Introduction
Getting electoral votes is a priority goal for any political movement. Thus, such motives significantly influence the course of the electoral process. However, voter suppression is one of the advanced tactics that is gaining popularity. The main problem is the dispersal of tactics used in different constituencies. Thus, in the South, one can observe limitations between external limitations and internal possibilities (Duignan, 2021). Due to the limited ability of the state to ensure the legal procedure for holding fair elections, violent suppression appears. This happens for several reasons, the most important of which is the application of external constraints.
However, an increase in internal capacity and a decrease in external barriers led to the adoption of centralized, legislative, and non-violent voter suppression methods. Social minorities and people with limited incomes represent a particularly vulnerable category of the population which is easy to manipulate. This led to potential candidates in any election can use specific leverage to bribe voters. The current authorities can also use this tactic to retain their seats in any state body. Thus, centralized and legally supported strategies aimed at disenfranchising minorities and pursuing dubious political agendas in the southern states are a current threat to the US.
Background
For a democratic society, the right to vote is one of the fundamental rules of existence. This aspect is the key on which all the legal norms adopted in the country are based. If one of the postulates of a democratic society is destroyed or discredited, this can pose a significant threat to the country. In order to be admitted to one country, the Southern States had to change their constitutions according to the then-current rules regarding the electoral question (Duignan, 2021). In this case, local authorities would receive significant restrictions in establishing control over Blacks. In the Southern states, Black enfranchisement laws were never passed and were continually shelved. At the same time, in the North, people began to suppress voters in order to influence the election results. However, in most cases, such tactics failed because all the states acted under a single law that obliged them to give everyone the same voting rights.
Since southern politicians failed to provide sufficient transparency in elections and the rights of blacks, intimidation and suppression became their primary tools for political struggle. The Edgefield Plan, implemented in South Carolina and proposed by Martin W. Gary, used violence to dissuade people from voting (Duignan, 2021). Civic militias were tasked with suppressing Black participation in the electoral process. In this way, human rights were significantly violated, which destroyed democracy at its very creation. Despite this, such active violent actions could attract the attention of the commission of federal authorities. Therefore, several methods of non-violent suppression of the electoral rights of blacks were developed, which amounted to their prohibition.
However, such efforts by the southern authorities contributed to strengthening democratic authorities in that part of the country. Thus, this led to the fact that there was the restructuring of electoral institutions. This change was facilitated by several rulings of the Supreme Court in the 1870s, which nullified the gains of the Reconstruction era (Duignan, 2021). As a consequence of this, the power of the Democrats was restored in the region, and legal amendments expanding freedom began to be adopted.
Contemporary Issues
The influence of experience in voter suppression has played a negative role in today’s politicians, as this problem remains relevant in the United States. Today, in many southern states, there is a trend to implement a strategy that should provide restrictions on the identification of voters (Keele et al., 2021). However, despite the theoretical foundations, this policy is actively used to discriminate against social groups that are disadvantageous to the authorities. Such actions are designed to help the current authorities maintain control over the situation since they have a high chance of losing their positions in the event of fair elections (Epperly et al., 2019). The adoption of the above laws on behalf of several southern states can be explained by the fact that the Republican Party has established control over a large number of states in this region. Thus, they can single-handedly carry out the necessary changes in local legislation. Such actions can significantly harm the integrity of the country, as the situation is similar to the one that was after the Civil War when the South passed its laws that discredited certain groups of people.
Detailed databases and information about people’s preferences help the authorities to form laws that would be aimed precisely at discriminating against those people whose opinions is not beneficial. As an example, consider the North Carolina elections, when Republicans used such information to restrict African Americans from accessing the polls (Epperly et al., 2019). This was done by analyzing those places that blacks frequent and limiting elections there or transferring them specifically to other areas. There were several reasons for such actions, the main one being the growing levels of support among the young population of the Democratic Party. In addition, in some states, there is a situation where voters are bribed or intimidated to change their preferences to the Republican side (Cohn-Postar, 2021). Judges play an essential role in this system, as they are directly responsible for allowing such laws to restrict voting rights to be passed, as well as for failing to respond to complaints from residents. In addition, the judiciary has played a significant role in the formation of institutionalized forms of repression of voting rights for individuals.
Oppression of Voter Rights in Texas
In modern realities, the situation with the right to vote has not changed completely. As an example of a flagrant violation of voting rights, one can name the situation that has developed in Texas because the authorities failed to provide the necessary transparency and instead attempted to limit the rights of the people (Slattery, 2021). Regular allegations of voter fraud led to Senate Bill 1 (SB1), the latest attempt to restrict voting in the state (Slattery, 2021). Based on all the facts studied and also from the fact that the history of the state has illustrative examples, it can be said that in Texas, the voting process is much more complex than anywhere else in the country. Existing Texas politics thrives and remains a ruling power with continued support from white agriculturalists. However, growing industrialization and urbanization may soon disrupt this order of things in the state.
The Texas SB1 law is an excellent example of how much power can restrict the rights of people because of their privileges. Thus, this resolution restricts online registration to participate in voting. This is a deterrent for many citizens who now will not be able to express their will. Texas voters must register at least 30 days before the election through applications to be served or mailed (Harris, 2022). In addition, the same law limits the circle of people who can participate in voting remotely via e-mail. This is a significant obstacle for many people who, for many reasons, cannot be present at the polling stations.
The state has significant restrictions on voting far from the polling place. The people who are allowed to vote via e-mail only include the elderly and the disabled (Harris, 2022). This might look like a law aimed at eliminating vote forgery, but there are some factors that prevent this. For example, when the coronavirus pandemic began, the state authorities did not lift the restrictions even for a while, despite the fact that people who come to the polls can get infected. Such actions can be alarming because they are evidence of the preemption of the authorities. In addition, local officials are not allowed to provide e-mail voting tools and forms themselves (Harris, 2022). It is important to note that mail-in ballots, when available, have rigorous criteria and are not targeted at non-English speakers or people with disabilities. This can be seen in the fact that the forms are rejected due to minor errors that people can make due to certain factors or by chance. These controls may mean that many voices of people with disabilities will not be processed as they will not be allowed to be screened.
In addition to the above disadvantages, the SB1 law has a number of additional aspects that can complicate the voting process for different people. One of these could be increased waiting times at polling stations. This is facilitated by factors such as the dense population of Texas and the stringent requirements for the identification of voters (Epperly et al., 2019). Such norms can negatively affect the ability of minorities to express their will, which may have problems with identification in the required forms. In addition, this law cuts off voting opportunities for people who are temporarily unable to come to the polls. Previously, voters had the opportunity to come to the polling stations 24 hours a day. Thus, SB1 has significant limiting capabilities that prevent many people from voting.
The purpose of the law under consideration is to establish fairer voting results. However, some studies indicate that the end result causes significant harm and distorts the tangible results. This can be explained by the fact that population groups such as the disabled or minorities are more likely to ignore elections (Harris, 2022). Therefore, this can harm the purity of the voting results. There are reasons for this since most of these people will not be able to visit polling stations conveniently or go through identification (Tomaino & Carmon, 2022). This will lead to the fact that the voting results will be unfair since the opinion of not all people will be taken into account in the calculation. At the same time, the law will contradict existing norms according to which assistance should be provided to persons who cannot move freely. In addition, non-English speakers are also not given any assistance since the law prohibits assistants from translating text or performing votes on their behalf. If any people misunderstand the rules that have been introduced, they will be prosecuted in Texas. Therefore, it further restricts people who are more likely not to vote than to be at risk.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it is essential to say that limiting voting power has a long history in the US. It originated as an illegally forced prohibition but later developed into a legal method of retaining power. In this way, the authorities can effectively retain power through the institutions of the judiciary and legislation. This poses a significant threat to a modern democratic society in which all people should have equal voting rights. As a result of the effects of the new SB1, many people will also be forced to sit out of Texas elections for fear of criminal prosecution. All these factors thus indicate that the authorities have as their goal to allow only the audience that is beneficial to them to participate in the elections.
References
Cohn-Postar, G. (2021). Ballot reform and economic voter intimidation in New York state, 1888–1890. New York History, 102(1), 172-190. Web.
Duignan, B. (2021). Voter suppression. Britannica. Web.
Epperly, B., Witko, C., Strickler, R., & White, P. (2019). Rule by violence, rule by law: Lynching, Jim Crow, and the continuing evolution of voter suppression in the U.S. Perspectives on Politics, 18(3), 756-769. Web.
Harris, A. (2022). 5 ways Texas suppresses the vote — and how to make your vote count. American Civil Liberties Union of Texas. Web.
Keele, L., Cubbison, W., & White, I. (2021). Suppressing Black votes: A historical case study of voting restrictions in Louisiana. American Political Science Review, 115(2), 694-700. Web.
Slattery, J. (2021). Texas voting law is just the latest in voter suppression efforts. Bloomberg Law. Web.
Tomaino, G. & Carmon, Z. (2022). Americans underestimate the impact of voter suppression. Insead. Web.