It’s taken as a given that the more difficult it is to vote the more likely conservatives will come out on top. Apparently, because older people are less likely to change addresses and have proper ID. To me, obstacles or change, of any kind whatsoever, disproportionately affect people with less cognitive ability, ie the elderly. This is supposed to be axiomatic, though. Is there evidence voter suppression works for the GOP? I know it’s focused at specific ethnicities and areas, but what evidence is there that it doesn’t backfire and just piss of the attempted disenfranchised to vote more?
‘Or else they wouldn’t do it’ answers will just be ignored as irrelevant.
There’s a pretty good Brennan Center report just showing the racial bias in qualifying voter ID in a few states:
Obviously this isn’t proof that there will still be similar trends if you map it to party affiliation instead of race, and it doesn’t necessarily show what voting trends will look like after some people who don’t qualify are able to overcome the hurdles.
As for whether it creates a backlash, just looking at a high level it’s pretty clear it does. The movement in Georgia is an example. I don’t think there’s a way to know how much of an effect that has, and that type of dynamic would probably be constantly in flux anyway.
If I was a conservative politician and my electorate overwhelming thought that the election was stolen from Trump I could image being pressured into doing something about restricting elections in some way to mollify them.
My OP asks, does it really help the GOP at all though.
It worked very well for the racist (and racism tolerant) politicians of the early and mid 20th century (and the late 19th,aside from Reconstruction), back when the Democratic party had most of the racists. That’s obviously the model here for the pro suppression politicians today.
In Georgia, for example, they found methods of voting that were disproportionately used by Democrats and stopped them.
There were mobile voting buses. Now there aren’t.
It used to be easier to cast a provisional ballot if you accidentally went to the wrong polling station. Now you have to take time to go somewhere else unless it’s late in the day.
Now, it’s hard to say exactly what will happen in future elections. Maybe people who preferred those voting methods will find others ways to vote. But, very likely, some of them will not. And while it’s possible that there will be some partisan skew in the some who do not that is different from the partisan skew present in the users of those methods, I don’t think there’s a good case for it.
A better way to look at it is this: the fact that voter suppression can fail more often than it can succeed isn’t a reason to relax about the potentially devastating impact of suppression. It only takes one election cycle to have horrific consequences.
Said another way, and a bit like the aphorism about terrorists only needing to be lucky once …
The Democrats need to win every election from now on. The Republicans only need to win once and that’ll be end of meaningful non-sham elections in the USA forever.
You can’t have it both ways. Right now the Dems control the executive and both senate and house. Apparently, because the constitution allows states to decide how their citizens vote they can’t stop what is happening.
So, if they didn’t control the executive branch and Congress, what would that change?
The fact that Brian Kemp is governor of Georgia demonstrates this can succeed. That was due to the fact that the guy who was overzealous in certain aspects of roll purging was also the guy running for the office that most benefitted from that purge. It didn’t have to be the guy in particular, as the party could have done it on his behalf, but yes, voter roll purging likely changed the outcome of that election.
Don’t forget that they’re not implementing these measures uniformly. They’re doing them more in urban areas, and less in rural areas. And then there’s any restriction that requires a judgement call: Suppose, for instance, that there’s a rule that the name on the ID has to exactly match the name on the rolls. Election officials could, for instance, judge that “La’Shawnda Jackson” doesn’t match “LaShawnda Jackson”, because the apostrophe is missing in the latter, but that “Billybob Beauregard” matches “Billy-Bob Beauregard”, because punctuation obviously doesn’t count.
It may turn out that Republican efforts to disenfranchise Democratic voters has, and will continue to have, the opposite effect. Anger is a powerful motivator. People who have been complacent may start to see a lot of value in their vote when someone tries to take it away from them. I don’t think these suppression efforts should be passed.
If they are, I’d like to see them backfire, and for people to stand up and be counted, democracy in action.
However…
Even if that is how things shake out, that doesn’t excuse the politicians who are supporting these efforts. It’s wrong to use the power of government to try and silence the voices and votes of those who disagree with you. It doesn’t become less wrong if your efforts ultimately fail.
Going back to this question, it’s a double-edged sword. On one hand, it can backfire because it inspires democrats to commit to voting. This is what happened in 2020 after there was pretty clear evidence that voter suppression efforts resulted in Brian Kemp becoming Georgia’s governor in 2018. The post-election circus also probably inspired waves of blue protest voting in both Georgia and Arizona. But before that, there were some victories for voter suppression.
What you’re seeing now is a reckoning on the right that they’re going to have to work even harder to control voting in their states and counties. In the past, Republicans would have said, “Well we clearly lost; we need a better message for voters.” But you don’t see that now. What you see is, “Well we lost, and we need to figure out how we can stop ‘those people’ from voting so easily, and we also need to figure out how we can meddle with the procedures of election certification.” In short, what we’re witnessing is one of the two major political parties redoubling efforts to impose an illiberal form of democracy. It’s essentially an arms race between liberal and illiberal democracy, and over time, illiberal democracy will gradually resort to forms of outright authoritarianism.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but don’t these voting suppression efforts not just affect Democrats, but also Republican voters? Wouldn’t a lot of would be Republican voters give up in frustration at all of the roadblocks in front of them?
No. Republican voters are a different demographic from Democratic voters. They’re older, rural, and have a higher tolerance for “following the rules” in other words, Authoritarian tendencies.
Sure, if politicians pass laws that curtain early voting (to use one example), like limiting the number of days or locations, that will impact everyone who wants to vote early, regardless of which party they’re voting for. But people have studied voting patterns very extensively, and I believe that early voting tends to skew more toward Democratic candidates than votes cast on election day. If you can suppress early votes, absent any other factors, it will favor Republicans.