The Silent Erosion of American Voting Rights

0:00

/663.72

1×

Analysis of Recent Electoral Changes and Their Impact

While media attention often focuses on dramatic headlines, a series of legislative changes across the United States has quietly reshaped the electoral landscape, potentially disenfranchising millions of eligible American voters. This transformation of voting rights has had profound implications for democratic participation and electoral outcomes.

The SAVE Act: A National Barrier to Voting

The Republicans' Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act represents an unprecedented federal intervention in voter registration. The legislation, which was passed by the Republican House of Representatives but blocked by the Democratic Senate and President Biden, would impose new national voter registration requirements. These requirements include mandatory presentation of a passport or birth certificate for every registration or update, including after moving.

The implications of this requirement are stark: more than 21 million eligible voters lack immediate access to these proof of citizenship documents. This barrier would disproportionately affect several demographic groups:

• Older Americans
• Young voters
• People of color
• Married women who have changed their last name

The SAVE Act would fundamentally alter existing registration methods by:

• Restricting mail-in and online voter registration
• Overriding the National Voter Registration Act of 1993
• Centralizing power in the federal government

State-Level Restrictions: A Pattern of Suppression

In 2024, states across the country enacted more restrictive voting laws than in almost any year of the previous decade. The scope of these changes was remarkable:

• At least 10 states enacted 19 restrictive voting laws
• Louisiana alone passed eight such laws
• Lawmakers in 40 states considered at least 3,177 restrictive bills
• At least 25 bills in 12 states focused on stoking fears about non-citizen voting

Georgia: A Case Study in Restriction

Georgia's changes under Governor Brian Kemp illustrate the comprehensive nature of these restrictions:

• SB1189 expanded the grounds for challenging voter eligibility
• SB202 reduced dropboxes by 75% in Black-majority counties
• Mail-in and dropbox balloting, used heavily by Democrats in 2020, was reduced by nearly 90% for the 2024 race

The Impact of Vigilante Challenges

Private organizations have also played a role in voter suppression. True the Vote, led by MAGA activists, recruited over 40,000 volunteer "vigilantes" who challenged 317,000 voters by August 2024. These challenges often targeted voters with ethnic or racial names, despite their American citizenship status.

Statistical Impact on Electoral Outcomes

The collective impact of these restrictions was significant. Analysis suggests that if all legal voters had been allowed to vote and all legal ballots counted, the electoral outcome would have been different:

• Vice President Kamala Harris would have won 286 electoral votes
• Harris would have gained an additional 3,565,000 votes
• The final popular vote difference would have been 1.2 million in Harris's favor

Racial Disparities in Ballot Disqualification

A study for the United States Civil Rights Commission revealed stark racial disparities in ballot treatment:

• Black voters were 900% more likely to have their mail-in or in-person ballots disqualified compared to white voters
• 4,776 voters were wrongly purged from voter rolls according to US Elections Assistance Commission data

Media Coverage and Public Awareness

Despite the sweeping nature of these changes, media coverage has been fragmented and limited. The implementation of restrictions across different states at different times has made it difficult for the public to grasp the collective significance of these changes on electoral outcomes.

Historical Context

These developments mark a significant shift in federal involvement in voting rights. Historically, federal intervention in voting rights aimed to expand access through legislation like the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. The SAVE Act would represent the first time Washington actively worked to restrict ballot access on such a scale.

The cumulative effect of these various suppression tactics—from strict ID requirements to voter roll purges, from reduced voting locations to criminalized voter assistance—has fundamentally altered the landscape of American democracy. These changes have been particularly effective in swing states, where even small shifts in voter turnout can determine electoral outcomes.

The Anatomy of Electoral Suppression: A Statistical Analysis of the 2024 Election

The 2024 presidential election presents a compelling case study in modern voter suppression techniques and their quantifiable impact on electoral outcomes. Through detailed statistical analysis, evidence suggests that systematic barriers to voting may have significantly influenced the final results, particularly affecting communities of color.

Key Suppression Mechanisms

The analysis identifies several primary mechanisms through which votes were potentially lost or suppressed:

Mass Voter Purges: According to U.S. Elections Assistance Commission data, 4,776,706 voters were removed from voter rolls, primarily through what analysts call the "poison postcard" system. This process disproportionately affected minority communities, with states like Georgia targeting 875,000 voters for removal.

Vigilante Voter Challenges: A new phenomenon emerged in 2024, with organizations like True the Vote mounting challenges to voter eligibility. By August 2024, 317,886 voters faced challenges to their right to vote, with projections suggesting this number would exceed two million by Election Day.

Mail-in Ballot Rejections: Approximately 2,121,000 mail-in ballots were disqualified, often for minor clerical errors. Research indicates that Black voters were 400% more likely than white voters to have their mail-in ballots rejected.

Provisional Ballot Issues: Of the provisional ballots cast, 42.3% went uncounted. Studies showed that voters of color were 300% more likely to be forced to use these "placebo" ballots, as some analysts termed them.

Statistical Impact Analysis

The cumulative effect of these suppression mechanisms appears substantial:

• A conservative estimate suggests a 2.3% suppression factor
• This translates to approximately 3,565,000 affected votes
• The impact was particularly pronounced in swing states:
  • Wisconsin: 166,433 voters purged, with a final margin of 29,397 votes
  • Pennsylvania: 360,132 voters affected by "poison postcards"
  • Georgia: Implementation of SB 202 reduced mail-in and drop box voting by nearly 90%

Case Studies and Evidence

The analysis presents several compelling examples of suppression in action:

The Georgia Investigation: A detailed analysis of Georgia's purge list found 198,351 voters who were wrongly identified as having moved from their voting addresses. This finding emerged from a comprehensive study using U.S. Postal Service data and expert analysis.

The Savannah Incident: In October 2024, a single "vigilante" challenger targeted 900 voters in Savannah, Georgia, with the majority being Black voters. This case exemplifies the potential for individual actors to affect voting access for entire communities.

Methodological Considerations

The analysis employs a conservative methodology, specifically:

1. Accounting for double-counting in suppression statistics
2. Adjusting for Trump voters among those affected by suppression
3. Using the lowest conceivable suppression factor (2.3%) that could be defended in court
4. Incorporating official data from the Elections Assistance Commission

Historical Context and Implications

This pattern of voter suppression bears striking similarities to historical Jim Crow practices, though implemented through modern bureaucratic mechanisms. The analysis suggests that without these suppression effects, the electoral outcome would have been different, potentially resulting in 286 electoral votes for the alternative candidate.

Looking Forward

The research indicates that while voter suppression presents significant challenges to democratic participation, it can be effectively countered through organized resistance and legal challenges. Success stories like the shutdown of the Interstate Crosscheck program demonstrate that systematic improvement is possible through sustained effort and vigilance.

The analysis concludes that understanding these mechanisms is crucial for protecting voting rights and ensuring electoral integrity. More importantly, it emphasizes that statistical evidence of suppression should not overshadow the human impact - the individual voters who face barriers to exercising their fundamental democratic rights.

This examination reveals not just numbers but a pattern of systematic disenfranchisement that requires continued scrutiny and reform to ensure fair electoral processes in future elections.

through the lens of the Moral Algorithm Accountability Act (MAAA), focusing specifically on assigning a compliance score to the voting rights analysis text based on the MAAA's core principles.

First, let's establish the key criteria from the MAAA that we'll use for evaluation:

The foundational "Moral Algorithm" as defined by John Adams requires that government actions serve:

1. The common good
2. Protection and safety of the people
3. Prosperity and happiness of the people
4. Not the private interest of any specific group

Looking at the voting rights analysis text through this framework:

Protection & Safety Score: 2/10 The text describes multiple mechanisms that appear to actively reduce protection of voting rights:

• The SAVE Act's requirements would prevent 21 million eligible voters from registering
• Systematic purging of 4.7 million voters from rolls
• Targeting of specific demographic groups with additional barriers

Common Good Score: 3/10 The document reveals several concerning patterns:

• Implementation of restrictions that disproportionately affect certain communities
• Use of "vigilante" challengers targeting voters based on ethnic/racial characteristics
• Creation of artificial barriers to democratic participation

Prosperity & Happiness Score: 2/10 The described measures appear to:

• Reduce democratic participation
• Create additional bureaucratic and financial burdens for voters
• Generate anxiety and uncertainty about voting rights

Private Interest Analysis: 1/10 The text demonstrates multiple instances where changes appear to serve partisan or private interests:

• Targeted reduction of voting access in specific communities
• Implementation of measures benefiting particular political outcomes
• Use of private organizations to challenge voter eligibility

Overall Compliance Score: 2/10

Under Section 4.2 of the MAAA, this legislation would receive a critically low Compliance Score. The documented changes appear to fundamentally violate the core principle that "Government is instituted for the common good." The described voting restrictions:

• Serve private political interests over public good
• Reduce rather than protect citizen rights
• Create disparate impacts on specific communities
• Establish barriers to democratic participation

According to Section 4.3 of the MAAA, these measures would be "automatically disqualified and prohibited from further consideration or renewal" due to their clear deviation from the Moral Algorithm's core principles. The systematic nature of the restrictions and their documented impacts on specific communities represent precisely the type of private interest-serving legislation that the MAAA was designed to prevent.

The analysis reveals that these voting changes would fail to meet the minimum Compliance Score threshold, as they consistently prioritize partisan advantage over the "protection, safety, prosperity and happiness of the people." Under Section 5.2 of the MAAA, such measures would be subject to immediate nullification.

This comprehensive analysis suggests that the described voting restrictions represent a clear case of legislation that the MAAA was specifically designed to prevent - measures that serve private or partisan interests at the expense of the common good and equal protection under law.

Analyzing the SAVE Act through the lens of the Moral Algorithm Accountability Act (MAAA).

The SAVE Act presents an interesting test case for the MAAA's core principle that government must serve "the protection, safety, prosperity and happiness of the people." Let's evaluate it systematically:

Protection & Safety Score: 3/10 The SAVE Act creates new documentation requirements that could affect voters' ability to participate in democracy:

• It mandates specific forms of documentary proof of citizenship for voter registration
• It creates criminal penalties for election officials who register voters without proper documentation
• It requires verification through multiple federal databases like SAVE and Social Security

Common Good Score: 4/10 The Act shows mixed alignment with serving the common good:

• It aims to ensure election integrity by verifying citizenship
• However, the implementation creates significant barriers:
  • Requires in-person presentation of documents
  • Places burden on voters to obtain specific forms of ID
  • Creates new bureaucratic processes that could delay registration

Prosperity & Happiness Score: 2/10 The Act may reduce prosperity and happiness by:

• Creating additional costs for voters who need to obtain documentation
• Adding complexity to the registration process
• Potentially disenfranchising eligible voters who lack immediate access to required documents
• Imposing new administrative burdens on state election systems

Private Interest Analysis: 3/10 Several provisions suggest potential private interests:

• Centralizes power in federal verification systems
• Creates opportunities for selective enforcement
• May disproportionately impact certain demographic groups
• Overrides existing state registration procedures

Overall Compliance Score: 3/10

Under the MAAA's framework, this legislation raises significant concerns. While election integrity serves a legitimate public interest, the SAVE Act's implementation methods appear to conflict with the Moral Algorithm's requirement that government serve the common good and protect people's rights and happiness.

Key points of tension with the MAAA include:

• The creation of new barriers to fundamental democratic participation
• Potential disparate impacts on vulnerable populations
• Prioritization of restrictive measures over accessible voting
• Criminal penalties that could chill election officials' ability to serve voters

The MAAA would likely require substantial modifications to this Act before approval, such as:

• Creating accessible alternatives for proof of citizenship
• Providing free and readily available documentation
• Establishing clear protections against discriminatory implementation
• Ensuring the verification process doesn't unduly delay registration

This analysis suggests that under Section 4.3 of the MAAA, the SAVE Act would likely fail to meet the minimum Compliance Score threshold in its current form, requiring significant revisions to align with the core principle of serving the common good.

The intersection of the SAVE Act and the Moral Algorithm Accountability Act presents a fascinating thought experiment when viewed through John Rawls's "veil of ignorance" framework. Let's imagine ourselves in the original position, where we must design voting rights legislation without knowing our place in society—our race, economic status, education level, or even whether we'd be born with ready access to citizenship documentation.

Behind the Veil: A Thought Experiment

If we didn't know whether we would be:

• A naturalized citizen with complex documentation needs
• A rural voter far from federal offices
• An elderly person whose birth certificate was lost decades ago
• A married person who changed their name
• An affluent individual with a passport
• A person living in poverty without access to costly documents

What principles would we choose?

The analysis reveals a stark contrast between two pieces of legislation:

The MAAA establishes that government must serve "the protection, safety, prosperity and happiness of the people"—a principle that aligns closely with Rawls's concept of justice as fairness.

Meanwhile, the SAVE Act creates a system that, from behind the veil of ignorance, we might hesitate to endorse because:

1. Access Asymmetry: The documentation requirements create barriers that, from behind the veil, we wouldn't know if we could overcome
2. Resource Dependencies: The system privileges those with ready access to specific documents and the means to obtain them
3. Bureaucratic Complexity: The verification processes introduce friction that, from the original position, we wouldn't know if we could successfully navigate

The Statistical Reality

The data presented in our earlier analysis becomes particularly poignant through this lens:

• 21 million eligible voters lacking immediate access to required documents
• 4,776,706 voters removed from rolls
• 317,886 voter challenges by "vigilantes"

From behind the veil of ignorance, we would likely design a system that:

• Provides multiple pathways to verify citizenship
• Ensures free and accessible documentation
• Creates safeguards against discriminatory implementation
• Balances security with accessibility

The Philosophical Tension

The fundamental tension emerges between two competing principles:

1. The need to ensure election integrity
2. The imperative to protect universal suffrage

Rawls would likely argue that rational actors behind the veil of ignorance would choose a system that maximizes the position of the least advantaged—what he calls the "maximin rule." The SAVE Act's compliance score of 3/10 under the MAAA framework suggests it fails this test.

A Path Forward

A truly just voting system, designed from behind the veil of ignorance, would likely:

• Preserve election integrity without creating undue barriers
• Provide robust support systems for documentation
• Ensure equal access regardless of circumstance
• Protect against both fraud and disenfranchisement

This Rawlsian analysis suggests that while the SAVE Act's stated goals of election integrity are valid, its implementation methods would likely not be chosen by rational actors designing a system without knowing their place within it. The MAAA's emphasis on common good and universal protection better aligns with principles we would select from behind the veil of ignorance.