Election Integrity and Voter Suppression Concerns in Swing States

Elections & Politics #147 | By: Inijah Quadri | October 24, 2024
Featured Photo: ppic.org
__________________________________

In the lead-up to the 2024 U.S. presidential election, the intersection of election integrity and voter suppression has become increasingly contentious, particularly in battleground states like Georgia, Arizona, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan. These states, which typically see tight margins, are often the decisive factor in determining the outcome of national elections. The changes to voting laws since 2020 have sparked debates about whether such reforms are aimed at enhancing election security or restricting access to the ballot box to achieve political advantage. 

Many of these states have passed legislation that alters key aspects of the voting process, including the introduction of stricter ID requirements for absentee ballots, limitations on the use of drop boxes, and expanded powers for poll watchers. Advocates of these laws argue that they strengthen the integrity of elections by preventing fraud, while critics claim they suppress the votes of historically marginalized communities, such as minority and low-income voters​. 

The ongoing debate over election integrity versus voter suppression is rooted in the political dynamics of swing states, where a small shift in voter turnout can drastically change the outcome. This tension can also be framed as a struggle between those who seek to restrict access to the electoral process and those who advocate for expanding it. Critics of the new laws argue that they disproportionately affect groups that tend to vote Democratic, such as urban and minority communities, thereby altering the political landscape under the pretense of preventing fraud. 

In states like Georgia, new voting laws have raised significant concerns. Following the 2020 election, Georgia passed legislation requiring stricter ID rules for absentee voting, limiting access to drop boxes, and restricting assistance to voters standing in long lines—a rule that has disproportionately affected urban, often minority, voters​. Critics argue that these measures target specific groups that tend to vote Democratic, thus influencing the political landscape under the guise of preventing fraud​. 

Wisconsin and Arizona are two other battlegrounds where voter suppression concerns are high. Wisconsin’s laws now make it more difficult to return mail-in ballots, with increased scrutiny over absentee voting procedures​. Arizona has introduced measures that expand the role of poll watchers and implement stricter verification processes for mail-in ballots. While proponents claim these measures boost transparency, they also raise concerns about voter intimidation and the potential for mass voter challenges, particularly aimed at minority communities​. 

At the same time, states like Michigan have attempted to bolster protections against election subversion. Michigan’s voters enacted Proposition 2, which amends the state constitution to block political interference in the certification of election results. This move was designed to prevent a repeat of the tumultuous aftermath of the 2020 election, when false claims of fraud prompted challenges to the results​. Despite these improvements, the state still faces issues with voter challenges, as election deniers continue to push unfounded fraud claims​. 

The introduction of AI technologies into the election space further complicates these issues. AI tools, such as EagleAI, are being used in some states to challenge the legitimacy of voters based on incomplete data. AI-driven disinformation campaigns are also expected to play a significant role in the 2024 election, adding another layer of complexity to the debate over election integrity​. 

As the 2024 election approaches, the tension between maintaining the security of the electoral process and expanding access to the ballot is likely to grow, especially in swing states where small changes in voter turnout can shift the balance of power. The implementation of restrictive voting laws and the increasing use of technology in monitoring elections raise legitimate concerns about voter suppression, particularly among marginalized communities. On the other hand, the push for election integrity remains critical in maintaining public trust in democratic processes. Policymakers, election officials, and civil society must work collaboratively to ensure that these laws do not undermine the foundational principle of fair and accessible elections. 

 


Engagement Resources
  • Brennan Center for Justice  (www.brennancenter.org): Comprehensive analysis of state-level voting law changes and election integrity efforts. 
  • Voting Rights Lab (www.votingrightslab.org): Detailed reports on state-by-state election law changes and their potential impact on voter access. 
  • Council on Foreign Relations (www.cfr.org): Insights on preventing election violence and securing electoral integrity in 2024. 

 

Stay in-the-know! Always get the latest updates from our reporters by subscribing to the U.S. Resist News Weekly Newsletter. Your support is crucial in safeguarding fearless independent journalism. If you appreciate our content, please consider donating today to help protect democracy and empower citizenship.

 

DONATE NOW
Subscribe Below to Our News Service

x
x
Support fearless journalism! Your contribution, big or small, dismantles corruption and sparks meaningful change. As an independent outlet, we rely on readers like you to champion the cause of transparent and accountable governance. Every donation fuels our mission for insightful policy reporting, a cornerstone for informed citizenship. Help safeguard democracy from tyrants—donate today. Your generosity fosters hope for a just and equitable society.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This