Voting Rights Policy Statement

Position summary is courtesy of Aoife Stapleton with her review of my Master's Thesis.

Roberts Court and the Voting Rights Act

“All citizens of the United States who are otherwise qualified by law to vote at any election by the people in any State, Territory, district, county, city, parish, township, school district, municipality, or other territorial subdivision, shall be entitled and allowed to vote at all such elections, without distinction of race, color, or previous condition of servitude; any constitution, law, custom, usage, or regulation of any State or Territory, or by or under its authority, to the contrary notwithstanding” - Voting Rights Act of 1965

The United States has a long and storied history with voting rights legislation, beginning with only land-owning, white males when the Constitution was signed.  The vote has since been granted, on paper, to all men regardless of race and eventually women as well, with many bumps along the way.  Though many had this right in theory, very few did in practice.  The Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA), referenced above, sought to remedy the discrimination and exclusion happening at polling stations across the country where individuals and governments aimed to undermine, if not suspend completely, citizens’ rights to vote.  

Since voting practices in the United States are governed by the states, the VRA also enforced accountability for discriminatory practices and aimed to standardize voting access across the country.  One of the main ways in which this accountability took place was through the courts, most notably the Supreme Court.  With the passage of the VRA, individuals could sue based on voting discrimination in the hopes that the Court would find the behavior to be in violation of the law.  The Supreme Court has facilitated the removal of many discriminatory voting practices of the past, but these issues are not fully in the past.  Members of the Roberts Court today claim that “[o]ur country has changed” and that the protections against voting discrimination in the VRA are no longer necessary and have taken extraordinary steps to dismantle them.

The Roberts Court has whittled away many of the important protections against voting discrimination that were included in the VRA.  Notably, in Shelby County v. Holder (2013), the Court struck down a key provision of the VRA that allowed the federal government to review redrawn congressional districts to ensure that they do not discriminate or aim to strategically minimize the power of certain voters.  This removed an important safeguard against discriminatory voting laws and a wave of partisan redistricting occurred in ten states soon after the decision was released.  Building upon this in the majority decision of Rucho v. Common Cause (2019), the Court held that questions of partisan gerrymandering were “beyond the reach of the federal courts.”  This further shrank the ability of the courts to prevent states from drawing districts that minimized the voting power of certain groups, a practice that is still commonplace in our country.

The most recent wave of redistricting in advance of the midterm elections has been due, at least in part, to the Roberts Court’s attack on the VRA.  The new maps in Texas, North Carolina, and Missouri aimed at manufacturing additional seats for Republican congressmembers as well as California’s recently redrawn districts aimed at offsetting this behavior are all symptomatic of the Roberts Court’s belief that there is no longer an agenda to minimize the power of some votes in favor of broader political agendas.  

While a member of the House of Representatives cannot directly change the composition of the Roberts Court or control the decisions it makes, if elected I could help manage the implications of the Court’s decisions through advocating for laws that would regulate and minimize partisan gerrymandering.  Reintroducing a system that holds individual states accountable for trying to restrict the effects of a citizens’ vote is one of many steps that can be taken to ensure that this country lives up to its democratic ideals.

Image: Google search of voters waiting in long lines to cast their ballot.

Voter Intimidation

Another avenue through which the Voting Rights Act has been limited has been in preventing voter intimidation at polling stations across the country.  The VRA banned poll taxes, literacy tests, and grandfather clauses that were well-known methods of discriminating against certain voters leading up to 1965, but this list is far from all-encompassing with regards to discriminatory practices.  While federal law “prohibits intimidation, threats, and coercion throughout the voting process,” this does not prevent it from happening.

Voter intimidation can include any attempt made by an individual or group to interfere with one’s right to vote.  Below are a few examples of such behavior:

• “Aggressively questioning voters about their citizenship, criminal record, or other qualifications to vote, in a matter intended to interfere with the voters’ rights”

• “Falsely presenting oneself as an elections official”

• “Spreading false information about voter requirements, such as the ability to speak English, or the need to present certain types of photo identification (in states with no such requirement)”

• “Displaying false or misleading signs about voter fraud and the related criminal penalties”

• “Other harassment, particularly toward non-English speakers or voters of color”

Given recent events regarding immigration enforcement, threats of federal intervention in election proceedings, and certain instances from previous elections, there are many contributors to anxiety surrounding voting in the upcoming election.  Misinformation campaigns and direct targeting of minority communities have led to reduced voter turnout, which has a direct impact on the representativeness of our democracy.  These are real concerns that have only grown in the past few years and can present a substantial barrier for many in our communities.  Voting is an important right given to American citizens and nobody should feel scared in any way to exercise it, but unfortunately there are members of our current government who do not believe the same.  

If elected, I hope to help eliminate all forms of voter intimidation, but until then I implore you to vote, but to do so safely.  Watch out for yourself and your community members and be aware of your rights as you fill out your ballot.

If you or someone you know witness’s voter intimidation, you can report it.  You can reach out to the Election Protection Hotline at 1-866-OUR-VOTE or 1-888-VE-Y-VOTA (en Español), the Department of Justice Voting Rights Hotline at (800) 253-3931, or your local and state officials.

Why You Should Still Vote

“If voting made any difference, they wouldn’t let us do it” — Mark Twain

Utilizing gerrymandering, voter intimidation, and other more subtle methods, many politicians have made voting more inconvenient and have eroded faith in a fair election outcome.  Nevertheless, voting is still the main way we can change our government and hopefully prevent these patterns from continuing.  Although it may not always be easy, I implore you to still vote.

It is easy to think one ballot is insignificant when it is one of 154 million cast on Election Day across the entirety of the United States.  When we add to this the extra inconveniences that may be in place to dissuade people from voting, it is not surprising that only 65.3% of eligible Americans voted in the 2024 election.  Many scholars argue that we are more likely to vote if the benefits of casting a ballot outweigh the associated costs, appearing in the form of enduring long lines at polling stations, withstanding voter intimidation, or taking time off work to fill in and submit a ballot.  There needs to be some belief that an individual ballot matters to provide benefit, otherwise it’s just another piece of paper.  This faith in our ability to effect change is what has been eroded rapidly in the past ten years and, consequently, it now may seem easier to not vote.

I wrote my master’s thesis on the ability of elected officials, particularly state-level Secretaries of State, to capitalize on voters’ incentives to abstain to lessen voter turnout.  This is an issue I feel strongly about and one that has not become less salient over time.  Through my research, I found that there is an incentive for those in power to create extra barriers to voting, sometimes to target specific voters based on their race or socioeconomic status.  Elected officials know that by making the act of voting more inconvenient, fewer people will vote.  The scary thing is that this strategy works.

You may feel that your views align with the majority for your district and that your views will be expressed even in the absence of your ballot, or, on the contrary, maybe you identify with the perceived minority, and it does not feel worth the effort to express a seemingly contradictory opinion.  In either case, there is value in your ballot.  In the face of uncertainty, voting is still the most direct way that we have a say in how our government works.  Even if one ballot may feel inconsequential on a national scale, consider the local elections on that same ballot.  There are so many issues that shape day to day life on a city, district, or state level where there are far fewer ballots being cast.  On a local level, the issues being decided can have a much more direct impact on day-to-day life, meaning there is a clearer benefit to voting.  

Voting may not be the most convenient this election cycle, but there is still more to be gained by filling in a ballot than by leaving it blank.  “Elections aren’t just about who votes, but who doesn’t vote,” and if we let others make us think it’s not worth the hassle, then we are only giving them more power.

---

NOTES

1. “52 U.S. Code § 10101 - Voting rights.” n.d. Legal Information Institute. Accessed February 16, 2026. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/10101.

2. “Guides: Voting and Civic Engagement: History of Voting in America.” 2025. Subject Guides & Course Guides. https://guides.library.unt.edu/voting/history-of-voting-America.

3. For an overview of the many racial biases that shaped who could and could not vote throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, see https://guides.library.unt.edu/voting/history-of-voting-America.

4. “Shelby County v. Holder | 570 U.S. 529 (2013) | Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center.” 2013. Supreme Court. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/570/529/.

5. Adelman, Lynn, The Roberts Court's Assault on Democracy (February 18, 2020). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3540318.

6. Adelman, Lynn, The Roberts Court's Assault on Democracy (February 18, 2020). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3540318, p. 147

7. “Resource Changing the Maps: Tracking Mid-Decade Redistricting.” 2026. National Conference of State Legislatures. https://www.ncsl.org/redistricting-and-census/changing-the-maps-tracking-mid-decade-redistricting.

8. “Voter Intimidation Under Federal Law.” n.d. Justice.gov. Accessed February 16, 2026. https://www.justice.gov/crt/media/1348556/dl?inline.

9. The following quoted examples are from https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_pdf_file/kyr-voterintimidation-v03.pdf

10. Wilson, Mel. n.d. “Voter Intimidation: A Tool in the Far-Right’s 2024 Strategic Plan.” NASW. Accessed February 16, 2026. https://www.socialworkers.org/Advocacy/Social-Justice/Social-Justice-Briefs/Voter-Intimidation-A-Tool-in-the-Far-Rights-2024-Strategic-Plan.

11. Additional resources can be found at https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_pdf_file/kyr-voterintimidation-v03.pdf

12. This number comes from Census Data on the 2024 election cycle, accessible at https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2025/2024-presidential-election-voting-registration-tables.html

13. This number comes from Census Data on the 2024 election cycle, accessible at https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2025/2024-presidential-election-voting-registration-tables.html

14.  Ferejohn, John A., and Morris P. Fiorina. “The Paradox of Not Voting: A Decision Theoretic Analysis.” The American Political Science Review 68, no. 2 (1974): 525–36. https://doi.org/10.2307/1959502.

15. Carin Elam, Master thesis Public Administration: International & European Governance, June 4, 2019