This column was originally published by Sheila Kennedy on her blog, “A Jaundiced Look at the World We Live In.”
By Sheila Kennedy
June 4, 2025
A fear often expressed by members of the Resistance is the possibility that Trump will declare a “national emergency” of some sort and use that declaration to cancel the midterm election. I don’t entirely discount that possibility, but I do think it is unlikely, for a number of reasons.
That said, the fear is reasonable, based on the GOP’s persistent assault on voters’ rights, and on its long history of vote suppression. The Brennan Center recently shared their study of the effects of those efforts, and the conclusions are depressing. It turns out that there are multiple ways of invalidating an election without actually cancelling it.
States have enacted dozens of laws that make it harder for citizens to vote. What
impact will they have in next year’s vital midterm elections?
The Brennan Center has provided compelling evidence that these laws directly
suppress the vote. And our newest research shows, even more significantly, that
eligible voters turned away from casting a ballot once are much less likely to try
again in later elections. They give up, it seems. Voter suppression can last years,
perhaps a lifetime. That is a deeply disturbing finding, suggesting that even small
effects of these new laws can cascade over time.
Researchers looked at the results of S.B. 1, a Texas law making it more difficult to vote by mail. The state rejected thousands of mail ballot requests and mail-in votes during the 2022 primary. (Unsurprisingly the rejections were disproportionately those of nonwhite voters.)
They found that the voters whose ballots were rejected were 16 percentage points less likely to vote in the 2022 general election. “And the trend continued for the 2024 primary election — a full two years later.” As the report emphasized, “These citizens are not disinterested slackers. These are routine voters who have properly cast ballots year after year — 85 percent of those whose mail-in votes or ballot requests were rejected voted in the 2016, 2018, and 2020 general elections.”
This is one more strong piece of evidence that the recent wave of restrictive
voting laws will have a great and growing impact. Last year, a Brennan Center
study relying on a voter file with nearly 1 billion records showed that the gap
between the participation rates of white voters and nonwhite voters has grown
across the country — but grew at twice the rate in counties once monitored by a
robust Voting Rights Act.
Some have suggested that the tumult over these new voting laws was sound and
fury that ultimately signified little. Sure, they say, these laws may have had bad
intent, but the impact was negligible.
As it turns out, voter suppression laws . . . suppress the vote. Who’d have thought
it?
If readers from central Indiana are interested in learning more about the impact of the GOP’s ongoing effort to suppress the vote, Common Cause is screening an important film at the Kan Kan theater on June 12th at 7:00 pm.
The documentary film, Vigilantes Inc, is based upon reporting done by investigative journalist Greg Palast, and it reveals how self-appointed “vote-fraud hunters” challenge the ballots of millions of voters–with a special emphasis on young voters and voters of color. There will be a discussion following the screening, featuring the filmmaker and Indiana advocates fighting voter suppression.
You can buy tickets here.
As the Brennan Center article points out, the effects of long lines at a polling place, requirements to produce birth certificates or proof of citizenship, or “errors” disqualifying a ballot can effectively suppress an individual’s motivation to vote for years–even a lifetime.
Political analyst Michael Podhorzer has astutely observed that a “generational
replacement” is being engineered: “Older and established voters keep up their
voting habits, while new restrictions stymie younger voters.” Our research shows
the effects of voter suppression on older voters, but it underscores how potent
silent disenfranchisement can be…
The right kind of national legislation would expand access while strengthening
election administration and security. The Freedom to Vote Act would set baseline
national standards to ensure that ballots cannot be discarded for minor errors
and discrepancies, and it would bar many state restrictions on mail and early
voting. The John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act would restore the
strength of the Voting Rights Act.
These reforms came achingly close to enactment a few years ago. We predicted
then that if the federal courts and Congress did not protect the freedom to vote,
states would be left unchecked to abuse the rights of their people. Sadly, that has
happened. Congress should once again be prepared to act.
If your schedule permits, go see “Vigilantes” on June 12th. And vote for Democrats to take Congress next year, assuming there’s an election….
Sheila Suess Kennedy is Emerita Professor of Law and Public Policy at the School of Public and Environmental Affairs at Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis. As an attorney, she practiced real estate, administrative and business law in Indianapolis before becoming corporation counsel for the City of Indianapolis in 1977. In 1980, she was the Republican candidate for Indiana’s then 1th Congressional District and in 1992, she became executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana. She joined the faculty of the School of Public and Environment al Affairs in 1998.
The views and opinions expressed are those of the author only and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Indiana Citizen or any other affiliated organization.
