As a part of my project, I distributed a survey to random people asking about how they perceive voter suppression and voter fraud in the United States. I was able to interview some of the respondents to learn more about their answers. On this page I have highlight the most important points the respondents made. I will also include some of the general survey results and a brief analysis of their meanings.
I also had the opportunity to interview prominent voting rights activists, including journalist Ari Berman and Harvard Professor Lawrence Lessig. I was also able to sit in on a webinar featuring Stacey Abrams and Senators Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, and Mazie Hirono. I highlight the most important points made during the webinar on this page as well.
I also had the opportunity to interview prominent voting rights activists, including journalist Ari Berman and Harvard Professor Lawrence Lessig. I was also able to sit in on a webinar featuring Stacey Abrams and Senators Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, and Mazie Hirono. I highlight the most important points made during the webinar on this page as well.
Ari Berman Interview
Unfortunately I was unable to record my interview with Mr. Berman conducted via phone on February 8, 2021, but I was able to take notes on his responses to the questions I asked. Here are what I believe his most important points were throughout the interview. Before reading, know that his responses are reconstruction based on the notes I took during our phone call.
Question: Now that the 2020 election has passed, what rating would you give to the United States as a whole? Did we substantially succeed in conducting the election by mail?
Berman: All things considered, the election went pretty smoothly given all the chaos. I was expecting more problems than we saw, mostly due to the Herculean efforts around voter registration and ensuring that people were actually able to vote. While the election itself was not tumultuous, the aftermath was very shaky. Ballots and the overall result of the election were challenged at every step of the way by Republicans. These challenges to a fairly conducted election set a very bad precedent for the future, where millions of Americans are convinced that our election system is illegitimate. Additionally, this election politicized something that should be fairly routine: the election system. Now, faith in our election system has been split along party lines, which is not a good position to be in. Overall, I'd give the election itself an A, but the post-election was a D.
Question: What would you tell the people (who stormed the Capitol on January 6th) that genuinely believe a massive amount of voter fraud took place in the 2020 election? What would you tell these people that actually think they had the election stolen from them?
Berman: Quite frankly it's just not true. Large scale fraud is always caught because of the abnormalities that begin to appear. There will almost never be a situation in which someone gets away with fraud to the extent that it will have an impact on the election. Additionally, we have processes in place to prevent actual voter fraud.
Question: Would instituting a national popular vote or some other type of election system help address the issue? Should the entire United States adopt a system similar to the one used by Maine and Nebraska (electors awarded proportionally rather than winner-take-all)?
Berman: Having a national popular vote is the simplest way to elect somebody. It remove many of the administrative roadblocks and provides less opportunities for politicians to try to suppress votes. The Electoral College and Congressional lines are somewhat of an interrelated issue. The truth is that both systems negatively impact Republicans and Democrats. If you are the opposition party in any non-swing state, your vote simply does not matter. It's an indefensible system, and it h as only been preserved so long because Republicans believe that it hurts Democrats more than it hurts them. There is some truth to that reasoning, but nonetheless our current systems hurt Republican voters as well. Sing states also do not want to give up their swing state status because they like the money invested and the attention they are given. States like Pennsylvania and Florida would not be too happy with losing the benefits of being a swing state. On the topic of districting, it normally just leads to bad outcomes, and nobody is held accountable.
Question: Throughout my project, I have realized that the perpetrators of voter suppression are almost exclusively Republicans. Do you think this has to do with the Republican Party's incapability of appealing to diverse demographics? If so, what will the Republican Party have to do if/when they can no longer rely on voter suppression to maintain their status as a competitive political party?
Berman: The Republican Party is afraid of Black people voting. The Republican voter base is almost exclusively white for obvious reasons: nonwhites do not like Republican policies. Republicans are afraid of votes that are different. The United States is becoming increasingly more diverse. Thus, policies that only appeal to white people, such as extremely tight borders, are going to quickly fall out of favor. As the Republican Party becomes less and less sustainable, they will need to reach out to new voters rather than suppress their votes. Part of reaching out to new voters also requires the creation of more inclusive policies. If the Republican Party were to expand their voter base, they would no longer be able to rely on voter suppression because they would be shooting themselves in the foot a lot more than they are now. It is quite a predicament for them.
Question: Do you think the Republican Party has reached a schism over the events that took place on January 6, 2021? Some Republicans, like Brad Raffensperger, were unwilling to challenge the election outcome, while others, like Trump and his allies, tested the results at every step of the way. If so, why do you think Republicans split over this issue? How are these camps going to reconcile over voter suppression and Trump as a whole, if at all?
Berman: Right now, because of Trump, the Republican Party is closer to the Marjorie Taylor Greene's (Representative from Georgia) of the world rather than the Mitt Romney's (Senator from Utah). The Republican Party has become divided on what exactly constitutes voter suppression. There is a relative consensus among the Republican Party that photo IDs and cutting mail in voting are not examples of voter suppression. They start to disagree, however, when it comes to trying to overturn an election. Most Republicans are willing to lightly suppress votes, but when it comes to flipping elections, the numbers shrink. Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger is a prime example of "this is too far." Raffensperger was willing to support photo ID policies, but when Trump asked him to create nearly 12,000 votes, he was staunchly against it. In short, the split in the Republican Party can be identified as different levels of political morality.
Question: Do you think what happened this year (2020) in Georgia with the massive black voter turnout will be something that continues in both Georgia and beyond? Or is this simply a one-time phenomenon resulting from the work of Stacey Abrams and other voting rights activists?
Berman: Turnout is always higher in an election when there is more interest. There is more interest in an election when there is a lot on the line, which was especially the case in 2020. Voters lived through four years of Trump, and realized just how much was on the line, which is why they turned out. Groups like Fair Fight did a great job both helping people voter and trying to create more options for them to vote. Their advocacy for automatic registration, early voting, and mail-in voting also definitely increased the turnout. I think the turnout can be chalked up to a combination of organizing, the importance of the races, and the voting system (which is very good in Georgia). As for the Senate runoffs, I think Senator Warnock was able to win because he is very reflective of the community in and around Atlanta. Senator Ossoff was also able to win because so many people turned out to push through Biden and Warnock in Georgia.
Question: Do you think we will be able to rely on the Supreme Court to undo Shelby County in a ruling (which is especially unlikely given the current composition of the Court), or do you think it falls more on the shoulders of Congress to pass something like the John Lewis Voting Rights Extension Act? With the narrowly Democratic majority in the Senate, do you think this could get passed? Do you think Biden should prioritize this?
Berman: Biden should definitely try to pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Act. The bigger question is if the current Supreme Court will allow it to go through. Given it's strong conservative composition, it is a pretty shaky situation. Democrats, however, believe that all three of Trump's appointees (definitely two of them, being Barrett and Gorsuch) are illegitimate. Gorsuch was appointed after Merrick Garland was blocked by McConnell, Kavanaugh was pushed through by Republicans following the sexual assault revelations, and Coney Barrett was pushed through quickly following Ruth Bader Ginsburg's death, when Republicans broke their own precedent. Democrats are definitely looking to court expansion. The Roberts Court does not really believe that the restrictions are too burdensome, but rather believes that federal law should not prevent states from doing what they want (in this case suppress votes). Either way, restoring the Voting Rights Act will face a challenge in the courts.
Question: Why have we been unable to make this a national holiday when it's a pretty sensible and widely supported thing to do. What ideal solutions would you propose?
Berman: In 2020 we saw such a high turnout in part because of how many voting options were made available in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. People could vote by mail, vote early, vote from their car, among other options. Adding a national holiday would help facilitate this idea of accessibility. We should also push to make the right to vote a part of the Constitution. As it stands, the Constitution only prevents restrictions, but does not guarantee the right. We just need to make voting as convenient as possible. We should add Election Day registration, automatic registration, mail, early, and in-person voting. The system should reflect the people.
Question: In a broader context, how can we best fight voter suppression at both an individual and organizational level?
Berman: The best thing to do is to support the John Lewis Voting Rights Act. There is definitely support in the Senate for it, and there is certainly room for bipartisan support in election reform. States like Utah have a very progressive voting system despite being conservative. This is because rural and older Republicans also need to vote by mail. There is certainly room for some agreement, but extreme structural change will likely only happen during a time of crisis when one party has a massive majority.
Berman: All things considered, the election went pretty smoothly given all the chaos. I was expecting more problems than we saw, mostly due to the Herculean efforts around voter registration and ensuring that people were actually able to vote. While the election itself was not tumultuous, the aftermath was very shaky. Ballots and the overall result of the election were challenged at every step of the way by Republicans. These challenges to a fairly conducted election set a very bad precedent for the future, where millions of Americans are convinced that our election system is illegitimate. Additionally, this election politicized something that should be fairly routine: the election system. Now, faith in our election system has been split along party lines, which is not a good position to be in. Overall, I'd give the election itself an A, but the post-election was a D.
Question: What would you tell the people (who stormed the Capitol on January 6th) that genuinely believe a massive amount of voter fraud took place in the 2020 election? What would you tell these people that actually think they had the election stolen from them?
Berman: Quite frankly it's just not true. Large scale fraud is always caught because of the abnormalities that begin to appear. There will almost never be a situation in which someone gets away with fraud to the extent that it will have an impact on the election. Additionally, we have processes in place to prevent actual voter fraud.
Question: Would instituting a national popular vote or some other type of election system help address the issue? Should the entire United States adopt a system similar to the one used by Maine and Nebraska (electors awarded proportionally rather than winner-take-all)?
Berman: Having a national popular vote is the simplest way to elect somebody. It remove many of the administrative roadblocks and provides less opportunities for politicians to try to suppress votes. The Electoral College and Congressional lines are somewhat of an interrelated issue. The truth is that both systems negatively impact Republicans and Democrats. If you are the opposition party in any non-swing state, your vote simply does not matter. It's an indefensible system, and it h as only been preserved so long because Republicans believe that it hurts Democrats more than it hurts them. There is some truth to that reasoning, but nonetheless our current systems hurt Republican voters as well. Sing states also do not want to give up their swing state status because they like the money invested and the attention they are given. States like Pennsylvania and Florida would not be too happy with losing the benefits of being a swing state. On the topic of districting, it normally just leads to bad outcomes, and nobody is held accountable.
Question: Throughout my project, I have realized that the perpetrators of voter suppression are almost exclusively Republicans. Do you think this has to do with the Republican Party's incapability of appealing to diverse demographics? If so, what will the Republican Party have to do if/when they can no longer rely on voter suppression to maintain their status as a competitive political party?
Berman: The Republican Party is afraid of Black people voting. The Republican voter base is almost exclusively white for obvious reasons: nonwhites do not like Republican policies. Republicans are afraid of votes that are different. The United States is becoming increasingly more diverse. Thus, policies that only appeal to white people, such as extremely tight borders, are going to quickly fall out of favor. As the Republican Party becomes less and less sustainable, they will need to reach out to new voters rather than suppress their votes. Part of reaching out to new voters also requires the creation of more inclusive policies. If the Republican Party were to expand their voter base, they would no longer be able to rely on voter suppression because they would be shooting themselves in the foot a lot more than they are now. It is quite a predicament for them.
Question: Do you think the Republican Party has reached a schism over the events that took place on January 6, 2021? Some Republicans, like Brad Raffensperger, were unwilling to challenge the election outcome, while others, like Trump and his allies, tested the results at every step of the way. If so, why do you think Republicans split over this issue? How are these camps going to reconcile over voter suppression and Trump as a whole, if at all?
Berman: Right now, because of Trump, the Republican Party is closer to the Marjorie Taylor Greene's (Representative from Georgia) of the world rather than the Mitt Romney's (Senator from Utah). The Republican Party has become divided on what exactly constitutes voter suppression. There is a relative consensus among the Republican Party that photo IDs and cutting mail in voting are not examples of voter suppression. They start to disagree, however, when it comes to trying to overturn an election. Most Republicans are willing to lightly suppress votes, but when it comes to flipping elections, the numbers shrink. Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger is a prime example of "this is too far." Raffensperger was willing to support photo ID policies, but when Trump asked him to create nearly 12,000 votes, he was staunchly against it. In short, the split in the Republican Party can be identified as different levels of political morality.
Question: Do you think what happened this year (2020) in Georgia with the massive black voter turnout will be something that continues in both Georgia and beyond? Or is this simply a one-time phenomenon resulting from the work of Stacey Abrams and other voting rights activists?
Berman: Turnout is always higher in an election when there is more interest. There is more interest in an election when there is a lot on the line, which was especially the case in 2020. Voters lived through four years of Trump, and realized just how much was on the line, which is why they turned out. Groups like Fair Fight did a great job both helping people voter and trying to create more options for them to vote. Their advocacy for automatic registration, early voting, and mail-in voting also definitely increased the turnout. I think the turnout can be chalked up to a combination of organizing, the importance of the races, and the voting system (which is very good in Georgia). As for the Senate runoffs, I think Senator Warnock was able to win because he is very reflective of the community in and around Atlanta. Senator Ossoff was also able to win because so many people turned out to push through Biden and Warnock in Georgia.
Question: Do you think we will be able to rely on the Supreme Court to undo Shelby County in a ruling (which is especially unlikely given the current composition of the Court), or do you think it falls more on the shoulders of Congress to pass something like the John Lewis Voting Rights Extension Act? With the narrowly Democratic majority in the Senate, do you think this could get passed? Do you think Biden should prioritize this?
Berman: Biden should definitely try to pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Act. The bigger question is if the current Supreme Court will allow it to go through. Given it's strong conservative composition, it is a pretty shaky situation. Democrats, however, believe that all three of Trump's appointees (definitely two of them, being Barrett and Gorsuch) are illegitimate. Gorsuch was appointed after Merrick Garland was blocked by McConnell, Kavanaugh was pushed through by Republicans following the sexual assault revelations, and Coney Barrett was pushed through quickly following Ruth Bader Ginsburg's death, when Republicans broke their own precedent. Democrats are definitely looking to court expansion. The Roberts Court does not really believe that the restrictions are too burdensome, but rather believes that federal law should not prevent states from doing what they want (in this case suppress votes). Either way, restoring the Voting Rights Act will face a challenge in the courts.
Question: Why have we been unable to make this a national holiday when it's a pretty sensible and widely supported thing to do. What ideal solutions would you propose?
Berman: In 2020 we saw such a high turnout in part because of how many voting options were made available in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. People could vote by mail, vote early, vote from their car, among other options. Adding a national holiday would help facilitate this idea of accessibility. We should also push to make the right to vote a part of the Constitution. As it stands, the Constitution only prevents restrictions, but does not guarantee the right. We just need to make voting as convenient as possible. We should add Election Day registration, automatic registration, mail, early, and in-person voting. The system should reflect the people.
Question: In a broader context, how can we best fight voter suppression at both an individual and organizational level?
Berman: The best thing to do is to support the John Lewis Voting Rights Act. There is definitely support in the Senate for it, and there is certainly room for bipartisan support in election reform. States like Utah have a very progressive voting system despite being conservative. This is because rural and older Republicans also need to vote by mail. There is certainly room for some agreement, but extreme structural change will likely only happen during a time of crisis when one party has a massive majority.
Lawrence Lessig Interview
I had the opportunity to speak by Zoom on February 9, 2021, with Professor Lawrence Lessig, Roy L. Furman Professor of Law and Leadership at Harvard Law School, on voter suppression and unrepresentativeness as a whole. I have selected what I believe to be the most important points, and have included clips of the interview below.
Why is it only Republicans suppressing votes?
Schism in the Republican Party following the January 6th riot?
Structural unrepresentativeness in the United States
Webinar
I had the opportunity to sit it on a February 25, 2021 webinar via Zoom, sponsored by Fair Fight with Stacey Abrams and Democratic Senators Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, and Mazie Hirono. I transcribed what I consider to be the most significant parts.
Stacey Abrams: January 6th served as a very stark and dangerous reminder of just how fragile our democracy is. I would like to hear your thoughts on why the urgency of this conversation was renewed on January 6th.
Senator Elizabeth Warren: Despite all the challenges of 2020, Americans did what they do when they are unhappy with their leadership: they got out and they voted for change. <...> It was the violence at the Capitol on January 6 that really show us what happens from those poisonous lies. That violence was the direct result of the lies about election results that Donald Trump repeated again and again and again. <...> It is long past time to make high quality voting in the greatest democracy on Earth easy, convenient, and professional. It is time to secure our elections from all threats, both foreign and domestic. It is time to address election security, administration problems, and voter suppression.
Stacey Abrams: Can you please talk a little bit about why protecting the right to vote is connected to a bunch of other policy issues?
Senator Elizabeth Warren: If we don't protect the right to vote, then the people in Washington or the statehouse or even your local government don't really reflect the will of the people. They don't reflect a majority of those who have shown up and said this is what I care about my government doing. <...> Everything that we're trying to get done: $15 minimum wage, cancelling $50,000 in student debt, a wealth tax <...> we don't get those things done unless we are sure that every American can cast a vote, so that those in power have the mandate to advance the policies that help everyone.
Stacey Abrams: Can you talk a bit about the importance of having a standardized election system for federal elections.
Senator Elizabeth Warren: I just think this makes sense, at the federal level when you're voting for federal office, we should have a uniform set of rules. The second thing we should be saying is that the right to vote is so precious, and that following these rules is essential to our democracy. I believe we ought to say to the states <...> you've got to follow the same standards.
Stacey Abrams: what's the next way [activists] can be involved in this call to action and driving us toward a true democracy in the United States?
Senator Elizabeth Warren: I think the answer is that we need to think now how to strengthen this democracy. <...> We have to get things done, we have to deliver for the American people, but we have to go protect democracy as a significant part of that. And that means protecting the right to vote, it also means rooting out corruption in Washington, and the last few years have proved that. It's that widely popular policies are stymied because giant corporations and billionaires <...> use their money and influence to stand in the way of big structural change. <...> You can start pushing for a specific piece of legislation and get it passed: H.R. 1. We need wind in the sails on this.
Stacey Abrams: Can you talk about what effect [being an all mail-in voting state] has had on participation in Hawaii?
Senator Mazie Hirono: Hawaii in 2018 went from the lowest voter turnout state to among to the highest in 2020. That is like a 100% example of how you can encourage more participation by making it easier and more convenient to vote. This is why Republicans want to get at the ability to engage in bail-in balloting. They know what people use, and they want to stymie that as much as possible. <...> For people who come to our country hoping for a new life, voting, we know, is fundamental.
Stacey Abrams: Can you talk a bit about why there's a bit of fallacy in the argument that each state should have the ability to determine the quality of democracy?
Senator Cory Booker: The reality that [Senator Hirono] could have different standards in her states from those in my state is highly problematic: this idea that you could have voter suppression in some places but not others. We are firm believers in one person, but to allow different standards, especially when standards are violating our common values, that to me is fully unacceptable and something that we should be looking for a common federal standard for federal offices.
Stacey Abrams: Can you talk about your experiences as a young person getting to vote, and why focusing our efforts on voting rights expansion is so important for young Americans?
Senator Mazie Hirono: Voting is a habit. The earlier you're exposed to that habit, the more likely you will continue to vote for the rest of your life. <...> When I ran for the governor of Hawaii in 2002, I won the kids vote, it was just the adults that went astray, and the thing is that many years later these kids will come up to me and say they voted for me, and now they're in their twenties. In Hawaii kids can register to vote at the age of 16, and we also allow 16 year olds to volunteer as poll workers. These are ways to expose young people to voting. <...> There are many ways we can get young people interested, and we need to pursue them.
Stacey Abrams: Can you talk about the importance of D.C. statehood, and why that is absolutely a voting rights issue?
Senator Cory Booker: The average African Americans voter has about 75% of [the wealth of[ the average white voter. <...> Washington D.C. pays more in federal taxes than 22 other states. They paid more federal taxes per capita than any other state in the nation. They're a state that has had a significant number more than other states dying in our major wars, but yet they have no representation whatsoever. <...> That is unconscionable that we have a plurality Black city, a majority-minority city that has been so stripped of their political power.
Stacey Abrams: what's your call for action for [people on this call tonight], what do you need them to do?
Senator Cory Booker: We've got to fix the system itself or we're always going to be fighting an uphill battle, always fighting with headwinds. <...> John Lewis dedicated himself to the ideal that we need to expand the franchise. He was beaten on the Edmund Pettus bridge in the fight for voting rights. The same of my generation to have to watch his great achievement under his watch be so gutted, means to me that we need to honor him by fighting against these voting suppression laws and ultimately by fighting to pass progressive laws that expand the right and the ease of voting.
Senator Mazie Hirono: All of the voter suppression laws are going to be enacted if passed at the state level. Gerrymandering is happening at the state level. <...> Too many state legislatures have become captured by Republicans and others who are not interested in spreading democracy, they're interested in retaining power. So, we need to, at the state level, be very grassroots oriented. Organizing at the grassroots level is going to be what we need to do, so I call on young people in particular to get active in the pipeline at the state level to make sure these types of laws are not introduced and passed.
Senator Elizabeth Warren: Despite all the challenges of 2020, Americans did what they do when they are unhappy with their leadership: they got out and they voted for change. <...> It was the violence at the Capitol on January 6 that really show us what happens from those poisonous lies. That violence was the direct result of the lies about election results that Donald Trump repeated again and again and again. <...> It is long past time to make high quality voting in the greatest democracy on Earth easy, convenient, and professional. It is time to secure our elections from all threats, both foreign and domestic. It is time to address election security, administration problems, and voter suppression.
Stacey Abrams: Can you please talk a little bit about why protecting the right to vote is connected to a bunch of other policy issues?
Senator Elizabeth Warren: If we don't protect the right to vote, then the people in Washington or the statehouse or even your local government don't really reflect the will of the people. They don't reflect a majority of those who have shown up and said this is what I care about my government doing. <...> Everything that we're trying to get done: $15 minimum wage, cancelling $50,000 in student debt, a wealth tax <...> we don't get those things done unless we are sure that every American can cast a vote, so that those in power have the mandate to advance the policies that help everyone.
Stacey Abrams: Can you talk a bit about the importance of having a standardized election system for federal elections.
Senator Elizabeth Warren: I just think this makes sense, at the federal level when you're voting for federal office, we should have a uniform set of rules. The second thing we should be saying is that the right to vote is so precious, and that following these rules is essential to our democracy. I believe we ought to say to the states <...> you've got to follow the same standards.
Stacey Abrams: what's the next way [activists] can be involved in this call to action and driving us toward a true democracy in the United States?
Senator Elizabeth Warren: I think the answer is that we need to think now how to strengthen this democracy. <...> We have to get things done, we have to deliver for the American people, but we have to go protect democracy as a significant part of that. And that means protecting the right to vote, it also means rooting out corruption in Washington, and the last few years have proved that. It's that widely popular policies are stymied because giant corporations and billionaires <...> use their money and influence to stand in the way of big structural change. <...> You can start pushing for a specific piece of legislation and get it passed: H.R. 1. We need wind in the sails on this.
Stacey Abrams: Can you talk about what effect [being an all mail-in voting state] has had on participation in Hawaii?
Senator Mazie Hirono: Hawaii in 2018 went from the lowest voter turnout state to among to the highest in 2020. That is like a 100% example of how you can encourage more participation by making it easier and more convenient to vote. This is why Republicans want to get at the ability to engage in bail-in balloting. They know what people use, and they want to stymie that as much as possible. <...> For people who come to our country hoping for a new life, voting, we know, is fundamental.
Stacey Abrams: Can you talk a bit about why there's a bit of fallacy in the argument that each state should have the ability to determine the quality of democracy?
Senator Cory Booker: The reality that [Senator Hirono] could have different standards in her states from those in my state is highly problematic: this idea that you could have voter suppression in some places but not others. We are firm believers in one person, but to allow different standards, especially when standards are violating our common values, that to me is fully unacceptable and something that we should be looking for a common federal standard for federal offices.
Stacey Abrams: Can you talk about your experiences as a young person getting to vote, and why focusing our efforts on voting rights expansion is so important for young Americans?
Senator Mazie Hirono: Voting is a habit. The earlier you're exposed to that habit, the more likely you will continue to vote for the rest of your life. <...> When I ran for the governor of Hawaii in 2002, I won the kids vote, it was just the adults that went astray, and the thing is that many years later these kids will come up to me and say they voted for me, and now they're in their twenties. In Hawaii kids can register to vote at the age of 16, and we also allow 16 year olds to volunteer as poll workers. These are ways to expose young people to voting. <...> There are many ways we can get young people interested, and we need to pursue them.
Stacey Abrams: Can you talk about the importance of D.C. statehood, and why that is absolutely a voting rights issue?
Senator Cory Booker: The average African Americans voter has about 75% of [the wealth of[ the average white voter. <...> Washington D.C. pays more in federal taxes than 22 other states. They paid more federal taxes per capita than any other state in the nation. They're a state that has had a significant number more than other states dying in our major wars, but yet they have no representation whatsoever. <...> That is unconscionable that we have a plurality Black city, a majority-minority city that has been so stripped of their political power.
Stacey Abrams: what's your call for action for [people on this call tonight], what do you need them to do?
Senator Cory Booker: We've got to fix the system itself or we're always going to be fighting an uphill battle, always fighting with headwinds. <...> John Lewis dedicated himself to the ideal that we need to expand the franchise. He was beaten on the Edmund Pettus bridge in the fight for voting rights. The same of my generation to have to watch his great achievement under his watch be so gutted, means to me that we need to honor him by fighting against these voting suppression laws and ultimately by fighting to pass progressive laws that expand the right and the ease of voting.
Senator Mazie Hirono: All of the voter suppression laws are going to be enacted if passed at the state level. Gerrymandering is happening at the state level. <...> Too many state legislatures have become captured by Republicans and others who are not interested in spreading democracy, they're interested in retaining power. So, we need to, at the state level, be very grassroots oriented. Organizing at the grassroots level is going to be what we need to do, so I call on young people in particular to get active in the pipeline at the state level to make sure these types of laws are not introduced and passed.
Survey and Results
Between November 2020 and February 2021, I disseminated a survey to people nationwide ages 16 and up to gauge how they interpret voter suppression and voter fraud in the United States. Below I will review the most important questions and their results, and what conclusions can be drawn.
Do you plan to vote in the 2024 presidential election (assuming you are eligible)?
I was very relieved to see that many of my survey respondents intended to vote in the 2024 presidential election. Given how high stakes the recent Presidential and Senatorial elections were, it makes sense that more people, especially young people, are using their voice. Perhaps the small percentage that did not know whether they will be voting are unsure if there is any candidate they will vote for. In 2020 many people did not feel comfortable voting for Trump or Biden. It says a lot about our democracy when people are discouraged from voting because our candidates are so bad/polarizing. The small percentage that said they will not be voting might be so disillusioned by American politics that they are just avoiding it altogether. The worst alternative would be that they do not care about politics.
Respondents were intent on voting because they are politically savvy/pay attention to politics. Thus, I know that in most cases, they will understand the content of the following questions and hopefully provide me with valuable insights.
Respondents were intent on voting because they are politically savvy/pay attention to politics. Thus, I know that in most cases, they will understand the content of the following questions and hopefully provide me with valuable insights.
Voter fraud is the illegal interference on any scale with the process of an election. This includes small scale fraud, like a USPS worker changing a few ballots. This also includes large scale fraud, like the rigging of election machines. Do you think voter fraud occurred in the 2020 presidential election?
Despite all the rhetoric from the former President and elsewhere, many respondents said that no voter fraud occurred during the 2020 presidential election. A little over 30% total said that voter fraud occurred on a small or large scale. In terms of party demographics among the respondents, it was split around 50/50 with those who identified with the Democratic Party, and those who identified as an Independent or as a Republican. Either way, it seems that the claims of voter fraud only shook the confidence in our election system slightly.
Voter suppression is when a group of people are prevented or discouraged from participating in an election. Suppressing votes can also be considered a form of voter fraud, since the perpetrators are illegally altering the electorate, and thus producing inaccurate results (with this new information, do NOT change your answer to the previous question). Do you think voter suppression occurred in the 2020 presidential election?
A majority of respondents agreed that voter suppression occurred to some extent in the United States during the 2020 presidential election. This is a relatively difficult question to answer, since everyone defines voter suppression differently. For example, I consider photo ID to be a form of voter suppression, although in its most reasonable form. Many people around the country would simply call photo ID a measure to enforce election integrity. This would also impact if respondents would rank something as large or small scale. Some people might consider photo ID to be large scale, while others consider it to be small scale. Thus, the results have to just be considered relative to each other. The conclusion can be drawn that a majority of respondents believe voter suppression exists to an extent in the United States.
Are you in favor of policies that work to stop voter fraud at the cost of disenfranchising some voters?
I think this is quite possibly the most important question out of the entire survey. Voter fraud and voter suppression are opposite ends of a spectrum. When you want to prevent one, you potentially open the door for the other. Passing restrictive policies limits fraud but breeds suppression. Loosening policies kills suppression but ostensibly fosters fraud. The truth is, however, that in the United States, voter fraud is simply not an issue. In a sense this question is just asking which do you consider more of an issue. For those who answered no, they strongly lean towards stopping voter suppression, and recognize that fraud is not an issue. For those who answered that it depends, it's sort of impossible to place at what extent the limitations amount to voter suppression. Either way, the results show that the respondents have a firm understanding of voter suppression and voter fraud, and are not unreasonably tipping towards one side or another.