The Vigilante Vote How Americas Election System Suppresses Voters

0:00

/1700.56

1×

Democracy's cornerstone is the principle that every eligible citizen has the right to vote. Yet beneath America's electoral system lies a stark reality: millions of citizens, particularly people of color, face systematic barriers designed to prevent them from casting ballots. This comprehensive investigation draws on documentary evidence and forensic analysis to reveal how voter suppression tactics have evolved from the violent intimidation of the Jim Crow era to today's bureaucratic mechanisms that achieve the same outcome through spreadsheets rather than white sheets.

The Scale of Disenfranchisement

In 2024, voter suppression reached staggering proportions, with forensic economist Greg Palast estimating that at least 3,565,000 votes were effectively stolen through various suppression tactics. His analysis of federal data and state records revealed:

• 4,776,706 voters wrongfully purged from voting rolls
• 2,121,000 mail-in ballots disqualified for minor clerical errors
• 585,000 in-person ballots rejected
• 1,216,000 "provisional" ballots uncounted
• 3.24 million new voter registrations rejected or not processed in time
• 317,886 voters (by August 2024) faced challenges from self-appointed "vigilante" vote challengers

These aren't just numbers on a page. Each represents an American citizen denied their constitutional right to participate in democracy. If all legal voters had been allowed to vote and all legal ballots counted, Palast's conservative analysis indicates Kamala Harris would have won the 2024 presidential election with 286 electoral votes, flipping Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.

To arrive at this 3,565,000 vote suppression figure, Palast applied a rigorous methodology. He recognized that there's some double-counting in the 9 million voters and ballots disqualified that he cited, and that many voters caught in purges would have voted for Trump. Therefore, he conservatively cut in half the low end of the calculation of votes suppressed to 2.3% to isolate the effect on Trump's official victory margin. As a forensic economist who previously worked for government agencies including the US Justice Department and taught statistics at Indiana University, Palast applied the same methodology he would present in federal court.

The Vigilante Vote Challenge: A Klan Plan Reborn

"Get outta my house now!" shouted Pamela Reardon, a Republican operative who had challenged the voting rights of 32,379 Georgia citizens, when confronted with evidence that her challenges targeted legitimate voters like Major Gamaliel Turner, a career military officer and Pentagon advisor.

Major Turner's story exemplifies the new wave of voter suppression. Despite legally maintaining his Georgia residence while serving his country in California, Turner found himself on a list of challenged voters. When informed his vote was being challenged, Turner was incredulous:

"So you're telling me 2,600 miles away, two days or three days before the election that if I want to vote, all I have to do is show up and prove as American citizen that I have the right to vote? Again? You talk to fools like that. You talk to fools like that. I'm not a fool."

The challenger, Alton Russell—a county Republican Party chairman who enjoys dressing as infamous vigilante Doc Holliday, complete with six-gun—admitted on camera he had no evidence that Turner or any of the other 4,000 voters he challenged should be denied their right to vote. Russell even boasted about his hero Doc Holliday, who once "got a shotgun and ran off" or possibly "killed a couple" of African American boys who were swimming in a location Holliday wanted to use.

This vigilante challenge system originated in 1942 with Eugene Talmadge, the Ku Klux Klan's candidate for Georgia governor, who created "Vigilantes Inc." to challenge "the entire list of negro registrants." When the FBI investigated these mass challenges, two Black veterans and their wives were murdered as a warning to any Black person who would dare vote.

The vigilante system has been deployed throughout Georgia's history. Civil rights historian Joe Turner recounted the first year Georgia opened voting to Blacks: "We all went down to register. You see, they asked you to write a line of the Constitution. She said, right, 'There shall be no imprisonment for debt.'" When asked if this was cheating because the registrar gave him the answer, Turner responded, "No, no, no, no, uh-uh. I followed instructions."

Today's vigilante system has gone digital. Georgia's SB 202 law revived this tactic, and organizations like True the Vote have weaponized it nationally. By 2024, True the Vote had recruited 40,000 volunteer vigilantes operating in 43 states, with their challenges affecting 851,000 American voters by August 2024. The organization projected it would challenge over two million voters by Election Day. Additionally, Trump's lawyer, Cleta Mitchell, founded Eagle AI to challenge hundreds of thousands more voters, including in swing state Pennsylvania.

Gerald Griggs, president of the Georgia NAACP, suggested using the post-Civil War Ku Klux Klan Act against these vigilantes, noting: "We are in the middle of the new Jim Crow, Jim Crow 2.0. And so we have to use the same means that we use against Black codes and Jim Crow to now deal with Jim Crow 2.0."

The Poison Postcard Purge

"I was dead and gone buried," explained Christine Jordan, a 92-year-old cousin of Martin Luther King Jr., after discovering she'd been purged from Georgia's voter rolls despite voting at the same location for decades. "But I'm still on top of the earth by the hip of the master."

Jordan had fallen victim to what experts call the "Poison Postcard" purge. State election officials mail postcards to targeted voters that resemble junk mail. Those who don't return these cards—the overwhelming majority—are removed from voter rolls under the assumption they've moved.

In Georgia, this purge mechanism removed 875,000 voters before the 2024 election. Working with location experts used by Amazon, Palast's team analyzed Georgia's purge list name by name and found 198,351 Georgians who were purged for supposedly moving but had never left their legal voting address. The state's only evidence they had moved? Failing to return a postcard.

The response rates to these cards are abysmal—around 1% in Georgia and 10% in Arizona—and that's precisely the point. "This only means that most people, especially young people, the poor and voters of color, simply ignore junk mail," explains direct marketing expert Mark Swedlund.

In 2020, Palast testified in federal court for the NAACP and Rainbow PUSH, presenting expert findings to restore these purged voters, who were disproportionately minorities and young Georgians. Unfortunately, the courts gave deference to state voting operations, a trend that accelerated after the Supreme Court weakened the Voting Rights Act in 2013.

Similarly, the Palast Investigative Fund produced a technical report for Black Voters Matter Fund on a proposed purge of 153,779 voters in Wisconsin—a plan pushed by Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, a group financed by right-wing billionaires. Palast's team proved the purge targeted African-Americans in Milwaukee and students in Madison. The non-partisan Elections Board agreed with their findings, allowing those voters to cast ballots, with the result that Biden won Wisconsin by 20,682 votes in 2020.

Unfortunately, before the 2024 election, a new Elections Board in Wisconsin decided to use the same discredited purge list to remove 166,433 voters, which could not be stopped this time. Kamala Harris lost Wisconsin by just 29,397 votes. In Pennsylvania, the Poison Postcards wiped out 360,132 voters, three times Trump's victory margin.

Mail-In Ballot Rejection: Democracy Denied in the Mail

When COVID-19 struck in 2020, mail-in voting surged to 43% of all ballots cast. But for the 2024 election, Republicans systematically undermined this voting method after realizing it was disproportionately used by Democratic-leaning voters.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton openly admitted the strategy on Steve Bannon's podcast: "Had we not done that [stopped Houston from sending out ballots], Donald Trump would've lost the election" in Texas. Houston has the largest number of Black voters of any city in America.

Before the 2024 election, 22 states imposed 38 new restrictions on absentee voting. Texas' requirement to add ID numbers to absentee ballots increased rejection rates from 1% to 12%. Georgia's SB 202 law slashed drop boxes by 75% in Black-majority counties and locked them away at night, reducing mail-in and drop box balloting by nearly 90%.

The racial disparity in ballot rejections is stark. An audit by the State of Washington found that Black voters were 400% more likely than white voters to have their mail-in ballots rejected. First-time voters like Andrian Consonery Jr. in Marietta, Georgia, had their ballots rejected for signature "mismatches"—effectively accusing them of forgery without evidence or due process.

Major Gamaliel Turner carefully demonstrated for young voters how to fill out an absentee ballot, emphasizing it must be mailed promptly. He did so seven days before the deadline, yet Georgia officials disqualified his ballot, claiming it arrived too late.

In 2008, even before the majority of Democrats began voting by mail, the federal government reported 488,136 mail-in ballots were rejected, almost all on picayune grounds like a missing middle initial on signatures. An MIT study estimated mail-in ballot rejections at 2.9%, but noted that when accounting for ballots requested but never received or returned, the total mail-in ballot loss rate could be as high as 21%—which would translate to 14.1 million ballots effectively vanishing from the count in 2024.

The "failure to return" ballot problem was exacerbated in 2024 by the steep reduction in ballot drop boxes, a method favored by urban Democratic voters. Black voters in Atlanta used drop boxes extensively because they feared, with good reason, relying on the Post Office, as shown by Major Turner's experience.

The Placebo Ballot Deception

"You think you've voted, but chances are, you did not," explains Palast about provisional ballots, which he calls "placebo ballots." These ballots—provided to voters who've been challenged or purged—create the illusion of participation while rarely being counted.

According to the U.S. Elections Assistance Commission, in 2016, when 2.5 million provisional ballots were cast, a breathtaking 42.3% were never counted. Not one of these rejected voters was charged with attempting to vote illegally, exposing the fraud of "voter fraud" claims.

Black, Hispanic, and Asian-American voters are 300% more likely than white voters to be shunted to these placebo provisional ballots. Unless challenged voters personally visit county clerk offices with ID and proof of address—something few have the time, resources, or information to do—their provisional ballots go straight to the electoral dumpster.

The Racial Targeting of Suppression

The racial pattern of voter suppression is undeniable. Palast's investigation of 800 challenged Georgia voters found they were "overwhelmingly Americans of color." A U.S. Civil Rights Commission study found that Black in-person votes were rejected at a rate of 14.3%—or one in seven ballots cast.

This targeting extends beyond individual voters to entire communities and organizations. When Stacey Abrams' voter registration group registered 89,000 voters (mostly young Black students), 40,000 mysteriously disappeared from voter rolls, followed by a criminal investigation of the group. "And we're just not gonna put up with fraud," claimed then-Secretary of State Brian Kemp. "I mean, we have zero tolerance for that in Georgia. So we both in an investigation and serve some subpoenas." No charges were ever filed, but 40,000 voters missed the election.

Similarly, a "10,000 Koreans Vote" initiative faced police raids and criminal threats when organizers questioned why their registered voters weren't appearing on rolls. For "picayune clerical matters" like turning in some registration forms a couple of days late, Kemp sought 10-year prison sentences for registration group leaders.

Georgia's Brian Kemp has been particularly aggressive in targeting Black voting rights advocates. Olivia Pearson, the first Black woman elected to the Douglas City Council, faced felony charges for helping disabled voters complete forms, despite having proper authorization. After her eventual acquittal, Pearson described the traumatic experience: "I could have served up to five years in prison. So it was very, very, very frightening. It was very depressing. I had to go and receive counselling to help me to cope with it."

Kemp ordered armed seizures and had the Georgia Bureau of Investigation arrest the "Quitman 10"—the first Black members elected to a local school board. They were paraded in handcuffs in orange suits "like they were terrorists at Guantanamo." After four years of prosecution, they were acquitted of all charges, but not before one board member, Latashia Head, died from stress-related illness. George Boston Rhynes, a local journalist who tracked the case, said Head's father "believed that his daughter's death was a result of the stress and pressure brought about by Secretary of State Brian P. Kemp."

The persecution of the Quitman 10 brought up traumatic memories of the lynching of 12 Black men in 1918, what is called "The Week of Terror." When Mary Turner raised her voice about the execution of her husband by vigilantes, they came after her. Rhynes recounted the horror: "They took her, she was nine months pregnant, turned her upside down, riddle her body with bullets. A white mob member took a hog knife ripped over her abdomen, and out fell a eight month old foetus. And when that foetus fell to the ground, the white mob member took the heel of his boot and crushed that baby's head." Even today, the memory of Mary Turner remains contentious—a plaque commemorating her was shot up so often it had to be removed.

Bomb Threats and Intimidation: The New White Terror

Voter suppression today includes direct intimidation of voters attempting to cast ballots. During the 2024 election, bomb threats closed 31 polling stations in Atlanta on Election Day, according to Palast's reporting. This represents just one example of the "explosive growth of voter intimidation tactics" that affected the election outcome in ways that are difficult to quantify.

In Arizona, armed vigilantes with military-style uniforms monitored ballot drop boxes with weapons and drones. "Employees are scared to go into their office," reported one election official. "We sent our teams out to make sure that they would be okay."

In Texas, intimidation turned violent. An air conditioning repair technician was held at gunpoint by a vigilante who falsely believed the man was transporting 750,000 fraudulent ballots. When police arrived, they found only air conditioning parts in the truck. The gunman was part of a group of armed vigilantes hired by an election-denying billionaire. The victim recalled: "He said, 'Help me, help me' with his hand inside his coat. Then when I tried to help him, he pulls out a gun. That is when I was told to get on the ground."

Christopher Hollins, the election commissioner targeted for trying to distribute mail-in ballots in Houston during the pandemic, described the atmosphere of intimidation: "There were people outside my home with signs one day saying, 'Stop the steal.' So one idiot is out there with a rifle on his shoulder. So now there's a real fear of it. I take the security now. It's a real concern. I mean, the level of vitriol out there is just amazing."

The Financial and Organizational Infrastructure of Suppression

Behind the individual challengers and state laws stands a well-financed network supporting voter suppression efforts. True the Vote, based in Texas, coordinates mass voter challenges across multiple states, with financial backing traced to the Bradley Family Foundation.

Cleta Mitchell, Donald Trump's attorney who was involved in efforts to overturn the 2020 election, serves as the Bradley Foundation's secretary. She created "Eagle AI," a voter challenge system using artificial intelligence, following in the tradition of "Operation Eagle Eye," a 1960s Republican voter challenge program that targeted Black and Hispanic voters.

"You may have heard of something called Operation Eagle Eye. Well, a better name for it would be Operation Evil Eye. One of its objectives is to frighten you and others by frivolously challenging your right to vote. It has been launched in nearly every state in the Union."

A 1960s news report described how "Eagle Eye recruits also patrolled certain wards of the city in mobile units equipped with two-way radios ready to pounce on the nearest irregularity."

Today, Eagle AI has modernized this approach. A group of wealthy Christian nationalists launched "Operation Checkmate," a secret plan to use Eagle AI to challenge 280,000 voters in Arizona, Nevada, Georgia, and Wisconsin.

The Brennan Center for Justice reports that since the 2020 election, "at least 30 states enacted 78 restrictive laws" to blockade voting. The map of states that passed these laws closely resembles Trump's 2024 victory map—revealing the political calculation behind suppression efforts.

Historical Continuity and Evolution

"When you guys gonna give up?" filmmaker Greg Palast asked Confederate re-enactors in Georgia. "We're never gonna give up," one replied. "The South shall rise again."

Another re-enactor explained why he supported Georgia's new voting law: "We need to get rid of wokeism, cancel culture, and all these things that's killing America."

This sentiment reflects the deep historical roots of voter suppression. Today's tactics are sanitized evolutions of Jim Crow methods, transformed from violent intimidation to bureaucratic obstruction.

The documentary "Vigilante Vote" traces how Brian Kemp's family wealth originated with ancestors like James Habersham, Georgia's first governor and the first to import enslaved Africans to Georgia, and Roswell King, a notoriously cruel plantation overseer. Today, Kemp owns a company called "Plantation Partners, LLC" and has significant land holdings and timber interests.

Contrary to the myth Kemp promotes about his "self-made" rise from a "humble little cabin in the woods," his wealth came from his father-in-law (insurance mogul and state representative Bob Argo) and joining his father's and grandfather's well-connected construction company. They built student housing on land cleared of Black homeowners through "urban renewal" projects.

Kemp's family was once among the largest plantation owners in Georgia. The Roswell Mills, owned by Kemp's ancestors, manufactured the "Roswell Grey" uniforms for Confederate soldiers. The original source of their wealth was James Habersham, who became one of the wealthiest men in the South by importing captured Africans into Georgia against local opposition. As the documentary notes:

"We've been brought up thinking that slavery was always just here in Georgia. That just ain't so. In fact, until just before the Revolutionary War, slavery was against the law because churchgoers fought a fierce bloody battle to prevent slaves from coming to Georgia."

Thomas Jefferson, although a friend of the Habershams, wrote a draft of the Declaration of Independence at the Habersham Savannah mansion that included a long passage denouncing the slave trade: "Slavery is a war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty by captivating and carrying Africans into slavery, and miserable death." This passage was removed by the Continental Congress at the demand of the Georgia delegation headed by Joseph Habersham.

The 2020 propaganda film "2000 Mules" echoes the 1915 KKK propaganda film "Birth of a Nation," which showed a white actor in blackface stuffing ballot boxes. Both films justified restrictions on Black voters through manufactured fears of fraud.

"2000 Mules" claimed to use geo-tracking data to identify "mules" dropping multiple ballots in drop boxes, but the technology cannot pinpoint locations closer than 93 feet. The film repeatedly showed the same footage of a Black man legally dropping ballots in a drop box while claiming to have evidence of thousands of instances. As Gerald Griggs observed:

"This is the complexity and the nuance of racism in America. That by the very presence of who he is, he's considered guilty. Because in the dehumanising of Black people, who the hell is he to think that he has a right to vote? The truth didn't matter. What they want was the image."

Preserving History and Culture as Resistance

Against efforts to erase the history of oppression stand groups like the Geechee Gullah Ring Shouters, who preserve their Gullah language and songs from Africa's Rice Coast. Director Gryphon Lotson, whose great-grandmother was sold at the "Weeping Time" auction (the largest sale of humans in American history), explained that preserving this heritage is directly connected to voting rights: "If you suppress the history, you suppress the vote."

Lotson himself experienced voter suppression firsthand: "I know a lot about the voter suppression firsthand." As a city councilman, he would have become commissioner, "but I lost by one vote. One vote. So you can't just talk about somebody, you know somebody that you're standing with now that have lost an election by one vote."

The preservation of this cultural memory contrasts sharply with institutional efforts to sanitize history. When filmmakers attempted to interview experts at the Georgia Historical Society about the Habersham family's role in establishing slavery in Georgia, they were abruptly stopped mid-interview when they mentioned Mike Pence's refusal to overturn the 2020 election. "They heard the word Mike Pence. They stopped the whole interview. They said we can't film. And they said, you know, we gotta protect our new corporate donors on our board." The Georgia Historical Society's trustees include representatives from Chick-fil-A, Home Depot Foundation, Georgia Power, and Koch Industries.

This effort to control historical narratives continues through legislation. In 2022, Governor Brian Kemp signed bills affecting education statewide, including House Bill 1084, which bans the teaching of "divisive concepts." As the documentary notes, "No child in Georgia will have to learn that the Klan elected their governors. No child in Georgia will have to learn that Mr. Kemp's wealth came from Africans brought here in chains."

The Placebo Election Reform and "Election Integrity"

Political leaders have perfected the art of appearing to address election problems while actually making them worse. Georgia earned the #1 ranking for "election integrity" from the ultra-right-wing Heritage Foundation after its aggressive voter purges in 2024.

In addition to SB 202's provisions allowing unlimited voter challenges, the law gave Kemp the power to remove local Elections Commissioners who reject challenges. Helen Butler, a respected elections expert who had served on her county's Board of Elections since 2010, was removed from her position in 2021 after questioning Kemp's voter purge practices.

"I was a member of the Board of Elections. I had been on the board since 2010 and I was on until June of 2021... They wanted people that were not as vocal as we were. Wanted to make sure that they had total control of the Board of Elections."

Butler explained that these boards "determine who gets registered, when they get registered, how they get registered, whether your vote counts, when it counts, how it counts." This takeover of local election boards opens the door to potentially overturning the presidential vote in future elections, as Gerald Griggs noted:

"Trump said to the Secretary of State, find me 11,000 votes. How do you find those 11,000 votes? Well, to find those 11,000 votes, you either have to have the members of the Boards of Elections, who will not certify the elections and say, 'No, I think these, we can disqualify these amount of votes.' Well, I'm not going to be a party to that."

The Conspiracy Theory Distraction

While many Americans focus on theories about electronic voting machines being compromised, Palast argues this approach inadvertently minimizes the documented suppression of voters of color:

"If you're expecting a sexy story about Elon Musk messing with vote-counting software from outer space, sorry, you won't get that here... The theory that 'Elon Musk messed with the voting machines' is, unconsciously, unintentionally racist. With few exceptions, these silly speculations come from those who simply ignore not just the millions of votes officially reported as suppressed, their theories also ignore the horrifically painful experience of Black people turned away from the polls."

Instead, Palast emphasizes the documented, systematic disenfranchisement tactics that are openly acknowledged in government data but rarely discussed as determinative of election outcomes. While media outlets like The New York Times and NPR run stories about vote suppression tactics, "the mainstream press never, ever, not once, will say that these ugly racist attacks on voters changed the outcome of an election."

Resistance and the Path Forward

Despite the grim reality of suppression, both sources highlight paths toward a more inclusive democracy. After the 2016 election, Palast's team uncovered a racist purge program called "Interstate Crosscheck" that cost nearly a million voters their rights. This motivated Rev. Jesse Jackson to launch a campaign that successfully shut down Crosscheck. "Unquestionably, Joe Biden could not have won in 2020 without the Reverend saving literally hundreds of thousands of votes," Palast notes.

In 2020, voting rights groups helped defeat suppression efforts by re-registering purged voters, challenging the challenges, and "curing" disqualified ballots. As Palast notes, "They can't suppress all the votes all the time."

Major Turner, despite being targeted by vote challengers, sees progress in changing demographics and attitudes:

"I got to see some of the worst and ugliest aspects of America, at the same time some of the greatest. I got to see people that had nothing, eventually have something. I got to see what Martin said when he said, little black boys and little white girls walk hand in hand together. They're getting married now. The face of our nation, the thought process is changing. Yes, there are those that resent this, but that too shall pass. We just have to know that as a nation we're stronger and better than all of that."

Martin Luther King Jr.'s words from 1965 remain a call to action: "Let us march on ballot boxes, march on ballot boxes until race-baiters disappear from the political arena. I want to say to the people of America and the nations of the world, that we are not about to turn around. We are on the move now."

Conclusion: Democracy at Stake

Voter suppression isn't about securing elections—it's about determining who gets to participate in democracy. The overwhelming evidence shows it targets communities of color and Democratic-leaning constituencies with remarkable precision.

As long as we accept these tactics as normal, millions of citizens will continue to be denied their fundamental right to vote. The first step toward addressing this crisis is recognizing its scale and systematic nature. Only then can we begin the work of creating an electoral system that truly represents all Americans.

America remains what Rosario Dawson, narrator of "Vigilante Vote," calls "a haunted house," with "ruling dynasties [that] have gone to war with its ghosts."

"Until America hears these spirits, neither they nor we will be set free."

Moral Evaluation: Voter Suppression and Adams' Moral Algorithm

John Adams' statement articulates what we might call a "moral algorithm" for governance—a fundamental equation that balances the proper purposes and beneficiaries of governmental power against improper ones. When we examine the voter suppression tactics documented in the preceding investigation through this Adamsian lens, we find a profound misalignment with the core principles of legitimate governance.

The Common Good vs. Partisan Advantage

Adams positions "the common good" as the primary purpose of government. This requires systems that maximize participation and representation across the full spectrum of citizens. Yet the evidence reveals a pattern of electoral practices designed to achieve precisely the opposite outcome:

Targeted disenfranchisement represents a fundamental violation of the common good principle. When Brian Kemp purged 875,000 Georgia voters before the 2024 election—with 198,351 demonstrably still living at their registered addresses—this wasn't an administrative error but a deliberate calculation. The common good cannot be served when the mechanisms determining who governs systematically exclude particular segments of the population.

The design of these systems reveals their true purpose. When Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton openly admitted on Steve Bannon's podcast that stopping Houston from sending out mail-in ballots during a pandemic prevented Trump from losing Texas, he demonstrated that these policies serve "the private interest of one man, family, or class of men"—the exact arrangement Adams condemned.

Protection and Safety vs. Intimidation and Threat

Adams establishes "protection" and "safety" as core governmental obligations. Yet the documented tactics frequently employ their opposite—intimidation and threat—to achieve electoral outcomes:

When armed vigilantes monitored ballot drop boxes in Arizona with military-style uniforms and drones, they weren't protecting democratic processes but undermining the basic safety necessary for citizens to exercise their rights. The bomb threats that closed 31 polling stations in Atlanta on Election Day 2024 represented a direct assault on voters' physical safety.

The historical continuity is striking. The modern "Poison Postcard" purge traces directly back to Eugene Talmadge's "Vigilantes Inc." in 1942, which challenged "the entire list of negro registrants." When the FBI investigated these challenges, two Black veterans and their wives were murdered as a warning. Today's tactics may appear more bureaucratic, but they serve the same function of creating fear and uncertainty among targeted communities.

Prosperity and Happiness vs. Disproportionate Burden

Adams includes "prosperity" and "happiness" among the proper concerns of government. Voting access directly impacts these outcomes, as representatives determine resource allocation and policy priorities. The suppression tactics documented place disproportionate burdens on specific communities:

Black voters facing a 400% higher likelihood of mail-in ballot rejection and a 14.3% in-person rejection rate experience governance not designed for their "prosperity and happiness" but structured to minimize their influence. When Georgia's SB 202 law reduced drop boxes by 75% only in Black-majority counties and locked them away at night, it created practical and psychological barriers to participation that white voters simply didn't face.

The resulting representative imbalance leads to policy outcomes that further entrench disparities in prosperity and happiness. As Gerald Griggs, president of the Georgia NAACP, noted: "There is a feeling in this country that certain people by mere race or ethnicity or gender, are not as fundamentally American and thus not entitled to the protections of American civil rights."

The Right to Reform vs. Entrenched Power

Adams' algorithm includes a crucial recursive function—the right of the people "to reform, alter, or totally change" government when it fails to provide for their "protection, safety, prosperity and happiness." Voter suppression tactics directly attack this foundational right:

When Helen Butler was removed from her county's Board of Elections after questioning Kemp's voter purge practices, the system eliminated internal correction mechanisms. "They wanted people that were not as vocal as we were," Butler explained. "Wanted to make sure that they had total control of the Board of Elections."

Similarly, when Stacey Abrams' voter registration group registered 89,000 voters (mostly young Black students) only to have 40,000 mysteriously disappear from voter rolls, followed by criminal investigations of the registration group itself, the message was clear: attempts to reform the system through expanded participation would be met with institutional resistance and potential criminalization.

Historical Context: The Dynastic Counterargument

The investigation traces Brian Kemp's family wealth to ancestors including James Habersham, Georgia's first governor and importer of enslaved Africans, and notes his current ownership of "Plantation Partners, LLC." This historical lineage illuminates a counterargument to Adams' moral algorithm that has persisted throughout American history:

Some have always believed that government should indeed serve "the profit, honor, or private interest" of particular families and classes. The historical evidence suggests that voter suppression represents not a failure to implement democratic principles but a successful implementation of anti-democratic ones—a system working as designed to maintain dynastic power.

This is not speculation but documented in the candid statements of practitioners. When Confederate re-enactors told filmmaker Greg Palast they would "never give up" because "the South shall rise again," they weren't expressing a fringe view but articulating the philosophical foundation of these suppression tactics.

Systemic Analysis: Mechanisms of Moral Failure

The misalignment with Adams' moral algorithm operates through several key mechanisms:

1. Bureaucratic laundering transforms racial targeting into seemingly neutral administrative procedures. When True the Vote provided lists of voters to challenge, the racial pattern became plausibly deniable despite overwhelmingly affecting people of color.
2. Inverse burden distribution places the heaviest procedural requirements on those with the fewest resources. Provisional ballots require voters to personally visit county clerk offices with ID and proof of address—a significant burden for those with limited transportation, inflexible work schedules, or childcare responsibilities.
3. Asymmetric enforcement treats minor procedural issues differently based on who benefits. When Kemp sought 10-year prison sentences for voter registration groups over "picayune clerical matters" like submitting forms a few days late, the selective enforcement revealed the partisan purpose.
4. Historical erasure completes the cycle by eliminating evidence of the pattern. When Kemp signed bills banning the teaching of "divisive concepts" in schools, he created conditions where future generations would lack the context to recognize these tactics as part of a continuous historical strategy.

Conclusion: A Fundamental Misalignment

Adams' moral algorithm offers a transpartisan standard for evaluating governance. It doesn't privilege liberal or conservative policy outcomes but establishes a procedural foundation: government must serve everyone, not just some. The documented voter suppression tactics fail this test fundamentally.

When millions of citizens—4,776,706 purged from voter rolls, 2,121,000 mail-in ballots disqualified, 1,216,000 provisional ballots rejected—are systematically excluded from the democratic process, the resulting government cannot claim legitimacy under Adams' standard. It exists not for the "common good" but for particular interests; it provides neither "protection" nor "safety" to all citizens equally; and it actively impedes the people's right to "reform, alter, or totally change" a system that fails them.

What emerges is not a technical or partisan dispute about election administration but a fundamental challenge to the moral foundations of democratic governance. As Rosario Dawson observed, America remains "a haunted house" with "ruling dynasties [that] have gone to war with its ghosts." Adams' moral algorithm suggests that until these ghosts are heard—until government truly serves the common good of all people—neither they nor we will be set free.

Voter Suppression Through the Veil of Ignorance: A Rawlsian Analysis

John Rawls' "veil of ignorance" thought experiment offers a powerful framework for evaluating the fairness of social and political structures. Behind this conceptual veil, we are asked to imagine ourselves stripped of knowledge about our personal characteristics—race, gender, wealth, abilities, social status—and then consider what principles and systems we would deem just. The reasoning is elegantly simple: if you don't know which position in society you'll occupy, you'll likely choose arrangements that are fair to all positions.

Let's apply this Rawlsian lens to the documented voter suppression tactics, asking: Would anyone rationally consent to these electoral systems if they didn't know where in society they would land?

The Basic Structure of Electoral Access

Behind the veil of ignorance, what electoral system would rational individuals choose? Without knowing whether they would be wealthy or poor, urban or rural, highly educated or not, belonging to the majority race or a minority group, people would likely advocate for:

1. Universal accessibility to voting mechanisms
2. Equal procedural requirements for all citizens
3. Transparent validation processes with clear standards
4. Consistent application of rules regardless of location or demographic factors
5. Multiple pathways to exercise voting rights, accommodating different life circumstances

These principles reflect the rational self-interest of someone who, not knowing their position in society, would want insurance against finding themselves in a disadvantaged group.

Evaluating Specific Tactics

The "Poison Postcard" Purge

Imagine not knowing whether you would be someone with stable housing or frequent relocations, someone who carefully reads all mail or someone who discards what appears to be junk mail, someone with ample free time or someone working multiple jobs with limited time for administrative tasks.

Behind the veil of ignorance, would you consent to a system where:

• Failure to return a single postcard (response rates around 1% in Georgia) results in removal from voter rolls
• The burden of proof falls entirely on the citizen to prove they haven't moved
• The default assumption is disenfranchisement rather than continued eligibility

The rational answer is clearly no. Such a system creates arbitrary barriers that disproportionately impact those with fewer resources—exactly the position you might occupy but wouldn't know before the veil lifts.

As one analyst observed: "The Poison Postcard response rate is close to nothing... And that's the way our partisan voting officials like it." This reveals a system designed not for equitable access but for selective disenfranchisement.

Vigilante Vote Challenges

From behind the veil of ignorance, would you approve of a system where:

• Any private citizen can challenge the eligibility of unlimited other voters
• Challenged voters must personally appear to defend their right to vote
• Challengers face no significant consequences for incorrect or unsubstantiated challenges
• Officials can remove election board members who reject challenges

Again, the rational answer is no. Not knowing whether you would be among those challenged or those protected from challenges, you would reject a system where partisan actors can leverage asymmetric power to impede others' participation.

The testimony from Russell, the Republican Party chairman who challenged 4,000 voters, is telling. When confronted about challenging Major Turner, a career military officer, Russell admitted he had no evidence Turner shouldn't vote. Behind Rawls' veil, no one would approve of their fundamental rights being subject to such arbitrary interference.

Mail-In Ballot Rejections

Not knowing whether you would be physically able to vote in person, whether you would have workplace flexibility on Election Day, whether you would have dependable transportation, or whether your handwriting would perfectly match your registration signature, would you consent to:

• Rejection rates of 12% for mail-in ballots due to technical requirements
• A 400% higher rejection rate if you turn out to be Black
• Removal of drop boxes by 75% in certain counties
• Signature matching protocols with minimal standardization

The rational response would be to reject these conditions. The system fails Rawls' test because it creates unnecessary risks that rational actors would not accept if they didn't know their personal circumstances.

"Placebo" Provisional Ballots

Behind the veil of ignorance, would you approve of a system where:

• 42.3% of provisional ballots are never counted
• Being directed to a provisional ballot makes you three times less likely to have your vote counted if you turn out to be a minority voter
• You must take additional steps after Election Day (visiting county offices with documentation) to validate your ballot

No rational person would consent to a system with such high failure rates and asymmetric burdens, especially when they couldn't know if they would be among those forced to use these "placebo ballots."

The Broader Social Contract

Rawls argued that behind the veil of ignorance, rational people would agree to inequalities only if they benefit the least advantaged members of society (the "difference principle"). The documented voter suppression tactics fail this test spectacularly:

• They create inequalities that specifically disadvantage the already marginalized
• They amplify existing social disparities rather than mitigating them
• They concentrate political power among groups already wielding economic power

When Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton openly admitted that stopping Houston from sending out mail-in ballots prevented Trump from losing Texas, he revealed a system operating counter to Rawlsian justice. The policy didn't benefit the least advantaged—predominantly Black Houstonians during a pandemic—but rather served those already holding power.

The Challenge of History and Identity

One might argue that the veil of ignorance is too abstract, detached from the historical realities that shape our political systems. But this critique actually strengthens the Rawlsian case against these tactics.

Behind the veil, you wouldn't know whether you would emerge as:

• Someone descended from those who owned enslaved people or from those who were enslaved
• Someone whose ancestors could always vote or those who fought for generations to secure that right
• Someone for whom voting is a casual civic duty or a hard-won rightful inheritance

Given this uncertainty, you would advocate for systems that acknowledge historical inequities rather than perpetuating them. You would reject arrangements that Brian Kemp's Confederate-reenacting supporters celebrate for helping "the South rise again."

The Problem of Information Asymmetry

The veil of ignorance also reveals a profound problem with how these systems operate: information asymmetry. Many affected voters never discover they've been purged until they attempt to vote, when it's too late to remedy the situation. Major Turner didn't know his mail-in ballot was rejected, Christine Jordan didn't know she'd been purged until turned away at her polling place, and tens of thousands never learned their registrations weren't processed.

Behind the veil, you wouldn't consent to a system where:

• Some participants have complete information while others operate in enforced ignorance
• Errors systematically disadvantage particular groups
• The burden of discovering and correcting errors falls entirely on the affected individual

Conclusion: The Verdict of the Veil

The Rawlsian verdict is unambiguous: the documented voter suppression tactics fail the veil of ignorance test. They create systems no rational person would consent to if they didn't know which position in society they would occupy.

What emerges from this analysis is a profound misalignment between these electoral mechanisms and basic principles of fairness. The tactics don't represent good-faith efforts to secure elections—as some defenders claim—but rather calculated strategies to shape the electorate itself.

Perhaps most tellingly, those who design and implement these systems do so with full knowledge of who will be affected—precisely the condition Rawls' veil of ignorance is designed to eliminate. They operate not behind a veil of ignorance but with clear-eyed awareness of how these mechanisms will impact different communities.

As historian and activist John Turner observed, reflecting on the modern suppression tactics he's battled throughout his life: "I'm angry. I'm fearful... I couldn't believe it. Not my country. Not now. Not this day in time."

Behind Rawls' veil of ignorance, we would all share Turner's disbelief—and reject these systems as fundamentally unjust.

Aristotle's Response to Modern Voter Suppression Tactics

The Politics of Participation: An Aristotelian Analysis

Aristotle, the systematic philosopher of ancient Athens who studied the constitutions of 158 Greek city-states, would approach modern voter suppression tactics with particular interest and likely considerable alarm. His political philosophy offers a surprisingly relevant framework for evaluating these practices, despite the vast temporal and cultural distance separating his world from ours.

The Telos of Political Community

For Aristotle, every human institution has a telos—an end or purpose toward which it naturally aims. The telos of political community (polis) is not mere survival but "the good life" (eudaimonia) for its citizens. He writes in Politics:

"The polis comes into existence for the sake of life but exists for the sake of the good life."

This teleological view leads directly to Aristotle's assessment of different constitutional forms. He evaluates political systems based on whether they serve the common interest or merely the interest of rulers:

1. Just forms of government (monarchy, aristocracy, polity) serve the common good
2. Corrupt forms (tyranny, oligarchy, democracy) serve only the rulers' interests

Examining American voter suppression through this lens, Aristotle would immediately identify these tactics as corrupting influences on the constitutional order. When Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton openly admitted that stopping mail-in ballots in Houston prevented Trump from losing Texas, Aristotle would see a textbook example of rulers manipulating political processes for their own advantage rather than the common good.

The Middle Constitution and Civic Friendship

Aristotle's preferred political arrangement, the "polity" or middle constitution, seeks stability through broad citizen participation. He argues that states flourish when the middle class is strong and numerous citizens participate in governance. His theory of civic friendship (politike philia) suggests that political communities require a sense of mutual concern and shared purpose.

The documented 4.7 million voter purges, 2.1 million rejected mail-in ballots, and other suppression tactics would deeply trouble Aristotle because they systematically undermine both balance and civic friendship. By targeting specific communities—primarily people of color—these practices create exactly the factional division Aristotle warned against:

"The greatest good in states is to have unity, and this is especially preserved through civic friendship."

The deliberate fragmentation of the electorate through purges and challenges violates this principle fundamentally. Aristotle would view vigilante vote challenges as particularly destructive to civic friendship, as they position citizens against each other rather than in cooperation.

Justice as Proportionality

Aristotle's conception of justice rests on proportionality rather than strict equality. He distinguishes between:

1. Distributive justice: Goods distributed according to merit
2. Corrective justice: Restoration of equality after it has been disturbed

Modern democratic systems have largely moved beyond Aristotle's merit-based distribution of political rights, embracing the principle that all citizens deserve equal voting rights regardless of wealth, education, or status. Yet Aristotle's framework remains useful for analyzing the disproportionate impact of seemingly neutral voting regulations.

When Black voters face mail-in ballot rejection rates 400% higher than white voters, or when signature matching protocols disproportionately affect communities of color, Aristotle would identify a clear injustice—not because he demanded identical treatment, but because the disparities lack any reasonable proportional basis. The arbitrary nature of these burdens would offend his sense of rational order.

The Problem of Pleonexia

Aristotle identified pleonexia—the grasping desire for more than one's fair share—as a key source of political dysfunction. Those afflicted with pleonexia seek advantage without regard for others or the common good.

The documented efforts of organizations like True the Vote to challenge hundreds of thousands of voters, overwhelmingly people of color, exemplify what Aristotle would recognize as pleonexia in the political sphere. They represent not a genuine concern for electoral integrity but an attempt to gain unfair advantage.

Aristotle would be particularly troubled by the historical continuity of these tactics. The connection between Eugene Talmadge's "Vigilantes Inc." in 1942 and modern vote suppression strategies would appear to him as evidence of entrenched pleonexia—a persistent moral failing that corrupts the political community across generations.

Practical Wisdom and the Rule of Law

Aristotle valued the rule of law above the rule of individuals, arguing that law represents "reason without passion." He believed that good governance requires phronesis (practical wisdom)—the capacity to deliberate well about what conduces to the good life.

The "poison postcard" purges and arbitrary voter challenges represent precisely the opposite of phronesis. They replace reasoned judgment with procedural traps designed to disenfranchise legitimate voters. When election officials in Georgia disqualified Major Turner's ballot despite his mailing it seven days before the deadline, they demonstrated not practical wisdom but its absence.

Aristotle would be particularly disturbed by SB 202's provision allowing for the removal of local election officials who reject voter challenges. This arrangement undermines both the rule of law and the exercise of practical wisdom by subordinating both to partisan advantage.

The Virtue of Political Participation

For Aristotle, political participation was not merely a right but a necessary component of human flourishing. He famously declared man a "political animal" (zoon politikon) who achieves his nature through engagement with the polis.

The systematic exclusion of millions of citizens from political participation would therefore represent not just a procedural problem but a moral failing of the highest order. By preventing citizens from exercising their political nature, these suppression tactics impede human flourishing itself.

When Christine Jordan, a 92-year-old cousin of Martin Luther King Jr., was turned away from her polling place despite voting there for decades, Aristotle would see not just an administrative error but a profound injustice—the denial of a citizen's opportunity to fulfill her nature as a political being.

Education and Political Literacy

Aristotle placed great emphasis on education for citizenship, arguing that proper political functioning requires an informed populace. The documented efforts to keep citizens ignorant of their voting status—through opaque purge processes and limited notification—would strike him as fundamentally corrupt.

The information asymmetry created when voters don't discover they've been purged until they attempt to vote contradicts Aristotle's vision of an enlightened citizenry. Similarly, the passage of laws banning the teaching of "divisive concepts" in Georgia schools would appear to Aristotle as attempts to prevent citizens from developing the knowledge necessary for proper political judgment.

The Mean Between Extremes

Aristotle's ethics revolves around finding the "golden mean" between excess and deficiency. Applied to voting regulation, this suggests a balanced approach that maintains electoral integrity without creating unnecessary barriers to participation.

The documented suppression tactics represent not a mean but an extreme—an excessive restriction that serves not the common good but particular interests. Aristotle would likely advocate for a middle path: reasonable safeguards that prevent fraud without disenfranchising legitimate voters.

Aristotle's Verdict

If transported to our time and presented with the evidence of systemic voter suppression, Aristotle would likely render a judgment along these lines:

These practices corrupt the political community by privileging the advantage of rulers over the common good. They violate distributive justice by imposing disproportionate burdens on particular citizens without rational basis. They undermine civic friendship by fostering division rather than unity. They replace practical wisdom with mechanical procedures designed to exclude rather than include. Most fundamentally, they prevent citizens from exercising their nature as political animals, thereby impeding human flourishing.

A truly virtuous political system would seek neither excessive restriction nor complete absence of standards, but rather a prudent mean that enables broad participation while maintaining reasonable order. The documented suppression tactics fail this test of virtue completely. They represent not wisdom but cunning, not justice but advantage, not moderation but excess.

To address Brian Kemp's Confederate-supporting constituents who declared "the South shall rise again," Aristotle might paraphrase his own words from the Politics:

"A constitution that serves only some citizens is no constitution at all, but merely a means of domination. The true polis exists not for the benefit of any faction but for the flourishing of all."