Report on Voter Suppression in the Elections of November 2012

Updated 03.07.13

 

Foreword

On February 27, 2013, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of Shelby County v. Eric Holder. Though the case centers around the question of Constitutional overreach in the Voting Rights  Act, it carries with it the ancilliarly debate over whether or not voting conditions in our country allow all voters equal opportunity to participate in free and fair elections. Established in 1965, the Voting Rights Act takes our country back to a time when our elections were not always free or fair. Voter suppression was a very real part of our country’s history, particularly for women and minority communities. Since then, the United States has made huge strides in correcting inequities of the past. Today, any registered, eligible voter has the right to participate in elections and to cast their vote for whomever they choose. Even still, if elections are not truly fair, we are not truly free.Voter suppression, be it legitimate or falsely claimed, threatens freedom - devolving American voters into a cast of victims and oppressors, wedging apart communities, and undermining the advancements in equality that strengthen and stabilize our democratic republic.Though the term “voter suppression” no longer has meaning in the same context it did during the turbulent civil rights battles of the 1960s, the accusation of “voter suppression” still carries with it a visceral sting that inflames all that our nation has worked so hard to correct and heal. Voter suppression is a serious charge that deserves serious attention. It was very concerning to see that, even before Election Day, print and television news outlets began filing scores of stories alleging voter suppression; long lines, election worker malfeasance, and general confusion at early voting centers across the country.

1

With a strong belief that any incident of voter suppression is unacceptable, True the Vote launched an investigation to find out whether or not voter suppression took place in the 2012 elections and if so, where, how, and by whom. Given the extensive media coverage, it was expected that through our investigation we would receive and review volumes of complaints submitted to local election officials. What we found was just the opposite. This report contains those findings.

Note: Our original report, released on February 27, 2013, included a supplementary section that contained inaccurate methodology. The supplementary section had no impact on our data or resulting conclusions regarding Voter Suppression. It should have not been included in the report and has since been removed.

1

 

Will Election Day be a ‘perfect storm?’ Four nightmare scenarios for what could go wrong 

, NBC Nightly News (11/4/12)

 

Researching Voter Suppression

True the Vote filed open records requests in

 75 of the most populous counties across

 

Ohio, Colorado, Florida, Nevada, North Carolina and Maryland.

 We requested any and all reports of voter suppression during the 2012 General Election cycle. These six states were chosen based on the following criteria:

•

Political battleground states with high levels of investment from partisan interests;

•

States with substantial, emergent minority communities;

•

States and counties that received national media attention regarding long lines and/or confusion during early voting.

What Did We Find?

 Across 75 counties in 6 states

 

only 

one

 case of voter suppression was reported.

The Reality Ohio

Secretary of State Jon Husted made national headlines in a series of controversial directives that drew mixed reactions from nearly all interested parties.

2

 On June 12, 2012 Husted announced that he would mail absentee ballot applications to all registered voters in Ohio.

3

 In August, Husted issued a directive stating that all 88 county boards of elections had to follow uniform early voting hours of operation as prescribed by the state. The Obama re-election campaign immediately took the issue to court, arguing the directive curtailed opportunities to vote shortly before Election Day. The directive was later reversed in mid-October.

4

 Finally, Husted issued a rule change on November 2nd that allowed poll workers to discard incomplete provisional applications.

5

  According to mainstream and progressive media outlets, Husted’s efforts were fully expected to negatively impact urban community voters. However, not a single report of voter suppression was received from Cuyahoga, Hamilton, Franklin, or fifteen other county boards of elections surveyed (see  Addendum for detailed report).

2

 

Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted Calls for Uniform Early Voting Hours

, Cleveland Plain Dealer (8/15/12)

3

 

Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted Eases Restrictions on Absentee Voting 

, Cleveland Plain Dealer (7/12/12)

4

 

U.S. Supreme Court Denies Ohio Early Voting Appeal; Hours Set for Weekend Before Election

, Cleveland Plain Dealer (10/16/12)

5

 

Provisional Ballot Directive Spurs Court Action in Ohio

, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (11/4/12)