The right to vote is an inalienable right given to all citizens at the age of eighteen regardless of race, gender, ethnicity, or socioeconomic status. There has been a constant struggle for suffrage equality since the birth of America. History has shown that the right to vote was not always a right to everyone. Suffrage has been a topic that has been fought over for many decades in this nation. Today, the right to vote is again, under attack by the very people that are voted into power, but this time not as many people are taking notice and fighting back. The right to vote is being threatened in America by actions such as limiting early voting, gerrymandering, restricting same day registration, and the passing of voter ID laws, which are all infringing upon the democracy of this nation and the absolute rights of the people. 

In 2016, section five of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was struck down in the Supreme Court case Shelby County v Holder. Section five of the Voting Rights Act implemented federal oversight and transparency requirements for states. This meant that any changes in a state’s voting processes had to first be cleared by the US Department of Justice through a process called preclearance. Since the Shelby County decision, states all over the nation have been changing their voting processes. One major change has been the limiting of early voting: a process where voters can vote prior to the scheduled election day. States such as Georgia, North Carolina, Texas, Florida, Virginia, South Carolina, Mississippi, Alabama, Arizona, and South Dakota have all implemented laws limiting or fully restricting early voting. These limitations are a “total disrespect and disregard for constitutional protections” because they take away the right to vote from people who either cannot get off of work to vote or cannot find transportation to the polls on election day (Yaccino and Alvarez). This legislation most greatly affects minorities such as African Americans and Hispanics, along with poor people. The legislators behind these limitations claim that they “help prevent fraud, save money and bring greater uniformity to a patchwork election system” (Yaccino and Alvarez). While these laws may have some positive effects, the benefits are marginal at best and clearly do not justify the mistreatment we are seeing.

Gerrymandering was created in 1802 by Elbridge Gerry, who was serving as the governor of Massachusetts. Gerry created an unusually shaped congressional district that resembled a salamander. Partisan gerrymandering is the redrawing of congressional district lines to achieve an advantage for a political party. After every census (official recount of the population), congressional district lines are supposed to be redrawn to reflect the population shifts that have occurred in the ten years since the previous census. Politicians are now, more than ever, disregarding the census results and are redistricting with the sole purpose of creating advantages for their political party. 

Partisan gerrymandering allows for evident advantages because “legislators determine the composition of the population that will vote for or against them”, making congressional elections much less competitive (Kennedy, 266). For example, if a Democratic politician gerrymanders, that politician can strategically disperse registered Republicans into different congressional districts, spreading them out to ensure that each district has more democratic voters. This ensures that the democratic candidate wins the election.  Partisan gerrymandering can be quantitatively measured by what is called the efficiency gap. The efficiency gap is “the difference between [a] party’s’ respective wasted votes, divided by the total number of votes cast in the election” (Stephanopoulos, 15.) A wasted vote is categorized as a vote that does not contribute to the victory of a candidate for a certain political party. The efficiency gap measures the amount of cracking or packing (the two different means of gerrymandering) that is taking place in congressional districts around the nation. This measurement says that as the amount of partisan gerrymandering increases, there is an increase in the efficiency gap, which is not a coincidence. 

This growing efficiency gap explains why we have seen Congress become deadlocked over the past years. Since 2012, there has been “the most extreme gerrymanders in modern history”, leading to party polarization and stagnation in Congress (Stephanopoulos, 1). When Congress becomes more polarized, representatives only care for the concerns of their heavily polarized constituents, leading to less compromise between parties and less legislation being passed. Gerrymandering “consistently degrade[s] a voter’s or a group of voters’ influence on the political process as a whole” (Grofman, 6). By allowing gerrymandering to continue, the absolute right to cast an equal vote is stripped from the people and gives too much power to the legislators who are taking advantage of their positions.

Same day voter registration is a valuable asset to increasing the voter turnout in America. Same day voter registration allows for people to register to vote on the same day that they cast their vote. Usually, the voting location will require a person to bring a proof of residence and an ID, which can range anywhere from a utility bill in the voter’s name to your social security card. Many people have long, inflexible work schedules that barely let them get to the polls on election day, let alone registration offices before the election. Same day registration simplifies the voting process for countless people and helps individuals with overwhelming work schedules. For example, in North Carolina this past year, “the nation’s most restrictive voting laws” were passed (Yaccino and Alvarez). One of these laws restricted same day voter registration, which does not allow individuals an equal chance at having a say in this democracy. These laws disadvantage lower and lower-middle class citizens who have long, strict work hours. Legislators who pass these laws fail to understand that a large portion of the people in this nation cannot afford to  miss more than a few hours of work. Same day voter registration can only simplify the voting process, which increases voter turnout in this country. Allowing for this process to be restricted in almost eighty percent of our states is allowing for the unfair and unequal treatment of too many people when it comes to voting.

Voter ID laws are laws that require people to show a photo ID in order to cast a vote at a polling location. These mandatory photo IDs vary from state-to-state, but mainly have to be a government-issued ID such as a driver’s license. Voter ID laws abandon the doctrine that “every individual who is eligible to vote should have the opportunity to do so” and create unnecessary hoops that a voter must go through to cast their vote (Spakovsky). Requiring someone to have a government-issued ID to vote decreases voter turnout. This was evident in 2012 when only 56% of eligible voters actually voted in elections. This decrease in voter turnout can somewhat be attributed to lack of interest, but can just as equally be attributed to the the implementation of stricter voting laws in recent years.

 Some are arguing that voter ID laws are necessary to “protect the integrity of elections and access to the voting process” but the reality is that in-person voter fraud is less likely to occur than getting struck by lightning (Spakovsky). Yes, protecting the integrity of elections is incredibly important, but implementing laws that restrict many people, especially those of large minority populations, while only benefitting few should not be considered legal. The legality of the subject of voter ID laws has been questioned by unclear decisions from the Supreme Court with cases such as North Carolina v North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, Texas NAACP v Steen, and Crawford v Marion County Election Board. The Supreme Court has bounced back and forth and has not given a concrete answer on what should be done about voter ID laws or whether or not they are constitutional. In North Carolina v North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP and Texas NAACP v Steen, bills were struck down for overstepping the political boundary that encased what legislatures are allowed to do and create. Voter ID laws in the NAACP and Texas NAACP cases infringed upon the people’s right to vote and specifically targeted African Americans. In Crawford v Marion County Election Board,  an Indiana law requiring photo identification to vote was deemed to be constitutional. The Supreme Court’s decisions in these cases highlight their indecisiveness on the issue. Voter ID laws do create a slight benefit by eliminating most of the rare occurrences of voter fraud, but stripping some of their inalienable right to vote is not worth this slight benefit. 

The right to vote is protected in the Constitution of the United States, but is still not fully guaranteed today. The misuse of power by legislatures has become the accepted norm. The injustice seen in our society today with voting is not acceptable and can be stopped. Infringing upon someone’s inalienable right to have a say in this democracy oversteps the legal and moral boundaries surrounding what legislatures can do. Stopping these harmful acts can be done by holding legislators accountable for their actions. The rest of the citizens in this nation have a moral responsibility to speak up against the injustice and be the voice for the people who are being oppressed. Harmful acts such as gerrymandering, limiting early voting, restricting same day registration, and the passing of voter laws have all been proven to have negative effects on the people’s right to vote and the democracy that is comprised of those people. 
