What does it mean to participate in our American democracy, be civically engaged, and advocate for social issues in 2024? In many ways, there has never been an easier time for dedicated people to get involved, using the internet and social media to organize, petition, contact, and campaign. But for many, the most impactful ways to engage with democracy in 2024 look much the same as they did in 1789: standing up to be counted in the decennial census and voting in elections.

Yet, after centuries of hard-fought efforts to make the census more accurate and voting accessible to all, political and structural factors continue to bar many from engaging in and/or benefiting from these fundamental activities. In the interest of equity, fairness, and effective public policy, policymakers must take proactive steps to both reverse recent attacks on these institutions and further ensure that all are able to participate in and enjoy the benefits of American democracy. 

 

Civic Engagement with the Census Bureau

At its founding in the Constitution, the United States provided for means of legislative representation and budgetary allocation based on the nation’s populace. Laying the foundation for the decennial census, Article I of the U.S. Constitution states:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.

This passage serves as the foundation of civic life in the U.S. It also highlights a central contradiction in American Democracy: that civic participation and representation was not intended for all. It is a contradiction that many scholars, activists, and political actors have spent generations seeking to reconcile and unwind.

The first ever decennial census was conducted in 1790 by U.S. Marshals on horseback (U.S. Census Bureau, 2023). From the first census, population and gender have been captured at the household level, and additional demographic information, such as age and race, have since been added to the census questionnaire (U.S. Census Bureau, 2023). Among the primary uses of this information is the allocation of political representation. Starting with 65 individuals at its founding, the House of Representatives grew to 435 representatives in 1929 when a law was passed to cap the number of representatives based on the physical limitations of the Capitol (Lo Weng, 2021). Since this time, each census has been used to reallocate the number of representatives by state population in a process known as apportionment. Apportionment is also used to determine the number of state delegates who compose the electoral college during the presidential election year (Lo Weng, 2021).

Through this process, census data can be used by political actors to distort and consolidate power. After the apportionment process, congressional redistricting may take place. In some of these cases, we observe gerrymandering by which redistricting is manipulated based on demographic information to favor a particular political party or candidate (Ergun, Deason, Borgida, & Charles, 2008). In Shaw v. Reno, 1993, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that redistricting on the basis of race was unconstitutional under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment (Ergun et al., 2008). Ergun and colleagues (2008) tested how the public views these practices in a study where participants reviewed 355 newspaper articles about redistricting from 1990 to 2005, and they determined that articles about redistricting on the basis of race communicated a negative message to participants regarding political motives for redistricting.

Like racially motivated political gerrymandering, political power and representation can be distorted through prison gerrymandering, a form of gerrymandering where people incarcerated in prisons, who are disproportionately people of color (Carson, 2023), are counted as residents of the legislative and congressional district where the facility is located rather than at their last known address (Fisher et al., 2021). Political power is thus redirected to areas where prisons are located, which are often rural and predominantly White, as opposed to distal urban and diverse areas (Wagner, 2012). This model locally incorporates incarcerated people into the census count, concentrating political power for residents who locally benefit from representational misproportions, such as through voting and resource allocation. Recently, states have been addressing prison gerrymandering through statutes, many of which urge the census to count incarcerated people at their last known address, or home community, prior to incarceration (NCSL, 2024; Wessler & Kajstura, 2024).

From a budgetary perspective, census data is also used to determine federal budget allocations to states, taking into consideration the proportion of individuals in need of funding in various domains, including shelters for the unhoused and programs for individuals with special needs, those with food insecurity, and young mothers with low income (Project on Government Oversight, 2023). The Project on Government Oversight conducted a review of budgetary allocations and concluded that “more $2.1 trillion dollars in federal funds were awarded to state agencies, local governments, organizations, educational institutions, companies, and households” based on the 2020 Census. Further, 338 programs were able to use census data to influence the share of their funds (POGO; 2023). With all the good that these federal allocations can do, POGO (2023) also warns about the negative impacts of census undercounts and miscounts at the state level, which are most commonly attributed to areas with proportionally high hard-to-count populations, such as the unhoused, undocumented immigrants, and select racial groups, particularly in low-income areas. 

Census data is not only used by Congress to allocate political representation and the federal budget but also by researchers, businesses, nonprofit organizations, and others for research, planning, and personal use. Beyond the decennial census, or what was referred to as the “short form” between 1970 and 2000, social scientists commonly use data from the American Community Survey (ACS), also previously known as the “long form” of the decennial census questionnaire, which contains additional questions about American life on topics like income, education, health insurance, veteran status, and disability (U.S. Census Bureau, 2023). From 1970 to 2000, the “long form” was completed by a subset of Americans during the decennial census; however, starting in 2010, the ACS was born as a compulsory, monthly sample survey collected year-round to provide information about American life on a continual basis (U.S. Census Bureau, 2023).

Further, psychologists, economists, health scientists, and policymakers alike use the data collected by the U.S. Census Bureau on behalf of other agencies, including the Bureau of Labor Statistic’s Current Population Survey, which captures unemployment rates and self-reported voter information; the National Center for Health Statistics’ National Health Interview Study, which captures health insurance coverage; and the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ National Crime Victimization Survey, which records crime rates (U.S. Census Bureau, 2024). Finally, for personal interest, individuals use census records for genealogical research, as original census records and identifiable data remain confidential for 72 years at which time they are published to the U.S. Archives (U.S. Census Bureau, 2023).

In summary, census data has numerous uses, including apportionment for political representation, federal budgetary allocation, social science and policy research, as well as personal genealogical research. Simply by filling out these surveys and standing up to be counted, we can participate in a vital component of our democracy, shaping social policy with a profound reach in daily life. Intertwined with census participation and political representation is the right to vote, which, like the right to be accurately counted, has gone through periods of expansion and contraction in American history.

 

Historical Voter Rights & Voting Suppression

The history of voting rights in the United States began with the U.S. Constitution and its amendments. White men were granted the right to vote with the ratification of the U.S. Constitution in 1788 (National Archive News, 2023). Nearly 100 years later in 1870, Black men were granted the right to vote with the 15th Amendment followed by women’s suffrage regardless of race in 1920, granted by the 19th Amendment (National Archive News, 2023). Several years later, Native American residents gained the right to vote in 1924. However, for Native Americans in rural areas, voter suppression and restrictive laws created barriers to vote (Friel & Pablo, 2022). It was not until 1964 with the 24th amendment that discriminatory practices (e.g., poll taxes), previously barring the full implementation of the 15th and the 19th Amendments, were codified as illegal (National Archive News, 2023). Following this expansion of voting rights, the 26th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution lowered the voting age from 21 to 18 years of age in 1971, significantly increasing the eligible electorate while expanding the importance of the youth vote (Carnegie Corporation of New York, 2019).

Despite the solid foundation these amendments provided for American suffrage, there were still numerous legal hurdles which limited or prohibited individuals from voting in elections, particularly women and people of color. In the late 19th century, southern states, including Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Alabama, and Virginia, passed grandfather clauses, which prohibited former slaves and their descendants from voting (American Civil Liberties Union, 2024). In 1940, only 3% of eligible Black Americans in the South were registered to vote, and Jim Crow Laws enacted discriminatory practices, such as poll taxes and literacy tests, which helped maintain the status quo (American Civil Liberties Union, 2024). Beyond Jim Crow Laws, voters of color faced harassment at polling stations and physical violence for attempting to vote or register to vote (National Archives, 2022).

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was signed by President Lyndon Johnson in response to these discriminatory voting practices in numerous southern states on the basis of race (National Archives, 2022). This legislation was built on the 15th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which guaranteed the right to vote regardless of one’s color or race; the 24th Amendment, which abolished poll taxes; and the support of civil rights activists who protested for their suffrage in the face of violence, often at the hands of state troopers and police under the auspices of their local governments (American Civil Liberties Union, 2024; National Archives, 2022).

As a direct result of the Voting Rights Act, 250,000 Black voters were registered in the first year the Act was enacted, one-third of which were registered by federal examiners (American Civil Liberties Union, 2024). The success of the Voting Rights Act was bolstered by continued bipartisan support via act extensions starting with President Richard Nixon in 1970 (American Civil Liberties Union, 2024). The purview of the Voting Rights Act was extended to include language minorities in 1975 and disability protections in 1982 (Carnegie Corporation of New York, 2019). The current extension of the Voting Rights Act was signed by President George W. Bush in 2006 and is up for reenactment in 2031 (American Civil Liberties Union, 2024). Following the Voting Rights Act of 1965, several other federal laws have passed in support of voting rights, including the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, which permitted citizens to register to vote via the Department of Motor Vehicles when applying for their driver’s licenses, and the Help America Vote Act of 2002, which standardized state voting processes, replaced outdated voting equipment, and provided for provisional voting ballots (Carnegie Corporation of New York, 2019).

 

Contemporary Contexts of Voter Disenfranchisement in BIPOC Communities

Despite existing voting rights and protections, there has been substantial and ongoing public discourse regarding voter disenfranchisement through the practice of voter suppression in BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, and People of Color) communities in the United States. A range of tactics aimed at voter suppression have been employed, including the introduction of legislation (i.e., anti-voting bills) aimed at redistricting communities, gerrymandering, stricter voter identification requirements, irregularities in voter registration, limited access to polling places (e.g., closures of polling locations), voter roll purges, restrictions on early and absentee voting, shortened voting hours, and inadequate access to linguistic translation services (Budiman, Passel, & Im, 2024; Friel & Pablo, 2022; Maciolek, 2024; Ortegon, 2022). These efforts to suppress votes underscore a troubling and systematic pattern of disenfranchisement in BIPOC communities.

Although the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was considered the pinnacle of voting rights’ protection, a flurry of state laws have recently been enacted to restrict voters from registering and/or voting. The Department of Justice was initially required to review each of these laws and ensure that they would not contradict the terms of the Voting Rights Act prior to their enactment. In several such cases, restrictive state laws in Texas and South Carolina requiring government photo identification to vote were blocked from enactment (American Civil Liberties Union, 2024). However, in 2013, the Shelby County v. Holder U.S. Supreme Court case significantly rolled back these protections, providing states the jurisdiction to pass laws that restrict voting rights without prior submission to the Department of Justice for review (American Civil Liberties Union, 2024).

Immediately following the Shelby County v. Holder decision, there were a series of states, including North Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, Florida, Virginia, and Texas, which passed restrictive voting rights laws that contradicted tenants within the Voting Rights Act (American Civil Liberties Union, 2024; Carnegie Corporation of New York, 2019). Subsequently, after the 2016 presidential election, President Trump rallied behind claims of rampant voter fraud, particularly concerning mail-in votes, despite an insignificant number of confirmed voter fraud cases in the 2016 election, numbering 30 (Carnegie Corporation of New York, 2019, The Guardian, 2024). This led President Trump to establish the Presidential Commission on Election Integrity, which aimed to investigate cases of voter fraud in which non-citizens vote illegally (Carnegie Corporation of New York, 2019; The Guardian, 2024). President Trump later used unverified and inaccurate claims of voter fraud in an attempt to remain in office following his defeat in the 2020 election (The Guardian, 2024). With former President Trump’s support, the Safeguard America Voter Eligibility Act, which provisions that eligible voters must show proof of citizenship for voter registration, has passed in the House of Representatives and is awaiting a senatorial vote (The Guardian, 2024).

In the wake of the 2013 Supreme Court case, newly enacted restrictive voting laws have primarily led to the disenfranchisement of Black, Latiné, and American Indian voters who reside in low socioeconomic areas (Carnegie Corporation of New York, 2019). Since the last presidential election, 28 states have passed restrictive voting laws (six states of which passed legislation this year) which voters will first encounter in the 2024 presidential election (Brennan Center for Justice, 2024). These laws directly impact the likelihood that individuals will vote and differentially impact vulnerable and minority populations (Harder & Krosnick, 2008). Harder and Krosnick’s (2008) analysis on voter turnout concluded that there are three major factors that contribute to whether an individual votes in an election: (1) one’s ability to vote; (2) one’s motivation to vote; as well as (3) barriers to obtaining voting information, completing voting registration, and complexity of voting procedures. Accordingly, the barriers to voter registration and voting itself (e.g., Takosh & Traugott, 1982) are inversely related to the likelihood that one will vote (Harder & Krosnick, 2008).

Further, there are nuanced demographic differences amongst people, which minimize the barriers to voting on voter turnout (Harder & Krosnick, 2008). Demographically, relative educational attainment amongst individuals in one’s neighborhood and amongst one’s age group is a significant positive predictor of voter turnout (Tenn, 2005). Voter turnout is also positively influenced by income, as with wealthier voters (Rosenstone & Hansen, 1993); by occupation, as with government employees (Corey & Garand, 2002); with age, as with individuals from middle age to age 75 (Turner, Shields, & Sharpe, 2001); by gender, as with Black and Latiné women (Ansolabehere & Hersh, 2011); by residency, as with rural area dwellers (Wolfinger & Rosenstone, 1980); and by race, as with White Americans (Uhlaner, Cain, & Kiewiet, 1989). As such, voter demographics greatly influence both one’s ability to vote and institutional barriers to voting.

 In addition to increased obstacles to voting, BIPOC communities have experienced criminalization due to a system of mass incarceration in the U.S. (Davis, 2003). This system has resulted in profound structural disenfranchisement and hierarchical systems of oppression within legal and political structures, contributing to intersectional racial inequalities within voter disenfranchisement (Davis, Dent, Meiners, & Richie, 2022). Davis (2003) argues that the Prison Industrial Complex stems from shared interests between the government and private industry using imprisonment (i.e., the privatization of punishment) as a solution to social problems in society. Criminalization of the electoral process is further exemplified by laws preventing volunteers from distributing essential resources like water, food, and other supplies to voters standing in line at the polls, particularly for voters who may be waiting in long queues to vote (American Civil Liberties Union, 2024).

In a comparison between democratic nations, the U.S. has the most restrictive policies concerning prisoner voting rights (Dhami, 2005). There are more than 44,000 legal and regulatory sanctions, or collateral consequences, for people with criminal convictions impacting access to essential resources, such as housing, jobs, food, and participation in democratic processes, including voting and running for office (NICCC, n.d.; US Commission on Civil Rights, 2019). Surges in criminalization and guilty pleas increase the prevalence of these collateral consequences (Edkins, 2019). Grassroots organizations and policymakers have made efforts to alleviate the consequences for people with criminal records on voting. Local expungement clinics (e.g., the CLEAR Clinic in Oregon and Rising for Justice in Washington, D.C.), which are often free, can provide legal and technical assistance to clear records for those who are eligible. Policies like Clean Slate Laws (Clean Slate Initiative, 2024), which have had large success in states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Utah, are gaining traction by implementing systems for automatic record-clearing for all who are eligible, removing the barriers presented by petition-based expungement processes.

Alternative solutions exist to restore voting access and rights for individuals with certain convictions or those who are currently incarcerated without a conviction. Inside jails, where people are often incarcerated pretrial without a conviction and are still legally eligible to vote, there are barriers to voting, disproportionately impacting people of color and people in poverty (Porter, 2020). Installing polling locations in local jails has been found to combat voter disenfranchisement for currently incarcerated people who are still eligible to vote (Awan, 2022). Even after an individual is released from custody, felony voter disenfranchisement, a process rooted in systemic racism (Kelley, 2017), restricts access to democratic processes for millions of residents. Forty-eight states maintain criminal disenfranchisement laws (Brennan Center for Justice, n.d.). Across states, disenfranchisement ranges from no disenfranchisement (e.g., Maine), to permanent, lifelong disenfranchisement (e.g., Virginia; Brennan Center for Justice, n.d.). Some states like Nebraska and Oklahoma have been taking action to restore voting rights for people with felony convictions, providing a pathway for many to engage in democratic processes (NCSL, 2024).

Despite the numerous ways in which restrictive voting laws have impacted voting participation and engagement, there are several expansive voting practices that support groups and communities facing adversity. One way to minimize or combat restrictive voting regulations is through the increased use of early voting, vote-by-mail, and absentee voting (Gronke & Krantz Toffey, 2008; Southwell, 2010). Early voting provides an avenue for individuals to vote prior to the election date at a designated polling location (Gronke & Krantz Toffey, 2008). Analysis on early voting conducted by Gronke and Krantz Toffey (2008) determined that early voters are older on average and more likely to be democratic, educated, have a racial minority background, and be actively involved in politics than are voters who submit their ballots on election day.

In addition to early voting, Southwell (2010) advocates for the increased use of vote-by-mail ballots, which has been implemented as the only voting method in Oregon state. In an analysis of 46 elections in Oregon, voting-by-mail has stimulated voter engagement and participation in presidential elections, although primary and special elections were only minorly affected (Southwell, 2010). Convenience voting, such as absentee voting, also greatly reduces barriers to voting, most positively impacting elderly and rural populations (Biggers & Hanmer, 2015). Building on these principles, aimed at bolstering democracy, Lanning (2008) suggests that the abolishment of the electoral college and the adoption of the majority vote as a means of determining presidential elections would be more democratic than the political processes currently in use. In summary, electoral laws and practices enacted in the 20th century exemplify the tools policymakers use to both restrict and expand voting rights for targeted populations.  

 

Conclusion and Policy Recommendations

Active engagement in our democracy through census participation and voting is vital for our government and our society. Additional research is needed to illuminate the impacts of voter disenfranchisement and gerrymandering on vulnerable populations and their effects on the vitality of our democracy in the United States. In the meantime, policymakers must increase the breadth of existing legal protections, undoing recent normative and legal backslides enumerated above. 

In 2022, the Brennan Center for Justice published Improving the Census: Legal and Policy Reforms for a More Accurate, Equitable, and Legitimate Count, presenting twenty different policy ideas to protect the agency from political interference and modernize the census processes (Wolf et al., 2022). Recommendations include establishing the Census Bureau as an independent agency and limiting political appointees within the bureau. Such actions could insulate the bureau from political pressure from the Executive Branch, like that faced during the debate over a citizenship question in 2020.

Concerning prison gerrymandering, the Brennan Center for Justice report (2022) proposes a revision to the Census Bureau’s “residence requirement” regulations for respondents residing in select institutional group quarters, namely prisons. Rather than counting prisoners as residents of the facility in which they are incarcerated, it is recommended that the Census Bureau count these individuals at their most recent address. Such a change could be made though the Bureau’s usual regulatory process or as a matter of law, as envisioned by Representative Deborah Ross’s End Prison Gerrymandering Act.

In response to disenfranchisement stemming from Shelby County v. Holder, Senator Richard Durbin and Representative Terri Sewell have introduced the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, which would reinstate the requirement that certain states and localities with a history of voting discrimination must obtain Department of Justice approval, or "preclearance," prior to changing their voting rights laws. The Act also updates the formula used to determine which areas need preclearance, taking into account modern data on voting discrimination. Additionally, it enhances federal authority to enforce voting rights and makes it easier for voters to challenge discriminatory laws in court. While this legislation makes significant strides in advancing voting rights, it faces an uphill climb in a senate where filibuster rules can block legislation favored by a majority of the body.

Until a supermajority exists, or Senate rules are changed, to legislatively correct Shelby County v. Holder, policymakers should prioritize budgetary actions that support voting rights, such as funding for enhanced election infrastructure, tax credits for voting accessibility (e.g., paid time off to vote), and new and expanded grants for voting accessibility and awareness. Congress must also fully fund the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, which oversees compliance with the Voting Rights Act. In 2024, the Division requested $251 million in the President’s Budget but only received $190 million via continuing resolution, leaving the division understaffed heading into the 2024 election cycle (Civil Rights Division, 2024). While these are partial, temporary solutions to the issue of voting disenfranchisement, that they could pass through the legislative reconciliation process with a simple Senate majority should make them priorities for policymakers in the near-term.

Bolstering the vibrancy of our democracy will lead to the improvement of social issues, as individuals from a variety of backgrounds and experiences can easily contribute their perspectives to these causes. This will not happen passively. State and federal policymakers must combat inefficient bureaucratic calcification, political interference, and hostile policies that distort and concentrate political power. For social policies and institutions that work for all, all must be counted, and all must have a voice.

 

References

American Civil Liberties Union. (2024, May 16). The Fight Against Voter Suppression. Retrieved from https://www.aclu.org/news/topic/the-fight-against-voter-suppression/

American Civil Liberties Union. (2024). Voting Rights Act: Major Dates in History. Retrieved from https://www.aclu.org/issues/voting-rights/voting-rights-act/history-voting-rights-act

Ansolabehere, S., & Hersh, E. (2011). Gender, race, age, and voting: A research note. In APSA 2011 Annual Meeting Paper.

Awan, N. (2022). Jail-based polling locations: A way to fight voter disenfranchisement. Prison Policy Initiative. Retrieved from https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2022/10/25/jail_voting/

Biggers, D. R., & Hanmer, M. J. (2015). Who makes voting convenient? Explaining the adoption of early and no-excuse absentee voting in the American states. State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 15(2), 192-210.

Brennan Center for Justice. (n.d.). Disenfranchisement Laws. Retrieved from https://www.brennancenter.org/issues/ensure-every-american-can-vote/voting-rights-restoration/disenfranchisement-laws

Brennan Center for Justice. (2024, May 17). Voting Laws Roundup: May 2024. Retrieved from https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/voting-laws-roundup-may-2024

Budiman, A., Passel, J.S., & Im, C. (2024, January 10, 2024). Key facts about Asian American eligible voters in 2024. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/01/10/key-facts-about-asian-american-eligible-voters-in-2024/

Carnegie Corporation of New York. (2019, November 18). Voting Rights: A Short History. Retrieved from https://www.carnegie.org/our-work/article/voting-rights-timeline/

Carson, A. E. (2023). Prisons Report Series: Preliminary Data Release | Bureau of Justice Statistics. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved from https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/prisons-report-series-preliminary-data-release

Civil Rights Division, FY 2025 Budget and Performance Summary. (2024). Retrieved September  18, 2024, from https://www.justice.gov/doj/fy-2025-budget-and-performance-summary

Davis, A.Y. (2003). Are prisons obsolete? New York: Seven Stories Press.

Davis, A.Y., Dent, G., Meiners, E.R., & Richie, B.E. (2022). Abolition. Feminism. Now. Chicago: Haymarket Books.

Dhami, M. K. (2005). Prisoner disenfranchisement policy: a threat to democracy?. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 5(1), 235-247.

Edkins, V. A. (2019). Collateral consequences and disenfranchisement. A system of pleas: Social sciences contributions to the real legal system, 168-183.

Ergun, D., Deason, G., Borgida, E., & Charles, G. U. (2008). Race and redistricting: What the print media conveys to the public about the role of race. Journal of Social Issues, 64(3), 619-637.

Fisher, G., King, T., & Limón, G. (2021, October 22). Prison Gerrymandering Undermines Our Democracy. Brennan Center for Justice. Retrieved from https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/prison-gerrymandering-undermines-our-democracy

Friel, K., & Pablo, E. M. (2022, May 23). How Voter Suppression Laws Target Native Americans. Brennan Center for Justice. Retrieved from https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/how-voter-suppression-laws-target-native-americans

Gonzalez, C. M., & Tyler, T. R. (2008). The Psychology of Enfranchisement: Engaging and Fostering Inclusion of Members through Voting and Decision?Making Procedures. Journal of Social Issues, 64(3), 447-466.

Gronke, P., & Toffey, D. K. (2008). The psychological and institutional determinants of early voting. Journal of Social Issues, 64(3), 503-524.

Harder, J., & Krosnick, J. A. (2008). Why do people vote? A psychological analysis of the causes of voter turnout. Journal of Social Issues, 64(3), 525-549.

Katosh, J. P., & Traugott, M. W. (1982). Costs and Values in the Calculus of Voting. American Journal of Political Science, 361-376.

Kelley, E. (2017, May 9). Racism & Felony Disenfranchisement: An Intertwined History. Brennan Center for Justice. Retrieved from https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/racism-felony-disenfranchisement-intertwined-history/

Lanning, K. (2008). Democracy, voting, and disenfranchisement in the United States: A social psychological perspective. Journal of Social Issues, 64(3), 431-446.

Lo Wang, H. (2021, April 20). Stuck at 435 Representatives? Why the U.S. House Hasn’t Grown with Census Counts. NPR. Retrieved from https://www.npr.org/2021/04/20/988865415/stuck-at-435-representatives-why-the-u-s-house-hasnt-grown-with-census-counts

Maciolek, A. (2024, August 6, 2024). Restoring the Voting Rights Act. Brennan Center for Justice. Retrieved from https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/restoring-voting-rights-act

National Archives. (2022, February 8). Voting Rights Act (1965). Retrieved from https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/voting-rights-act

National Archive News. (2023, September 6). Voting Rights. Retrieved from https://www.archives.gov/news/topics/voting-rights

National Inventory of Collateral Consequences of Conviction. (n.d.). What are collateral consequences? Retrieved from https://niccc.nationalreentryresourcecenter.org/

National Conference of State Legislatures. (2024). Brief Felon Voting Rights. Retrieved from https://www.ncsl.org/elections-and-campaigns/felon-voting-rights

NCSL. (2024). Summary Reallocating Inmate Data for Redistricting. National Conference of State Legislatures. Retrieved from https://www.ncsl.org/redistricting-and-census/reallocating-inmate-data-for-redistricting

Ortegon, M. (2022, January 14). Latino communities on the front lines of voter suppression. Brennan Center for Justice. Retrieved from https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/latino-communities-front-lines-voter-suppression

Porter, N. (2020). Voting in Jails. Retrieved from https://www.sentencingproject.org/policy-brief/voting-in-jails/

Project on Government Oversight. (2023, September 11). Dollars and Demographics: How  Census Data Shapes Federal Funding Distribution. Retrieved from https://www.pogo.org/reports/dollars-and-demographics-how-census-data-shapes-federal-funding-distribution

Rothstein, R. (2017). The color of law: A forgotten history of how our government segregated America. Liveright Publishing.

Tenn, S. (2005). An alternative measure of relative education to explain voter turnout. The Journal of Politics, 67(1), 271-282.

The Clean Slate Initiative. (n.d.). The Clean Slate Initiative. Retrieved from https://www.cleanslateinitiative.org/

The Guardian (2024, July 11). US House approves bill to ban non-citizens from voting in federal elections. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jul/11/save-act-voting-bill-passes-house

Uhlaner, C. J., Cain, B. E., & Kiewiet, D. R. (1989). Political participation of ethnic minorities in  the 1980s. Political Behavior, 11, 195-231.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2023, December 14). The “72-Year Rule”. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/history/www/genealogy/decennial_census_records/the_72_year_rule_1.html

U.S. Census Bureau. (2023, December 14). Decennial Census. Retrieved from  https://www.census.gov/history/www/programs/demographic/decennial_census.html#:~:text=U.S.%20marshals%20conducted%20the%20enumeration,Interior%20assumed%20responsibility%20in%201849

U.S. Census Bureau. (2023, December 14). Questionnaires. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/history/www/through_the_decades/questionnaires/

U.S. Census Bureau (2024, March 12). Partner and Collaborating Agencies. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/about/adrm/fsrdc/partner-and-collaborating-agencies.html

U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. (2019). Collateral Consequences: The Crossroads of Punishment, Redemption, and the Effects on Communities. Retrieved from https://www.usccr.gov/files/pubs/2019/06-13-Collateral-Consequences.pdf

Wagner, P. (2012). Breaking the Census: Redistricting in an Era of Mass Incarceration. William Mitchell Law Review, 38(4), 1241-1260. https://open.mitchellhamline.edu/wmlr/vol38/iss4/9/

Wessler, M., & Kajstura, A. (2024). States were incredibly successful at reallocating incarcerated people to their home addresses in 2020: A review of the data. Prison Policy Initiative. Retrieved from https://www.prisonersofthecensus.org/news/2024/06/10/state_success_rates/

Wolf, T., Cea, B., Percival, K., Dennie, M., & Fong, C. (2022, September 13). Improving the Census. Brennan Center for Justice. Retrieved from https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/policy-solutions/improving-census

Wolfinger, R. E., & Rosenstone, S. J. (1980). Who votes?. Yale University Press.

SPSSI Resources

Civic (Dis)Engagement: Changing Democracies and Democratizing Change (2022) Virtual Series Issue. Retrieved from https://spssi.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/toc/10.1002/(ISSN)9999-0025.Civic-Engagement

Making Sense of the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election (2017). Virtual Series Issue. Retrieved from  https://spssi.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/toc/10.1111/(ISSN)1530-2415.MAKINGSENSEOFTHE2016USPRESIDENTIALELECTION

The Social Psychology of the 2008 U.S. Presidential Election (2017). Virtual Series Issue. Retrieved from https://spssi.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/toc/10.1111/(ISSN)1530-2415.THESOCIALPSYCHOLOGYOFTHE2008USPRESIDENTIALELECTION

SPSSI Joins Letter Urging Congress to Increase FY2025 Appropriations for the National Science Foundation (2024). Retrieved from https://www.spssi.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=document.viewdocument&ID=3F28EB86AE4CA3BB2EE025BE0093BF04F796493468934A490705EA2892DAAB428A419D9A5BFC2C3737450814D3839CB6

Back to SPSSI Statements