DOCSLIB.ORG

Thumb on the Scale

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Thumb on the Scale Thumb On The Scale: Using Gerrymandering and Voter Suppression to Rig Elections Phil Warf Professor Political Science Mendocino College A Minority of Voters Controls the U.S. Senate Senators representing just 44% of the national population confirmed Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court Redistricting Why: To adjust for population changes When: Reapportionment happens after each census Where: State legislatures and U.S. House of Representatives Who? In 42 states, the legislature redraws district boundaries Requirements: 1. Equal population 2. Contiguity 3. Compactness Gerrymandering State senate district in Essex County Massachusetts 1812 2 kinds: Partisan & Bipartisan African American Voting Rights in the South 14th Amendment: Equal Protection 15th Amendment: Voting Rights Voter Suppression Methods White primaries Poll taxes Literacy tests Racial gerrymandering “Jim Crow” Wesberry v Sanders (1964) Culmination of several malapportionment cases U.S. House included in the “one person, one vote” standard Voting Rights Act of 1965 Established Federal oversight of elections in places with a history of racial discrimination Section 2 – Bans vote “denial” or “dilution” Section 5 - “Preclearance” of redistricting plans Based on Section 4 – Which states are covered and why Voting Rights Act Gutted 2013 Shelby County v. Holder Roberts: Preclearance review is “…based on 40-year-old facts having no logical Strikes down Section 4 relation to the present day.” 2019 Rucho v. Common Cause Alito: Redistricting is a “non-justiciable” question that should be left to (NC and MD cases) politicians, not courts. Reapportionment 2010 2020 Partisan Gerrymandering Proportional Packing Cracking A Bipartisan Gerrymander Could Result in 3 All Blue and 2 All Red Districts The Power of Redistricting Gerrymandering Texas 2002 2004 Democrats in charge of redistricting in 2001 Republicans win control of state legislature in 2003 Result: 17 Democrats,15 Republicans Result: 21 Republicans, 11 Democrats North Carolina Republican Vote Share North Carolina: and U.S. House Seats Won A Decade of Dominance Built Year Statewide Seats Won by Drawing Safe Districts Vote % (of 13) 2018 50 10 2016 53 10 2014 55% 10 2012 49% 9 2010 54% 6 (Dem drawn) Democrats Know How Gerrymander Too 2012-2014 North Carolina U.S. House Districts: An Unconstitutional Gerrymander 2016 map Voluntarily Redrawn Same Result Democratic Partisan Gerrymander Supreme Court Gives Green Light To Partisan Gerrymanders June 2019 – Rucho v Common Cause They may be "incompatible with democratic principles“ But they are not “justiciable” political questions “A districting map is alleged to be unconstitutional because it makes it too difficult for one party to translate statewide support into seats in the legislature. But such a claim is based on a 'norm that does not exist' in our electoral system—'statewide elections for representatives along party lines'. ... [Federal] courts are not equipped to apportion political power as a matter of fairness, nor is there any basis for concluding that they were authorized to do so.” Two Red Districts in NC May Turn Blue in 2020 OLD NEW PARTISAN PARTISAN DISTRICT LEAN LEAN 1st D+35 D+10 2nd R+13 D+19 3rd R+24 R+24 4th D+35 D+29 5th R+18 R+36 6th R+16 D+18 7th R+18 R+20 8th R+15 R+10 9th R+14 R+13 State Courts Ordered New Districts. 10th R+24 R+38 11th R+28 R+17 What do you notice about the 12th D+37 D+34 “partisan lean”? 13th R+10 R+36 Source: Daily Kos Reforming Redistricting Redistricting Commissions Now in 8 States California Citizens Redistricting Commission www.wedrawthelines.ca.gov Prop 20 (2010 - Congressional) Prop 11 (2008 – State Legislature) VOTER SUPPRESSION _________ Voter ID Laws State Voter ID Requirements Source: National Conference of State Legislatures www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/voter-id-history.aspx In Person Voter Fraud: An “Imaginary Problem” In-Person Voter Fraud 2000-2014 834,065,928 35 Credible Allegations Total Ballots Cast Source: Justin Levitt, Loyola Law School “News 21” Analysis 2000 – 2012 146 million registered voters and billions of votes cast Only 491 cases of absentee ballot fraud Just 10 cases of in-person fraud Have Investigations Found Significant In-Person Voter Fraud? Journalist Reviews? No Court rulings? Nope Federal Studies? Not there State Investigations? Negative Elections Officials Testimony? None Academic Research? Never Which Groups Are Less Likely to Have Valid Voter ID? 2016 Election Strong Evidence That Typically Democratic Voters Are Less Likely To Have Proper ID Wisconsin has “a preoccupation with 7 out of 7 mostly phantom election fraud” states studied found (Federal Judge, 2016) ownership lower among Black and Latino voters (GAO, 2014) Texas African-Americans 1.79 times and Latinos 2.42 times more 70% Proportion of those likely – than whites to lack the without proper ID who are required identification. likely Democratic voters (Federal Court Ruling, 2014) (FiveThirtyEight.com - 2012) Do Voter ID Laws Reduce Turnout of Likely Democratic Voters? North Carolina Voter ID laws “target African Americans with almost surgical precision.” 2-4% Reduction (Federal Court Ruling, 2016) in turnout of minority voters nationwide after Voter ID enacted (GAO, 2014) 7% decrease in Hispanic turnout (University of Chicago, 2017) Effect of Voter ID Laws on Turnout 2016 Study by: Zoltan Hajnal, Nazita Lajevardi and Lindsay Nielson But Research on the Impact of Voter ID Laws on Voter Turnout is Mixed 2014 GAO Review of 10 Academic Studies Why? Increased Turnout 1 study Those without ID are No Effect Turnout 5 studies much less likely to turn Decreased Turnout 4 studies out anyway. 2017 UC-Davis meta-analysis: Some others suggest “modest, if any” turnout effects mobilization efforts have been fairly effective 2017 Stanford study: no consistent effect on turnout 2019 Harvard Business School: no effect on turnout Voter Purging Simply means cleaning up voter rolls by deleting names from registration lists January 2017 to Election Day 2018 “Use It Or Lose It” Voters can be dropped if they miss elections and don’t respond to a mailed notice Florida Process About a Dozen States Purge Aggressively In 2020 “it’s going to be a much bigger program” January 2019 Voter Purges in Ohio Targeted Groups More Likely to Vote Democratic Georgia Voter Purges In Recent Election Years Georgia Registration Confirmation Notices 2017 About 500,000 Sent About 10% Returned Returned Not Returned Source: Georgetown Law Professor Paul M. Smith There Are Better Ways to Track Registration Purge Rates and the Voting Rights Act States previously covered by Section 5 Closing Polling Stations Voters in black neighborhoods waited, on average, 29% longer to vote than voters in predominantly white communities. (UCLA study) Reducing Early Voting “Of course it’s political. Why else would you do it?” More States Allowing Vote By Mail Or Absentee For 2020 Elections Growth of Early and Mail Voting Republicans More Likely To Vote In-Person Mail Balloting Does Not Lead to Voter Fraud This is about .000006% of all 14.2 million votes cast. Nearly 7 in 10 votes were cast by mail. Mail Voting Has Several Safeguards Identity verification by signature matching Use of bar codes can identify duplicates and allow voters to track their ballots Secure drop off locations Harsh penalties of up to $10,000 in most places Post-election audits Mail Ballot Deadlines May Cause Tight Mailing Windows .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • H.Doc. 108-224 Black Americans in Congress 1870-2007
    “The Negroes’ Temporary Farewell” JIM CROW AND THE EXCLUSION OF AFRICAN AMERICANS FROM CONGRESS, 1887–1929 On December 5, 1887, for the first time in almost two decades, Congress convened without an African-American Member. “All the men who stood up in awkward squads to be sworn in on Monday had white faces,” noted a correspondent for the Philadelphia Record of the Members who took the oath of office on the House Floor. “The negro is not only out of Congress, he is practically out of politics.”1 Though three black men served in the next Congress (51st, 1889–1891), the number of African Americans serving on Capitol Hill diminished significantly as the congressional focus on racial equality faded. Only five African Americans were elected to the House in the next decade: Henry Cheatham and George White of North Carolina, Thomas Miller and George Murray of South Carolina, and John M. Langston of Virginia. But despite their isolation, these men sought to represent the interests of all African Americans. Like their predecessors, they confronted violent and contested elections, difficulty procuring desirable committee assignments, and an inability to pass their legislative initiatives. Moreover, these black Members faced further impediments in the form of legalized segregation and disfranchisement, general disinterest in progressive racial legislation, and the increasing power of southern conservatives in Congress. John M. Langston took his seat in Congress after contesting the election results in his district. One of the first African Americans in the nation elected to public office, he was clerk of the Brownhelm (Ohio) Townshipn i 1855.
    [Show full text]
  • Gerrymandering Becomes a Problem
    VOLUME TWENTY FOUR • NUMBER TWO WINTER 2020 THE SPECIAL ELECTION EDITION A LEGAL NEWSPAPER FOR KIDS Gerrymandering Becomes a Problem Battling Over for the States to Resolve How to Elect by Phyllis Raybin Emert a President by Michael Barbella Gerrymandering on a partisan basis is not new to politics. The term gerrymander dates back to the 1800s when it was used to mock The debate on how the President Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry, who manipulated congressional of the United States should be elected lines in the state until the map of one district looked like a salamander. is almost as old as the country itself. Redistricting, which is the redrawing of district maps, happens every Contrary to popular belief, voters 10 years after the U.S. Census takes place. Whatever political party is do not elect the president and vice in power at that time has the advantage since, in most states, they president directly; instead, they choose are in charge of drawing the maps. electors to form an Electoral College “Partisan gerrymandering refers to the practice of politicians where the official vote is cast. drawing voting districts for their own political advantage,” During the Constitutional Convention says Eugene D. Mazo, a professor at Rutgers Law School and of 1787, a an expert on election law and the voting process. few ways to Professor Mazo explains that politicians, with the use of advanced computer elect the chief technology, use methods of “packing” and “cracking” to move voters around to executive were different state districts, giving the edge to one political party.
    [Show full text]
  • FIGHTING VOTER SUPPRESSION PRESENTED by ELLEN PRICE -MALOY APRIL 26, 2021 VIDEOS to WATCH Stacey Abrams on 3 Ways Votes Are Suppressed – Youtube
    FIGHTING VOTER SUPPRESSION PRESENTED BY ELLEN PRICE -MALOY APRIL 26, 2021 VIDEOS TO WATCH Stacey Abrams on 3 ways votes are suppressed – YouTube Stacey Abrams discussed with Jelani Cobb the three ways that voter suppression occurs in America: registration access restrictions, ballot access restriction... The History of U.S. Voting Rights | Things Explained Who can vote today looked a lot different from those who could vote when the United States was first founded. This video covers the history of voting rights, including women's suffrage, Black disenfranchisement, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the various methods American voters can cast their ballots today. For more episodes, specials, and ... 2020 election: What is voter suppression? Tactics used against communities of color throughout history, in Trump-Biden race - ABC7 San Francisco NEW YORK -- As Election Day draws close, some American citizens have experienced barriers to voting, particularly in communities of color. While stories about voter suppression across the nation ... SUPPORT DEMOCRACY H.R.1/S.1 The legislation contains several provisions to fight voter suppression, including national automatic voter registration, prohibitions on voter roll purging and federal partisan gerrymandering, and improved election security measures. It also strengthens ethics providing a strong enforcement of Congress’ Ethics Code – leading to prosecution of those who break the Ethics code and standards and for all three branches of government, e.g. by requiring presidential candidates to disclose 10 years of tax returns and prohibiting members of Congress from using taxpayer dollars to settle sexual harassment cases. The bill aims to curb corporate influence in politics by forcing Super PACs to disclose their donors, requiring government contractors to disclose political spending, and prohibiting coordination between candidates and Super PACs, among other reforms.
    [Show full text]
  • In the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
    No. 14-1382 In the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit TRINITY LUTHERAN CHURCH OF COLUMBIA, INC., Plaintiff–Appellant, v. SARA PARKER PAULEY, in her official capacity as Director of the Missouri Department of Natural Resources Solid Waste Management Program, Defendant–Appellant. On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri Civil Case No. 2:13-CV-04022-NKL – Judge Nanette K. Laughrey Brief Amicus Curiae of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty in Support of Appellant Eric S. Baxter Asma T. Uddin Diana M. Verm The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty 3000 K St. NW, Suite 220 Washington, DC 20007 (202) 349-7221 [email protected] Attorneys for Amicus Curiae RULE 26.1 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty has no parent corporations and issues no shares of stock. s/ Eric S. Baxter Eric S. Baxter The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty 3000 K Street, NW, Ste. 220 Washington, DC 20036 (202) 349-7221 [email protected] i TABLE OF CONTENTS RULE 26.1 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT ............................................ i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................ iv INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE ...................................................... 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................. 3 ARGUMENT ......................................................................................... 5 I. The State’s interpretation of its “no aid” provisions raises federal constitutional
    [Show full text]
  • Letter to Senate Leadership on Voting Rights
    Officers Chair Judith L. Lichtman National Partnership for Women & Families Vice Chairs Derrick Johnson NAACP June 8, 2021 Farhana Khera Muslim Advocates Thomas A. Saenz Mexican American Legal The Honorable Charles Schumer Defense and Educational Fund Secretary Majority Leader Fatima Goss Graves National Women's Law Center United States Senate Treasurer Lee A. Saunders American Federation of State, Washington, DC 20510 County & Municipal Employees Board of Directors Kimberly Churches The Honorable Mitch McConnell AAUW Alphonso B. David Minority Leader Human Rights Campaign Rory Gamble United States Senate International Union, UAW Jonathan Greenblatt Washington, DC 20510 Anti-Defamation League Mary Kay Henry Service Employees International Union Damon Hewitt Dear Majority Leader Schumer and Minority Leader McConnell: Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law Sherrilyn Ifill NAACP Legal Defense and Our organizations write to you in support of two critical pieces of legislation Educational Fund, Inc. David H. Inoue needed to protect the freedom to vote: For the People Act (FTPA) and the John Japanese American Citizens League Benjamin Jealous Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act (VRAA). Passage of both bills is essential to People for the American Way Derrick Johnson counter the unprecedented wave of voter suppression laws advancing in the states NAACP Virginia Kase and to protect Americans from further encroachments on their rights. Passing one League of Women Voters of the United States Samer E. Khalaf without the other simply will not be sufficient to ensure that all Americans—and American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee particularly Americans of color—have meaningful and equal access to the ballot. Marc Morial National Urban League Janet Murguía UnidosUS A.
    [Show full text]
  • Partisan Gerrymandering and the Construction of American Democracy
    0/-*/&4637&: *ODPMMBCPSBUJPOXJUI6OHMVFJU XFIBWFTFUVQBTVSWFZ POMZUFORVFTUJPOT UP MFBSONPSFBCPVUIPXPQFOBDDFTTFCPPLTBSFEJTDPWFSFEBOEVTFE 8FSFBMMZWBMVFZPVSQBSUJDJQBUJPOQMFBTFUBLFQBSU $-*$,)&3& "OFMFDUSPOJDWFSTJPOPGUIJTCPPLJTGSFFMZBWBJMBCMF UIBOLTUP UIFTVQQPSUPGMJCSBSJFTXPSLJOHXJUI,OPXMFEHF6OMBUDIFE ,6JTBDPMMBCPSBUJWFJOJUJBUJWFEFTJHOFEUPNBLFIJHIRVBMJUZ CPPLT0QFO"DDFTTGPSUIFQVCMJDHPPE Partisan Gerrymandering and the Construction of American Democracy In Partisan Gerrymandering and the Construction of American Democracy, Erik J. Engstrom offers an important, historically grounded perspective on the stakes of congressional redistricting by evaluating the impact of gerrymandering on elections and on party control of the U.S. national government from 1789 through the reapportionment revolution of the 1960s. In this era before the courts supervised redistricting, state parties enjoyed wide discretion with regard to the timing and structure of their districting choices. Although Congress occasionally added language to federal- apportionment acts requiring equally populous districts, there is little evidence this legislation was enforced. Essentially, states could redistrict largely whenever and however they wanted, and so, not surpris- ingly, political considerations dominated the process. Engstrom employs the abundant cross- sectional and temporal varia- tion in redistricting plans and their electoral results from all the states— throughout U.S. history— in order to investigate the causes and con- sequences of partisan redistricting. His analysis
    [Show full text]
  • Constitutional Intolerance to Religious Gerrymandering.Pdf
    Constitutional Intolerance to Religious Gerrymandering Jonathan J. Kim and Eugene Temchenko Can the government pass a law criminalizing consumption of alcohol everywhere except at bars, hotels, clubs, restaurants and private homes? In practice, the law would ban sacramental consumption of alcohol. Yet surprisingly, in many circuits this law would not offend the First Amendment. There is a four-way circuit split on how to treat explicit and implicit secular exemptions under Employment Division v. Smith and Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah. Some circuits disregard all exemptions so long as there is no evidence of discriminatory intent. Other circuits apply strict scrutiny to every law that contains a single secular exemption. But application of strict scrutiny in free exercise context rarely results in a victory for the religious group. A series of cases significantly watered down strict scrutiny in the free exercise clause context, leaving religious individuals without a constitutional right to free exercise of religion. The purpose of this Article is to address these two related issues: first, when do exemptions warrant scrutiny; and second, when do laws fail scrutiny? The Article argues that a law warrants scrutiny when it exempts secular conduct that undermines the objective of the law to the same extent as a religious exemption would. A law fails scrutiny, in turn, when the compelling government interest and the harm to third-parties does not outweigh the harm the law causes to a religious individual. The right to Free Exercise deserves greater protection. It is a right by which people express a core part of their identities.
    [Show full text]
  • Transgender and Gender-Nonconforming Voting Rights After Bostock
    UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA JOURNAL OF LAW ANDSOCIAL CHANGE Volume 24, Number 3 2021 TRANSGENDER AND GENDER-NONCONFORMING VOTING RIGHTS AFTER BOSTOCK BY MICHAEL MILOV-CORDOBA* & ALI STACK** Abstract. In Bostock v. Clayton County, the Supreme Court issued a landmark holding that allowed workplace protections for the LGBTQ+ community, including transgender people, to be subsumed into the Title VII provision prohibiting “sex” discrimination. Though Bostock was a Title VII case, the textualist logic of the majority opinion has important constitutional implications. In this article, we use Bostock as a point of departure to lay out two novel constitutional theories that further the voting rights of transgender and gender-nonconforming voters. Under our first theory, we argue that because Title VII and the Nineteenth Amendment have almost identical language, the underlying logic of Bostock should govern modern interpretations of the Nineteenth Amendment, meaning that the Amendment’s protections should extend to transgender and gender-nonconforming voters. Because the Nineteenth Amendment should be treated as an analogue to the Fifteenth Amendment, voting regulations that uniquely burden transgender and gender-nonconforming voters should be regarded as per se unconstitutional under the Nineteenth Amendment. Under our second theory, we argue that Bostock provides a stepping stone to elevate the standard of review for gender- based as-applied challenges to voting regulations that implicate gender classifications under the Fourteenth Amendment from Anderson-Burdick review to intermediate scrutiny. This article proposes that both theories offer opportunities to better address the barriers posed by the layering of voter ID laws on top of strict identity document requirements that transgender and gender non-confirming voters face at the ballot box.
    [Show full text]
  • The War on Voting Rights
    The War on Voting Rights John Shattuck Senior Fellow, Carr Center for Human Rights Policy and Professor of Practice in Diplomacy, The Fletcher School, Tufts University Aaron Huang Master in Public Policy Candidate, Harvard Kennedy School Elisabeth Thoreson-Green Master in Public Policy Candidate, Harvard Kennedy School CARR CENTER DISCUSSION PAPER SERIES Discussion Paper 2019-003 For Academic Citation: John Shattuck, Aaron Huang and Elisabeth Thoreson-Green. The War on Voting Rights. CCDP 2019-003, February 2019. The views expressed in Carr Center Discussion Paper Series are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of the Harvard Kennedy School or of Harvard University. Discussion Papers have not undergone formal review and approval. Such papers are included in this series to elicit feedback and to encourage debate on important public policy challenges. Copyright belongs to the author(s). Papers may be downloaded for personal use only. The War on Voting Rights About the Authors John Shattuck, Professor of Practice in Diplomacy, Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University; Senior Fellow, Carr Center for Human Rights Policy, Harvard Kennedy School; and Visiting Research Scholar, Social Sciences Matrix, University of California Berkeley (Spring 2019) Aaron Huang Master in Public Policy Candidate, Harvard Kennedy School Elisabeth Thoreson-Green Master in Public Policy Candidate, Harvard Kennedy School Carr Center for Human Rights Policy Harvard Kennedy School 79 JFK Street Cambridge, MA 02138 www.carrcenter.hks.harvard.edu
    [Show full text]
  • SW 504: Social Justice and Diversity in Social Work (August 29
    SW 504: Social Justice and Diversity in Social Work (August 29, 2017) Instructor: Laura Lein (https://ssw.umich.edu/faculty/profiles/tenure-track/leinl) Office: 3852 Phone: (734) 615-7379 Email: [email protected] Office Hours: Thursdays, 1-3 and by appointment (on campus most of Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday) Course Sections: 003 (UM # 25820) and 006 (25901) Day and Time: Tuesdays, 9 -12 (003) & Wednesdays, 2-5 (006) 3 Credits, no prerequisites Foundation HBSE Course Approved 4/29/14 Course Description This required foundation course is designed to increase students’ awareness, knowledge, and critical skills related to diversity, human rights, social and economic justice. The topics of this course include developing a framework for 1) engaging diversity and differences in social work practice and 2) advancing human rights and social and economic justice. We will explore the knowledge base that underlies skills needed to work towards justice. These include types and sources of power, multiple social locations, social constructions, social processes, social identities, conflicts, and how all these interact. A major emphasis is on developing skills in critical contextual thinking and analyses, and in praxis, learning to use knowledge and theory to recognize and critique underlying assumptions and paradigms, and inform working for change. Multiple kinds of boundaries are especially important— across groups, between organizations and system levels, and within and between people, related to intersecting social locations. Course Content Students will actively explore how societal power and diversity characterize and shape the human experience, and are critical to the formation of social structures, cultural understandings, group and organizational processes, and identities.
    [Show full text]
  • Expanding Voting Rights to All Citizens in the Era of Mass Incarceration
    Expanding Voting Rights to All Citizens in the Era of Mass Incarceration In order to strengthen democracy and address significant racial disparities, states must pass reforms establishing universal voting for people impacted by the criminal legal system. 5.2 million people in the United States are currently Disenfranchised People in U.S. Prisons, 2020 denied access to the vote because of a felony convic- tion. The number of people disenfranchised has grown, Total: 1.2 million from 1.2 million in 1976, as a product of mass incar- ceration and supervision. Of people denied the vote, 1 one in four (1,240,000) are currently incarcerated. While Latinx many states have expanded access to the vote for 17% people who have completed their sentences, only DC has joined Maine, Vermont, and Puerto Rico by granting Black full voting rights to people in prison. In order to strength- 39% en democracy and address significant racial disparities, All Others states must pass reforms establishing universal voting 44% for people impacted by the criminal legal system. The United States maintains far greater restrictions on voting while in prison than any other democratic country in the world. The Supreme Court of Canada has twice ruled in favor of protecting voting rights for people in As the United States maintains the highest incarceration prison, stating that the “denial of the right to vote on rate and largest prison population in the world, outdat- the basis of attributed moral unworthiness is inconsis- ed and undemocratic voting restrictions continue to tent with the respect for the dignity of every person that dilute political representation.
    [Show full text]
  • Christian Nationalism and Restricting Voter Access in the United States1
    1 Forthcoming at Sociological Forum “I Don’t Want Everybody to Vote”: Christian Nationalism and Restricting Voter Access in the United States1 Samuel L. Perry Department of Sociology University of Oklahoma Andrew L. Whitehead Department of Sociology Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis Joshua B. Grubbs Department of Psychology Bowling Green State University Abstract Though the persistence of voter suppression and disenfranchisement in the US is well- documented, we still know little about their contemporary ideological underpinnings beyond partisanship and racial resentment. Highlighting the Christian Right’s influence in driving anti- democratic sentiment in the post-Civil Rights era, we propose contemporary ideological support for restricting the vote generally, and specifically, to those who prove “worthy,” is undergirded by a pervasive ideology that cloaks authoritarian ethno-traditionalism with the ultimacy and polysemic utility of religious language―Christian nationalism. Nationally representative data collected weeks before the November 2020 elections reveal Christian nationalism is a leading predictor that Americans deny that voter suppression is a problem, believe that the US makes it “too easy to vote,” believe that voter fraud is rampant, and support measures to disenfranchise individuals who could not pass a basic civics test or who committed certain crimes. Interactions show Christian nationalism’s influence is particularly strong among men across most outcomes and, regarding voter suppression, whites compared to Blacks. We argue Christian nationalism seeks to institutionalize founding ideals in which civic participation is rooted in hierarchies, being restricted to a “worthy” few. Appeals to America’s religious heritage thus facilitate stratifying America’s citizenry and justifying restricting participation to preserve dominance.
    [Show full text]