For over a century, politicians have employed various tactics to suppress the votes of certain groups. A prime example of this was the Jim Crow laws of the South, which explicitly targeted Black voters. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was a landmark step forward, aiming to eliminate these forms of voter suppression. However, in 2013, the Supreme Court’s decision in Shelby County v. Holder struck down a key part of the law, ruling it unconstitutional. While I won’t delve deeply into the specifics of this case, I believe it emboldened certain politicians to employ increasingly aggressive voter suppression tactics.
During this election cycle, one particularly troubling example of this trend is the challenge to overseas voters’ ballots. Critics argue that Americans living abroad shouldn’t 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 (expats) to vote in federal elections was established with the 1986 Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act, signed into law by President Ronald Reagan. This legislation isn’t new; it was created long before recent events like the COVID-19 pandemic. The Act provides a clear framework for expats to determine their eligible voting state and register accordingly.
I experienced this personally a few years ago. My last U.S. address was in North Carolina, and after I moved abroad, the North Carolina Board of Elections sent a confirmation letter to that address. When I didn’t respond, they correctly removed me from the voter rolls. Later, I contacted the board about my status, and after verifying my identity and eligibility, they reinstated my voting rights. Throughout the process, the election officials were professional and very thorough, ensuring that only eligible voters participated.
While some may question the fairness of expat voting rights, and that is understandable; however, this law has been in place for decades, and the arguments against it lack solid grounding. I believe the real motivation behind these recent challenges is to create grounds for SCOTUS to hear the case on disqualifying expat ballots, especially if they could sway close elections in key swing states. This tactic could exploit the Shelby County v. Holder decision to shift election results in favor of certain candidates, ultimately undermining democracy.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra.