enacted in March, 2021 is one requiring voters to submit photocopies of approved government ID or include their state ID number (both to request a mail ballot, and to submit it). Indiana is advancing a similar bill (SB 353) rife with opportunities for confusion. The rare instances of people returning the ballot of a family member or roommate are unlikely to be prevented by the law, but for people who lack easy access to a printer, it’s effectively a poll tax — banned by our Constitution. In addition, requiring user-paid postage adds another obstacle for many people. Currently, 12 states provide postage-paid ballots.

14. Burdensome Address Requirements
The SCOTUS has enabled voter suppression simply for living where conventional postal addresses are not used, which is especially common on Native American reservations. In Utah, for example, 75% of San Juan County (Navajo Nation) residents lack street addresses that conform to state ID rules. A federal court in 2020 found only 18% of American Indian registered voters have home mail service. Learn more from reports by The Brennan Center and Pew.

15. Disinformation
Vehicles for disinformation (meaning intentionally deceptive, not mistaken) include robocalls fliers, ads, and paid social media posts falsely reporting voting methods, hours, or locations, or attempting to intimidate potential voters. These tactics frequently target minority communities.

While judges may block such schemes, the damage often is done before action can be taken and cannot be remedied. Local elections agencies also have circulated wrong information that could disenfranchise voters. Perpetrators are rarely prosecuted, though the DOJ announced an arrest in January of 2021.

16. Inadequate Early Voting Options
A 2021 Georgia voting law severely restricts early voting hours, impeding those lack flexible work schedules. The 2020 pandemic led to broad expansion of early voting days, helping increase participation and reduce Election Day lines. Voters should have ample opportunity to vote early in-person. We urge permanently extending in-person voting and support a nationwide minimum of two weeks, including Saturdays.

17. Delaying Implementation of Voter Access Laws
Kansas passed a law in early 2019 enabling citizens to vote at any polling place in their county, which allows many to vote near their place of work, study, or home. The Republican Secretary of State has moved so slowly that the law may not take effect for nearly five years (i.e., August 2023).

18. Forcing Citizens to Choose Between Safety or Voting
Many states require an “excuse” affidavit to apply for mail-in voting — even during the pandemic. During the COVID-19 pandemic, Missouri’s absentee voting remained notoriously difficult while the Governor dismissed objections to this voter suppression tactic. Bills to limit voting by mail are pending in AL, AZ, CO, GA, MN, MO, MS, MT, ND, OK, PA, SC, and WA as of March 15.

19. Age Discrimination
Despite our Constitution prohibiting any state from abridging the right to on account of age, multiple states have a dual standard for absentee voting, with those aged 65 and older (who skew Republican) enjoying easier access. Alaska mailed ballots directly to voters aged 65 and older, but not to others.

20. Requiring Witnesses or Notarization for Absentee Ballots
Misrepresenting a ballot is a felony offense, and forged signatures are rare. The burden of requiring witness signatures for absentee ballots is unjustifiable. Alaska, Alabama, and South Dakota require witnessed affidavits for absentee voting. Mississippi has the most Draconian absentee ballot process, requiring an official witness for both the absentee voting application and returned ballot. A pending (as of March 2021) bill in Arizona would require notarized ballots for absentee voting. Bills imposing new signature witness requirements were pending in AK, AZ, CA, MS, SC, and VA as of March 15.

21. Obstructing Ballot Drop-off
Georgia’s 2021 voting law may not only reduce the number of ballot drop boxes in metropolitan Atlanta by 75%, but will restrict access to drop boxes during non-business hours. In 2020, after Republicans failed to ban drop-off boxes entirely in Texas, Gov. Abbot forbid counties from offering more than one drop box location. For context, the Democratic stronghold of Harris County (including Houston), is nearly 50% larger than Rhode Island. Multiple state bills have been introduced in 2021 to ban drop boxes entirely. See the Healthy Elections Project for more on drop-off voting and this report on 2020 tactics to obstruct it.

22. Signature Challenges on Mail-In Ballots 
Signatures deemed to be “mismatched” by election officials often are arbitrary, disproportionately void minority votes, but also disenfranchise seniors, women, and too many citizens of every age. Voting another’s ballot is a rarity and a felony, so signature checks should have a pro-inclusion bias. Yet that is not the case. An Ohio lawsuit maintained that 97% of voters rejected were likely to be wrongly disenfranchised. Bills imposing nw signature match requirements were pending in CT, PA and SC as of March 15.

23. Selective Partisan Scrutiny of Voter Registrations
The Trump Administration selectively checked signatures against voter registration files in heavily-Democratic localities like Broward County, Florida and Clark County, Nevada.

24. Insufficient Number of Polling Places
Among many examples, former Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp closed nearly 200 polling places in areas likely to favor his opponent in running for Governor (Stacey Abrams). Texas promptly closed 750 polling places the day after the SCOTUS gutted the Voting Rights Act. Creating long waits to vote in minority-heavy districts is a timeless suppression tactic.

25. Insufficient Voting Equipment
Providing too few machines per capita to urban precincts is a common tactic for generating burdensome lines. See Brennan Center report.

26. Blocking Free Voter Shuttles
Michigan banned companies from offering free or discounted rides to voting locations and barred advocacy groups from paying for such rides. A federal appeals court upheld the law. In Georgia, State Police are accused of stopping vehicles shuttling Black voters to polls, and elderly Black voters were ordered off a voting bus shuttle.

27. Ban Mobile Voting
Mobile voting provides a choice for voters whose travel ability is limited, especially where voting by mail is not a universal option. Mobile units can relieve long waits at regular in-person poll sites and offered a safe voting option during the 2020 pandemic. Georgia’s 2021 law banned mobile voting.

28. Voter Intimidation
The 2021 Georgia voting law established a hotline to report “illegal election activities” for investigation to the State Attorney General, an elected partisan. As research has found low instances of election fraud, this hotline could be a tool of intimidation. There is a long, long history of Republican operatives attempting to intimidate voters in minority-heavy areas. Donald Trump’s incitements to join an “army” of poll watchers in 2020 sparked fear of trouble, since a legal agreement to halt intimidation tactics by the Republican Party expired in 2018. Thankfully, officials prepared well and 2020 problems were modest.

Governments have engaged in intimidation, too. Before being struck down in court, a New Hampshire law threatened penalties to people who came to vote without proof of address. Learn more.

29. Intimidating Poll Workers & Election Officials
The 2021 Georgia voting law grants the State Election Board power to suspend local officials for “malfeasance” of their duties. State and local officials have been at odds in democratic Fulton County, where local officials received harassment and threats, stemming from Republican attacks. The Trump Administration lost a lawsuit to force Clark County, NV, which includes Las Vegas, to make names of ballot workers public. Donald Trump’s false claims incited death threats against poll workers in Georgia and many other states.

30. Leaving No Time for Error
Georgia’s closure of almost 900 polling places resulted in day-long waits and confusion as to which precinct a voter belongs – mainly affecting Black communities. During the 2020 primary, 67% of polling places stayed open late, to accommodate the voters waiting in line because of Election Day problems – also mainly affecting Black communities. Georgia’s 2021 voting law takes Black voter suppression a step further, restricting the time a precinct can remain open if a problem arises. The new law also makes voting more difficult for those who show up to the wrong prescient.    

31. Making Citizens Doubt Whether Our Votes Will Count
Countless false accusations of fraud left many voters without confidence their votes would count in 2020. In Arkansas, absentee ballots are disqualified for minor mistakes (e.g., discrepancies with address formats, signatures, birth dates) without alerting voters. In 2016, Arkansas rejected one in twenty absentee ballots, (the national average is one in 100).

32. Impeding Students from Voting
Intimidation, excessive ID requirements, and confusion surrounding the voting process all disenfranchise college students. Many states reject student ID for voting. Texas rejects photo ID from state-run universities for voting, but accepts gun licenses. A 2021 New Hampshire bill would disenfranchise any student living in a dorm. See more examples of laws targeting student voters.

33. Impeding GOTV Drives
In 2010 Texas Attorney General Greg Abbot (now Governor) abused his power to sabotage Houston Votes, a non-profit voter registration group. Until blocked in court, South Carolina required social security numbers on voter registration forms, crippling get-out-the-vote efforts by groups wary of violating privacy laws. In some cases, advocacy groups have invited backlash by repeatedly mailing pre-completed forms to unregistered voters.

34. Banning Ballot Collection
Montana and Arizona criminalized ballot collection prior to the 2020 elections. Both states have large populations living on Native American reservations where many citizens rely on ballot collection help because voting in-person voting or at a ballot drop-box can require a personal vehicle and hours of drive time. Courts struck down the MT and AZ laws, but attempts are ongoing in multiple states.

Ballot collection does carry some risk of fraud, but the best protection, enabling voters to track their ballot, does not hinder voting at all. Bills restricting ballot assistance were pending in AK, AZ, CT, KS, KY, MD, MN, NY, OK as of March 15). Note: “ballot harvesting” is a pejorative — collection is an accurate and neutral term.

35. Denying Voters an Opportunity to Fix Errors 
On mailed ballots, voters often sign in the wrong place, fail to properly use a security envelope, or make other procedural errors. When time allows, voters should be notified and given the chance fix the problem (called “curing”). Too often, voters ballots are discarded without their knowledge.

36. Inadequate Ballot Security
At least one claim made by Donald Trump in 2020 was based on a real incident, as a contractor in Pennsylvania apparently tossed nine ballots into a dumpster. Learn more about ballot security. Also, thirteen states lack any statutory requirement for voting machines to have a paper trail.

37. Sabotaging the U.S. Postal Service
In 2020, many USPS actions discouraged voting by mail, including raising rates charged to state and local governments, radically slowing delivery, and more. It could have been far worse.

38. Strip Voters’ Choice of Power When the Opposition Wins
After Democrats swept every statewide race in Wisconsin in 2018, Republicans — who held a legislative majority only through gerrymandering — stripped long-standing powers from the Governor before the transition. They also made voting more difficult in future elections. Kentucky Republicans are employing the same voter suppression tactic.

39. Challenge Electoral College Votes
If anyone believed attempts to subvert citizens’ votes would end with the Trump presidency, actions by Michigan and Arizona Republicans in early 2021 suggest otherwise. The latter would legalize the corruption Donald Trump encouraged in 2020 by enabling legislators to ignore voters entirely and give the state’s electoral votes to their preferred candidate.

40. Allocate Electoral Votes by Congressional District
Splitting a state’s electoral votes by district (as Maine and Nebraska do), rather than winner-take-all, would make most states’ electoral votes more democratic. But in heavily gerrymandered states where districts already are drawn to enable minority rule, it could disenfranchise a majority of voters. Such bills were introduced in January of 2012 in Arizona, Mississippi and Wisconsin.

41. The Duopoly Restricting Competition
The 2021 Georgia voting law places the State Election Board under partisan legislative control and strips power from the Secretary of State, in possible retaliation for the current Secretary for refusing the Trump Administration’s request to alter the 2020 vote count. Nothing in our Constitution mentions political parties, and the founders feared them. Yet two dominant parties now cooperate (primarily via state laws) to cripple competition and restrict voters’ choices. For all elections involving U.S. congressional seats, national standards should require non-partisan election officials, as well as neutral rules for ballot access and candidate debates (including presidential debates).

42. Suffocate Funding for Elections Operations
Georgia’s 2021 voting law bans grants or funding from anyone other than local, State, or federal sources. Republicans have cut funding for election security, withheld funding from states expanding absentee voting, and held funding hostage over partisan spending fights. Funding shortfalls have forced local municipalities to turn to outside fundraising to cover basic elections operations. Arizona, North Dakota, and Texas are weighing similar bills.

43. Manipulating the Census
The once-per-decade census determines allocation of Congressional seats. Electoral College votes, and federal funding to localities for many programs. Prior to the 2020 census, the Trump Administration launched a plan to exclude undocumented immigrants for the first time, seemingly for partisan purposes. President Biden rescinded this voter suppression plan upon taking office.

back to top

II. Voter Suppression Tactics in State Bills, Not Yet Enacted

44. Criminalizing Provision of Comfort
A dozen voter suppression bills were pending in Georgia as of March 9, 2021. Among them, HB 531 would ban distributing food and drink to people waiting in line to vote. It would be an arrestable offense.

45. Discarding Citizens’ Votes for President
An Arizona bill would amend the state constitution, enabling state lawmakers to override citizens’ votes and decide themselves which presidential candidate receives the state’s 11 electoral votes.

46. Unreasonable Residency Requirements
In North Dakota, an introduced bill would require a person to live in the state for at least one year before being allowed to vote  — potentially leaving someone without a vote anywhere for up to 103 weeks! It also would require someone to live in their precinct for 90 days prior to voting.

back to top

III. Structural Barriers to Voting and Equal Representation

47. Denying Representation to Citizens Living Outside of States
The U.S. denies voting Congressional representation to citizens living in Washington, D.C, or U.S. territories, disenfranchising about 700,000 citizens in Washington and 3.6 million in Puerto Rico and other island territories. Puerto Rico’s citizens outnumber those of 21 states, but territory residents are denied even a vote for their President. More than 98 percent of them are people of color.

48. The Electoral College
Along with discounting the votes of citizens in more populous states, voters outside of the few true “swing states” are ignored and effectively disenfranchised in every presidential election. The argument that the Electoral College could prevent a dangerous or unfit person from taking power — while credible in the 1700s — led to the opposite in 2016.

Moving to a pure popular vote requires Amending the Constitution, but Reclaim Democracy also supports the National Popular Vote alternative.

49. The U.S. Senate
The Senate’s bias against citizens living in populous states means a Californian has just 1/67th of a Wyoming resident’s representation in Senate. When combined with the current norm of Democrats allowing filibusters, just 41 Senators — potentially representing fewer than 10% of Americans — can wield veto power over a proposed bill or nominee. See Fixing the Senate for ideas on reform.

back to top

What About Real Instances of Voter Fraud?

The best evidence that U.S. elections are free of significant fraud comes from the folks working feverishly to prove it’s a serious problem: the right-wing Heritage Foundation. For years, their staff has combed the country for examples of fraud and maintains a database of “proven instances of election fraud.” They claim to have found more than 1300 cases… over two decades (many of which are not fraud, but human errors). In the 2020 general election alone, more than 158 million ballots were cast.

We looked up the findings for our home base of Montana and found exactly one case: a man submitted his ex-wife’s ballot after she’d moved from their home.

III. Taking the Initiative to Affirm Our Democratic Rights

First, our call to engage in constitutional reform is not a rejection of legislative approaches, but an essential partner to them. As of February 1, 2021, there are at least three pending voting rights bills in Congress deserving support HR4 (“The John Lewis Voting Rights Act”) focuses on restoring many protections the Supreme Court eviscerated with it’s 2013 Shelby v Holder ruling. HR1 / S1: a massive voting rights package that would banish many tactics and barriers detailed above (see our summary or a thorough indexed guide). Also, the Vote at Home Act would solidify mail-in voting options.

We hope to see rapid passage of many protections in these bills. However, we caution against relying solely on legislation. The Chief Justice and a majority of the SCOTUS have shown overt hostility to voters and a willingness to override overwhelming bipartisan votes by Congress. Thus, legislative fixes are an important step forward, not a long-term solution (see our Right to Vote Amendment page for a more detailed case).

The survival of fundamental rights must not depend on fleeting majorities within Congress or the Supreme Court. We advance democracy and secure our rights by driving them into the Constitution.

In 2001, we began work with a small network of pro-democracy groups toward amending the Constitution with an affirmative right to vote. While this approach was largely ignored for many years, we finally are seeing a true shift in awareness and broader embrace of the need to transform voting from a privilege to a right.

Learn more and take action! See Why We Need an Affirmative Right to Vote

Additional Reading

back to top

A Leap Forward for Democracy Is Within Our Grasp

by

But Our Chance to Preempt Voter Suppression Could Expire at Any Moment

March 17, 2021

When the U.S. House of Representatives passed the For the People Act (H.R. 1 in the House, S. 1 in the Senate) on March 3, all but one Democrat voted in favor. Every Republican vote opposed it. 

Passing the voter protections of the For the People Act is the only path for democracy advocates to halt many of the 250-plus voter suppression bills stacked up in state capitols around the country. Republican vote suppressors have an easier task: they need only delay passage of S. 1 while more of those state bills become law — putting the onus on voting rights defenders to overturn laws in court, even if S. 1 passes. 

Each passing day also brings another chance for Senate control to flip back to Republicans. Many Democratic elders hail from states where, in the event of their death, a Republican governor would select their replacement or the seat would remain vacant until a special election is held. Such an event would almost certainly flip Senate control to Republicans by at least a 50-49 margin and doom strong voter protection. Democrats don’t have the luxury of moving methodically.

The urgency also comes from the potency of the For the People Act. If passed, S. 1 would be the greatest forward leap for democracy in generations. While voting rights are central to the bill, it also would secure election processes and take vital steps to neutralize the power of big money to determine our choices and control politicians. This includes a 6 to 1 match for small donor candidate contributions, giving candidates a huge incentive to increase time spent engaging normal people, rather than courting megadonors. 

Regarding the 2010 Citizens United v FEC ruling, the For the People Act says, “The Supreme Court’s misinterpretation of the Constitution to empower monied interests at the expense of the American people in elections has seriously eroded over 100 years of congressional action to promote fairness and protect elections from the toxic influence of money.” S. 1 backs up the words with tough controls over corporate electioneering. Corporate executives would be barred from using shareholders’ money for political spending without first demonstrating shareholder support — a step few corporations would attempt.

Filling hundreds of pages, the For the People Act is vast, largely due to its thoroughness. The Brennan Center for Justice created an excellent guide to the Act for those who want to dive deep. To help understand what the Act would do, we summarized the provisions and placed them in 3 groupings.

Preventing Disenfranchisement & Making Voting Easier
  • Establish two weeks of in-person early voting, including Sundays and during non-business hours;
  • Require states to create nonpartisan redistricting commissions (for US Congressional districts) and quantifiable criteria for district drawing (addresses district gerrymandering);
  • Ends prison gerrymandering by counting people as residents of where they last lived for apportioning representation, not where they’re incarcerated;
  • Make it a crime to mislead voters with the intention of preventing them from voting;
  • Allow 16 and 17-year olds to pre-register so they’ll be on voter rolls when they turn 18;
Increasing Election Integrity
Reducing the Power of Money Over Candidates & Elections
  • Improve campaign finance disclosure rules;
  • Ban corporations from spending on campaigns unless they have a process to determine the political will of shareholders;
  • Require presidential candidates to disclose their tax returns;
  • Provide public financing for House campaigns by matching small donations at a 6:1 rate, so your $10 donation yields $70 for the candidate. This measure would incentivize candidates to seek out small donations from every constituent, rather than focusing on the wealthy. It also would lead to a more diverse candidate pool since access to wealthy donors would no longer be a prerequisite. The program would not use tax revenue — it will be funded by a surcharge on criminal and civil penalties paid by corporations to the federal government.

What the Act Leaves Undone
The For the People Act does not fully eliminate the need to pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act and fix earlier damage to the Voting Rights Act by the U.S. Supreme Court. The Washington, D.C. Admission Act (HR. 51) is needed to grant full political rights to citizens in our capital and The Vote at Home Act advances vote-by-mail protections. Enacting the For the People Act also will not eliminate the need to drive an affirmative right to vote into our Constitution. Finally, the bill passed by the House needs cleanup to purge overly prescriptive language re election administration (e.g. micromanaging local election officials).

But the For the People Act would transform U.S. elections for the better. It will improve security, transparency, voter access, and protect citizens from the barrage of voter suppression bills encompassing more than 45 distinct tactics across 43 state legislatures.

To be clear, there are some unnecessary, inappropriate and potentially unconstitutional provisions in HR. 1, as passed by the House. Making Election Day a holiday would undermine the importance of opening a two week window to spread out voting and diminish the opportunity to disrupt voters. And the service workers most challenged for time to vote don’t get a day off just because it’s a holiday. The bill also contains measures unrelated to voting (e.g. new ethics rules for the U.S. Supreme Court) that, regardless of merit, should be expunged to remove easy lines of attack from opponents. Election law expert Rick Hasen wrote (Wa. Post account required) the best good-faith critique of HR. 1 we’ve seen. Jessica Huseman critiques the timeline for demands thrust upon election administrators in the bill (as passed by the House) and the Brennan Center published a thorough response to these critiques.

While expanding democracy should be a non-partisan cause, Republican Senators also have signaled their opposition. So passage of S. 1 will depend on the 48 Democratic and two Independent Senators valuing our voting rights enough to reform (or eliminate) the filibuster and force a vote on the merits of the bill. Democracy advocates received a boost on March 16 when President Biden announced his support for filibuster reform after months of proclaiming Republicans were capable of good faith negotiation.

Failing to pass the For the People Act will enable a wave of state-level voter suppression laws that could lock Republicans into control of (at least) the House of Representatives and many state legislatures for years to come. Let’s contact our Senators’ offices to urge reforming the filibuster and demand that S. 1  receive a hearing and vote. Along with direct communication to Senators, sending a letter to the editor of your local paper and calling in to talk radio shows are key ways to influence your Senators.

The writer, Jeff Milchen, founded Reclaim Democracy! Twitter: @JMilchen. Brittany Trushel provided research and formatting.

Thanks to Stephen Wolf’s Voting Rights Roundup newsletter from Daily Kos for helping follow and understand state and federal voting rights bills. To fully grasp the scope of voter suppression tactics in play, see 46 Ways to Disenfranchise and Suppress Voters.

Pass For the People Act., HR1

Related Reclaim Democracy Resources

The Multiplier Effect of Local Independent Business

by

By Jeff Milchen, with thanks to Stacy Mitchell.

Clearly communicating the importance of the local economic multiplier effect or “local premium” is a key part of effective “buy local” public education campaigns. The multiplier results from the fact that independent locally owned businesses recirculate a far greater percentage of revenue compared to absentee-owned businesses (or locally owned franchises). In other words, going local creates more local wealth and jobs.

The multiplier consists of three elements — the direct, indirect, and induced impacts.

  • Direct impact is spending done by a business in the local economy to operate the business, such as inventory, utilities, equipment, and employee pay.
  • Indirect impact happens as dollars the local business spent at other area businesses.
  • Induced impact refers to the additional consumer spending that happens as employees, business owners, and others spend their income in the local economy.

Private research firm Civic Economics has executed many studies quantifying the difference in local economic return between local independents and chain businesses. One such study in Austin, Texas showed an independent bookseller and music seller returned 3x as much money to the local economy as a proposed Borders Books and Music outlet would. The Austin Independent Business Alliance successfully used the study to rally opposition against a City-planned subsidy to attract a Borders Books and Music store.

Those results have been mirrored by subsequent studies (ten years of studies are summarized here), each showing a much greater local multiplier for spending at independent businesses than chains. These studies measured the direct and indirect impacts to determine the base level local economic activity of a purchase made at a chain and a local independent business.

On average, 48% of each purchase at local independent businesses was recirculated locally, compared to less than 14% of purchases at chain stores.

Civic Economics: Benefits of local business vs chains
Civic Economics: Benefits of local vs chains

The Institute for Local Self-Reliance conducted a study of the local multiplier effect in several small Maine communities in 2003. The study examined how much of a dollar spent at a local independent store is re-spent in the local area as payroll, goods/services purchased from area businesses, profits spent locally by owners, and donations to area charities. The study found that every $100 spent locally generated $45 of secondary local spending, compared to only $14 for a big-box chains — nearly identical to later results across the decade of Civic Economics studies.

Key Points

One study by Civic Economics has been the source of much confusion misrepresentation, to the detriment of many organizations. The study of Chicago’s Andersonville neighborhood found a total economic impact (i.e., direct, indirect, and induced) of $0.68 for each dollar spent at 10 local independents, compared to $0.43 for chain competitors. However, the projection of indirect and induced impacts does not mean $0.68 of each dollar spent at a local independent “stays” in the local economy, a widely spread inaccurate claim. It means $0.68 of additional local economic return is generated after additional spending cycles. Citing the higher numbers without including an explanation is wrong.

The Andersonville study examines just 10 businesses in one neighborhood of a large city, so we discourage extrapolating its findings too broadly. Businesses in smaller cities and towns typically have less ability to source many goods and services locally.

Be careful not to undermine the credibility of your group or campaign by presenting apples as oranges or statistically insignificant samples as a general truth! To gain respect as an authoritative voice within your community, we suggest you guard your credibility by checking your materials to ensure they convey verifiable, accurately worded information and only rely on primary sources. 

Stickiness

In addition to being accurate, make sure your message is memorable. Saying, “Independent retailers return more than 3x as much money per dollar of sales than chain competitors,” is more memorable than talking in terms of percentages or comparing $0.48 to $0.15. For restaurants, consider messages such as, “Per dollar of revenue, locally owned independent restaurants return twice as much to our local economy than chain restaurants.”

Buying remotely on the web creates almost no local benefit, only minutes of work for a delivery person. Calculating the added local wealth that would be generated by a 10% shift to local independents is one tactic successfully employed by several communities.

How much of each $100 stays in your community?
The local benefit of an online, remote sale depends on local driver wage, the size of the area (number of stops per hour), and distance to processing centers.

Study Variants

The size of the local premium varies depending on the type of business. Restaurants and service providers generate a large multiplier because they are labor-intensive and more of each dollar of revenue goes to local payroll. Most retailers, unless they source an exceptionally high percentage of their goods locally, also create a more modest multiplier than restaurants.

This is not to say restaurants are better for economic development than retail. May retailers have sizable revenue and professional job opportunities, which are important to any local economy. It’s just helpful to be aware of these differences because the mix of businesses involved in a particular study will influence the results.

Land Use

In 2009, Stay Local! in New Orleans commissioned Civic Economics to evaluate economic return per square foot of retail space used by both local merchants and Target Corporation. The local merchants studied generated twice as much sales activity per square foot and nearly quadrupled the local economic return per square foot compared to projections for Target. 

Quantifying Shifts in Spending

To gauge the overall impact on your local economy of shifting 10% of purchasing from absentee-owned to locally owned businesses, you would need to know the local multiplier for each category of spending and the percentage of peoples’ spending in each category. (e.g., 20% goes to groceries and the grocery multiplier is 0.15 or 5% goes to books and the local multiplier is 0.32).

How to Arrange an Editorial Board Meeting

by

(and Why You Should)

Editorial Board Meeting

Editorial boards are commentaries that reflect the official position of a newspaper. Generally, the board assigns an editorial to be written by the board member with the most expertise in the topic. Other members offer input on the editorial, which is often published unsigned.

Why request a meeting with the editorial board?

Editorials boards in your local and regional newspapers can make a big impact on the community. Because editorials reach many people, it’s worth investing time to build a relationship with your local editors and informing them of your position, concerns, and expertise. 

You can request a meeting with an editorial board to introduce yourself or your organization or ask them to write about an issue. One value of arranging an editorial board meeting is to make them aware that you’re a credible and knowledgeable local resource for future coverage. A face-to-face meeting (even virtually) can positively define you, your local group, and your work.

When preparing for your meeting with an editorial board, practice these useful tips for a meaningful and productive meeting:

  • Role play the meeting. Ask your group to brainstorm the toughest questions you may be asked on the subject, and challenge the meeting participants until they can provide concise, confident, and accurate answers. In advance, identify who will tackle which topics.
  • Bring two or three people. Or more, if warranted. Bring a diverse group representing a range of stakeholders in your community. If bringing someone who advertises with the paper and is also an expert in the area, DO NOT mention them as an advertiser.
  • Learn the players. Learn the board members, as well as what editorial position they may have taken about your issue. Be ready to build on or gently pivot from their beliefs; avoid clashing. The publisher, news editors, and relevant reporters may also participate. You can request a specific reporter’s coverage.
  • Learn the jargon. Familiarize yourself with the frequently used terms and the different types of newspaper pieces. Be ready to discuss the most-appropriate outlet for your message.
  • State exactly what you want. This may include a specific editorial (often a primary reason for the visit), asking for more coverage on issues, and let them know your expertise on the issues and why your perspective assists with thorough reporting.
  • Present your key points in 30 minutes. You’ll rarely have more than an hour, so present your key points early. You never know when an editor may be pulled away from the meeting.
  • Send key information before the meeting AND bring printed copies for all members. Most meetings will be virtual, but a background primer allows all attendees to focus more on key points. Limit backgrounders or fact sheets to 2-3 pages. Send sheets as a PDF.
  • Be credible. Do not overstate your case. Don’t try to answer questions that you can’t answer confidently. Admit you need time to check facts and get them an answer the same day.
  • Summarize your key points to close the meeting and make your request, again. Reiterate your key points; repeat your ask.
  • Send a thank you note, promptly. Thank all attendees for their time. Also use this opportunity to put in-writing any information that you lacked, including any fact-checked information.
  • If you don’t get the results you want, recognize that building long-term relationships is more important than a single story. You can always request the opportunity to submit an opinion piece (see our guide to op-ed writing and ask us for suggestions). If an factual error occurs, politely request a correction.
  • Make use of outside experts and “celebrities”. A prominent speaker, expert, or local “celebrity” can help you get in the door. If you have someone willing, take advantage of the opportunity and request a meeting. This tactic is especially useful for larger publications.

While this resource is geared toward newspaper editorial boards, you can also use these tips when meeting with a local TV or radio station. We also have a useful guide for calling into local talk radio shows.

Frequently Used Terms

Columnists usually are newspaper staff, writing to express their personal perspective.

Editorials are the collectively published opinions of the publication’s editors.

Letters to the editor (or LTEs) range from 100 – 300 words and are best for making a single point or responding to an article, op-ed, or editorial. Be sure to see our guide to writing effective LTEs.

Opinion editorials (or Op-eds) are commentaries from community members, freelance writers, or other columnists that usually range from 550-750 words. See our op-ed writing tips.

Other Tools for Activism