On Voting Rights, Trump and Harris Couldn’t Be Farther Apart
Democracy itself is on the ballot this year. So is the fundamental right to vote.
Beyond stark differences in their fidelity to democratic principles, Kamala Harris and Donald Trump have divergent approaches to voting rights. As I’ve long advocated, bipartisanship in voting rules is best. Hopefully, whoever wins will work across the aisle to enact meaningful, bipartisan reforms that make voting more accessible and secure. That said, the two candidates have vastly different views. Here is a rundown based on what they have said, done, and promised on voting rights.
Kamala Harris
The vice president’s record and statements show that if she takes office in January, she will continue to focus on expanded voting rights opportunities.
In her acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention in August, Harris referred to the “freedom to vote” as “the freedom that unlocks all the others.” As senator and vice president, she strongly supported the John Lewis Voting Rights Act and the Freedom to Vote Act, two laws that could transform how states run elections. President Joe Biden tapped Harris to lead his administration’s focus on voting rights, including passage of these two laws. Both laws stalled because of objections from Senate Republicans.
The John Lewis Act would reinstitute some of the 1965 Voting Rights Act protections that Supreme Court rulings have harmed. The Freedom to Vote Act would mandate expanded early voting, vote-by-mail, and independent redistricting commissions to minimize gerrymandering, among other reforms. Harris has also discussed improving voter access for Native American communities and was a co-sponsor of the Native American Voting Rights Act when she was in the Senate. She remarked, “Democracy is strongest for our country when everyone participates; it is weaker when anyone is denied the ability to participate.”
During a meeting in February 2024 with leaders on voting rights, Harris dedicated three “National Days of Action on Voting”—Juneteenth (June 19), the anniversary of the Voting Rights Act (Aug. 6), and National Voter Registration Day (Sept. 17). She also announced that federal agencies would undertake various actions during this election year to promote voter registration and education, such as displaying signs with Vote.gov at Social Security offices and National Parks. In addition, those who signed up for health care on HealthCare.gov received follow-up emails about registering to vote.
Ultimately, a Harris presidency would likely push for more voting opportunities through expanded early voting and vote-by-mail, an end to partisan gerrymandering, and the adoption of other election-related policies that could lead to higher turnout. She has long called voting rights a top priority. She would likely use her presidency to push Congress to pass new voting rights legislation to break down barriers and impose more expansive voting rules. She would also almost certainly nominate jurists who would robustly construe the constitutional protection for the right to vote.
Donald Trump
Trump sees things differently. The 45th president’s record and rhetoric primarily focus on what he and his supporters call election integrity. Yet his view of “integrity” is narrow, used most often to challenge an election result he does not like. State and federal judges—including some of his own appointees—soundly rejected his extensive efforts to seek judicial relief following what he said was a “stolen” 2020 presidential election. He has continued to focus on “integrity” concerns, saying he will only accept the election results this year if there is a “fair and legal and good election.”
He has also addressed election policy during his 2024 campaign. Number 19 on his platform’s list of 20 priorities is to “secure our elections, including same day voting, voter identification, paper ballots, and proof of citizenship.”
The proposal for “same day voting” presumably means that he would seek to restrict early voting and vote-by-mail policies. While Trump used to fulminate against early voting and voting by mail, he has warmed up to the idea in this election season. The audience at his Madison Square Garden rally repeatedly saw “Vote Early” signs on the Jumbotron. If Trump cools to early voting, he would probably face bipartisan opposition. Surveys show that both Democrats and Republicans favor early voting days—though Democrats support it at higher numbers than Republicans do. Views on universal vote-by-mail fall more along partisan lines, with most Democrats supporting the idea and most Republicans in opposition. A recent academic study found that “states with greater usage of mail voting experience higher overall voter turnout.”
Trump’s website also says he wants “voter identification.” Voter ID laws already exist in 36 states, though the specific requirements vary. Trump says he supports stricter rules to reduce voter “fraud.” Studies show that strict voter ID laws can disenfranchise some voters, especially minority individuals and poorer people, while there is virtually no evidence of in-person voter fraud.
Next, Trump’s platform says he wants “paper ballots.” Virtually all jurisdictions already use paper ballots. Presumably, given the lawsuits his supporters have brought, he means that he supports hand counting of ballots. Election officials and experts have demonstrated why hand-counting every vote is a bad idea. The process introduces inaccuracies, as machines are better than humans at rote tasks like counting thousands of ballots. Hand counting could also cause massive delays in reporting results, which might sow confusion or distrust.
Finally, Trump supports requiring voters to provide documentary proof of citizenship when registering for federal elections, urging Congress to pass the Republican-backed Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act. Earlier this year, he called on Congress not to keep the government funded unless it also passed this law. Congress did not have the votes to do as Trump wished, and it ultimately enacted a funding bill without the SAVE Act. One can presume that the law would be a renewed priority in a second Trump administration—despite the evidence that such a requirement could disenfranchise valid voters who do not have the necessary documents and even though noncitizens hardly ever vote illegally.
A president’s judicial appointees also impact the scope of voting rights. Trump nominated three Supreme Court justices and hundreds of federal judges. Those jurists have generally ruled quite narrowly on voting rights protections, deferring to state lawmakers over the rights of individual voters. For instance, all three of his Court picks—Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett—joined in a 6-3 decision to limit plaintiffs’ ability to bring discrimination claims under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Similarly, in 2020, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued a 6-4 ruling—with five of the six judges in the majority being Trump selections—that upheld a Florida statute requiring people with a felony conviction who had served their time to pay back all “fines and fees” before they regained their voting rights. The decision minimized the reach of Amendment 4, a constitutional amendment overwhelmingly backed by Florida voters in 2018 to restore voting rights to persons who had them taken away because of a felony conviction.
Just last week, three Trump-chosen judges on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously held that Mississippi may not count absentee ballots postmarked before Election Day but received within five days after because federal law requires a single “Election Day” (The ruling will likely not go into effect for 2024.) The decision was contrary to the rulings of all other courts that have considered the issue. We can assume that Trump, in a second term, would appoint similar judges with a narrow view of voting rights.
A Trump White House would also likely alter the federal government’s activities toward voting rights. He could direct the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division to change its focus and no longer bring voting rights claims; the Project 2025 agenda (on page 562 of the 922-page document) says that the next president should “reassign responsibility for prosecuting violations of 18 U.S. Code § 24176 from the Civil Rights Division to the Criminal Division where it belongs. Otherwise, voter registration fraud and unlawful ballot correction will remain federal election offenses that are never appropriately investigated and prosecuted.”
As president, Trump could renew his first-term efforts to add a Citizenship Question to the Census, this time for 2030, which might cause an undercount of minority communities and harm their level of representation. He could create yet another voter fraud commission, though his first was mired in controversy and was eventually disbanded after finding no evidence of massive fraud. And he could continue to peddle falsehoods about the security of the election process and cast doubts on results he does not like.
He has even indicated that he would target those engaged in election fraud, posting on Truth Social that “legal exposure extends to Lawyers, Political Operatives, Donors, Illegal Voters, & Corrupt Election Officials. Those involved in unscrupulous behavior will be sought out, caught, and prosecuted at levels, unfortunately, never seen before in our Country.”
This analysis reveals that the two candidates have divergent views of elections and democracy. The fundamental right to vote, the cornerstone of democracy, could look vastly different depending on who wins the election.
We live in a democracy. It is up to the voters to decide which approach is best.
The post On Voting Rights, Trump and Harris Couldn’t Be Farther Apart appeared first on Washington Monthly.