A century ago, voter suppression took the form of Jim Crow laws that openly attempted to prevent African-Americans from voting. Today, the methods of voter suppression may be more subtle, but they can be just as destructive.
Latinos are often targeted by modern voter suppression attempts, likely because they are the fastest growing segment of the electorate. More than 48 million people, or about 15.8 percent of the total U.S. population, identify as Hispanic or Latino. The Latino voter turnout rate was 49.9 percent in 2008, up from 47.2 percent in 2004. Unfortunately, Latino turnout rates are still significantly below those of whites (66.1 percent) and Blacks (65.2 percent).
In short, Latinos are an increasingly powerful and enthusiastic segment of the electorate, and political operatives are afraid of the potential ability Latinos have to swing elections. So, they do whatever it takes to keep Latino turnout rates low. In 2006, 14,000 registered Latino voters in California’s 47th district received a mailing warning that they could be jailed for voting. The letter implied that it was a crime for legal immigrants to vote, and that voting was “useless and dangerous” for Latinos. In 2004, many Latino voters in Cleveland were intimidated by challengers at the polls. In 2008, some Latino voters reported being threatened by private investigators who questioned the legitimacy of their citizenship and their voter registration. In Virginia, bogus flyers were posted around the state that purported to notify citizens that Election Day times had been changed, and directed Republicans to vote on November 4th (the actual election day) and Democrats to vote on November 5.
Unfortunately, the current election already has the perfect example of attempted suppression of the Latino vote. In Nevada, voter suppression took the form of a third party group putting out a television ad advising Latinos to stay home on Election Day. The ad has already been pulled, and hopefully the damage has been minimized, but this is a powerful reminder that voter suppression efforts are alive and well in the twenty-first century.
These are just the most blatant examples of illegal voter suppression tactics. Often, lobbyists and other operatives seeking to reduce Latino turnout will encourage state legislatures to pass laws that indirectly suppress the vote. For example, at least 19 state legislatures have considered enacting “proof of citizenship” laws that require applicants to demonstrate that they are citizens of the United States when registering to vote. Many of these proposed laws would require potential voters to produce an original birth certificate, naturalization papers or a passport. By placing additional and burdensome requirements on potential applicants, such laws inevitably lower turnout and discourage legitimate voters from making their voices heard on Election Day.
Arizona is the only state that actually enacted a proof of citizenship law, but that law was struck down just this week by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals for conflicting with the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA). Congress passed the NVRA with the intention of eliminating “state-imposed hurdles to registration” that drove down voter registration rates. The Arizona law, however, ignored the intention of Congress and imposed such a hurdle, a hurdle that disproportionately affected its Latino population. Arizona contended that its law was designed to reduce voter fraud, but as Project Vote (as well as the U.S. Department of Justice) has demonstrated multiple times, voter fraud is extremely rare, a fiction often used to disguise voter suppression attempts. In actuality, the primary effect of proof of citizenship laws is to discourage legitimate and eligible voters from participating in the democratic process.
It is critically important that these voter suppression tactics be seen for what they are. They are not mere “dirty tricks.” They are a deliberate and concerted attempt to disenfranchise entire groups of people that have increasingly shown over the past election cycles that they want to be represented in the electorate and have a voice in democracy.
Anthony Balady is a legal intern at Project Vote and second-year student at William & Mary Law School. Mr. Balady also serves as vice president of William & Mary’s Election Law Society and editor-in-chief of its election law blog, State of Elections.