Has Voting Suppression Gone Too Far

For over a century, politicians have employed various tactics to suppress the votes of certain groups. The Jim Crow laws of the South are the most well-documented example, explicitly targeting Black voters. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was a landmark step forward, designed to eliminate these forms of voter suppression. Then, in 2013, the Supreme Court's decision in Shelby County v. Holder struck down a key provision of that law, ruling it unconstitutional. The decision emboldened certain politicians to employ increasingly aggressive voter suppression tactics, and the effects have been felt ever since.

The Expat Voting Challenge

During recent election cycles, one particularly troubling example has been the challenge to overseas voters' ballots. Critics argue that Americans living abroad should not be eligible to vote in state elections since they no longer reside within the state. However, the right of private U.S. citizens living abroad to vote in federal elections was established with the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act of 1986, signed into law by President Ronald Reagan. This legislation predates the COVID-19 pandemic by decades. It provides a clear framework for expats to determine their eligible voting state and register accordingly.

A Personal Account

I experienced this process firsthand a few years ago. My last U.S. address was in North Carolina. After I moved abroad, the North Carolina Board of Elections sent a confirmation letter to that address. When I did not respond, they correctly removed me from the voter rolls. Later, I contacted the board about my status. After verifying my identity and eligibility, they reinstated my voting rights. Throughout the process, the election officials were professional and thorough, ensuring that only eligible voters participated.

What Is Actually at Stake

Some may question the fairness of expat voting rights, and that is understandable. But this law has been in place for decades, and the arguments against it lack solid grounding. The real motivation behind these recent challenges appears to be creating grounds for the Supreme Court to hear a case on disqualifying expat ballots, particularly if they could sway close elections in key swing states. The tactic could exploit the Shelby County v. Holder precedent to shift election results in favour of certain candidates, ultimately undermining the democratic process.

This is not a partisan issue. It is a structural one. The same electoral mechanics that shape who gets elected also determine whose votes count and whose get challenged. Understanding how voter suppression operates within the current system is essential groundwork for any meaningful reform.

If you want to understand why our electoral system produces the outcomes it does, start by examining who bears responsibility for the dysfunction.