{"id":10225,"date":"2016-11-03T17:05:40","date_gmt":"2016-11-03T21:05:40","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/?p=10225"},"modified":"2016-11-20T22:44:25","modified_gmt":"2016-11-21T03:44:25","slug":"the-reality-behind-americas-rigged-electoral-system","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/the-reality-behind-americas-rigged-electoral-system\/","title":{"rendered":"The Reality Behind America\u2019s \u201cRigged\u201d Electoral System"},"content":{"rendered":"

In the wake of sexual assault scandals and falling poll numbers, Donald Trump has increasingly suggested that voter fraud (and not his awful personality) may lose him the election this November.\u00a0 Last week, Trump told a crowd of Wisconsin supporters: \u00a0\u201cThey even want to try to rig the election at the polling booths, and believe me, there\u2019s a lot going on \u2026 voter fraud is very, very common<\/a>.\u201d [pullquote]Trump told a crowd of Wisconsin supporters: \u00a0\u201cThey even want to try to rig the election at the polling booths, and believe me, there\u2019s a lot going on \u2026 voter fraud is very, very common<\/a>.\u201d[\/pullquote] Last Monday, the Republican presidential candidate tweeted, \u201c[o]f course there is large scale voter fraud<\/a> happening on and before election day. Why do Republican leaders deny what is going on? So naive!\u201d<\/p>\n

While Trump\u2019s conspiratorial rhetoric seems to echo the irrational, desperate yelps of a wounded and cornered animal, it may well resonate in the public mind.\u00a0 A recent national Economist\/YouGov poll found that over two-thirds (72%) of voters surveyed were very or somewhat concerned<\/a> about the security of the nation\u2019s electoral system.\u00a0 Furthermore, Trump\u2019s statements reflect a larger political narrative, spun over the course of two decades<\/a>, which claims that Democrats steal elections through voter fraud.<\/p>\n

The problem and threat underlying the voter fraud debate is almost entirely chimeric, phantasmal, ideological, and ungrounded.\u00a0 Scholarly consensus holds that voter fraud is extremely rare<\/a>, and numerous studies have supported the notion that not only does intentional voting malfeasance scarcely take place; it is actually quite difficult to accomplish<\/a>.\u00a0 For example, a comprehensive, ongoing study by Loyola Law School professor Justin Levitt found only 31 credible incidents<\/a> of voter impersonation between 2000 and 2014, during which time more than 1 billion votes were cast.\u00a0 As Wendy Weiser of New York University\u2019s Brennan Center for Justice has said: \u201cYou are more likely to be struck by lightning, more likely to see a UFO<\/a>, than to be a victim of voter fraud.\u201d<\/p>\n

Despite the fact that voter fraud constitutes not even a noticeable reality<\/em>, much less a significant factor in elections, conservative news organizations like Fox News repeatedly highlight cases and dangers of alleged fraud<\/a>; Trump has urged supporters to physically monitor polling places<\/a> and even try to cast a second ballot<\/a> (which would<\/em> constitute fraud); and political operatives admit that they\u2019ve endorsed voter fraud rumors and proposed voting requirements in order to gain political advantage<\/a>.\u00a0 Within the past presidential term, 14 states<\/a> have enacted new voting restriction laws.\u00a0 Many of these restrictions\u2014including mandated English-only ballots, strict voter ID laws, reduction of polling places, and aggressive purging of voter rolls (often through voter caging<\/a>)\u2014would not have been allowed before Shelby County v. Holder<\/em><\/a>,<\/em> which overturned Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, eliminating the accountability measures long-imposed on states with histories of serious discrimination.\u00a0 Ironically, but perhaps not surprisingly, most of the restrictions have been justified by the claimed necessity of mitigating<\/a> voter fraud.\u00a0 Did I mention that that\u2019s mostly a myth?<\/p>\n

Unfortunately, while the problems are imagined and the fears invented, the political fight over voter fraud engenders more than political gamesmanship.\u00a0 Though the problem addressed isn\u2019t real, efforts to prevent and combat voter fraud do real harm to people<\/em>, particularly people who\u2019ve been disenfranchised historically\u2014African-Americans, Latinos, indigenous people, the elderly, people in poverty and people with disabilities.\u00a0 English-only election ballots pose obvious challenges for the 61.8 million people<\/a> in the U.S. (21% of the population) who speak a non-English language at home; many of these people are citizens legally entitled to vote, regardless of the assumptions made about them.\u00a0 Reduction of polling places (and the long lines it produces) disproportionately affect people of color and low-income individuals<\/a>, who are less likely to have a car with which to drive to a faraway polling place and who can less afford to take time off from their jobs.\u00a0 As Phoenix Mayor Greg Stanton said (after Arizona\u2019s presidential primary was mired by 5-hour lines and ballot shortages<\/a>) the problem includes but is not limited to reduction of polling places; distribution<\/em> of polling places also tends to be \u201cfar more favorable<\/a> in predominantly Anglo communities.\u201d<\/p>\n

Finally, while something of a non-issue for relatively wealthy people with driver\u2019s licenses and passports, strict voter ID laws effectively prohibit the 11% of American citizens<\/a> who have no government-issued photo ID from exercising their right to vote.\u00a0 Moreover, the impact is racially discriminatory:\u00a0 A widely-cited Brennan Center study<\/a> determined that \u201ctwenty-five percent of African-American voting-age citizens have no current government-issued photo ID, compared to eight percent of white voting-age citizens.” \u00a0Another study by the Black Youth Project<\/a> found that young black and Latino voters were asked to show identification in order to vote at much higher rates (72.9% and 60.8% respectively) than were young white voters (50.8%).\u00a0 As summarized by a recent working paper<\/a> from political scientists at UC San Diego (who controlled for exogenous factors<\/a> like age, education, income, marital status, and other laws that affect participation), voter ID laws \u201chave a differentially negative impact on the turnout of Hispanics, Blacks, and mixed-race Americans in primaries and general elections \u2026 skew[ing] democracy in favor of whites and those on the political right.”<\/p>\n

It has been over 50 years since the Voting Rights Act was passed, but social inequality along racial and economic lines remains deeply entrenched.\u00a0 The increasingly vehement claims of, and warnings against, voter fraud are based on imagined conspiracies, abstract prejudices, and ideologically-fueled fights for power and control of the electorate.\u00a0 Yet as ethereal as voter fraud concerns might be\u2014surely are<\/em>\u2014the attempts to address the concerns through voting restrictions have caused and continue to lead to the very real<\/em>, physical and political disenfranchisement of low-income people, people of color, and other marginalized groups.<\/p>\n

In a sense, Donald Trump is right:\u00a0 the American electoral system is<\/em> rigged.\u00a0 It\u2019s not rigged against Donald Trump, but it is rigged against\u00a0participation and equality.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In the wake of sexual assault scandals and falling poll numbers, Donald Trump has increasingly suggested that voter fraud (and […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":137,"featured_media":10227,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_exactmetrics_skip_tracking":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_active":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_note":"","_exactmetrics_sitenote_category":0,"site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"","ast-site-content-layout":"default","site-content-style":"default","site-sidebar-style":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","ast-disable-related-posts":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","astra-migrate-meta-layouts":"default","ast-page-background-enabled":"default","ast-page-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"ast-content-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":true,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[3,775,42],"tags":[1226,499,1012,644,643,1227],"coauthors":[907],"class_list":["post-10225","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-amicus","category-racial-justice","category-voting-and-elections-rights","tag-disenfranchisement","tag-shelby-v-holder","tag-trump","tag-voter-fraud","tag-voter-id","tag-voter-suppression"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/80\/2016\/11\/Voter-Fraud-photo.jpg","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/peZrWS-2EV","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10225","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/137"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=10225"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10225\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/10227"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=10225"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=10225"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=10225"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=10225"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}