Breaking Down Voter Suppression: Understanding Restrictive Voting Laws and the Path Forward

Ramhith Akurati

Associate Editor

Loyola University Chicago School of Law, JD 2026

In a democracy, the right to vote is one of the most fundamental ways citizens can make their voices heard. However, in recent years, access to the ballot box has become increasingly restricted in various states where legislative actions have introduced stricter voting requirements. As these restrictive laws target specific groups, the effects are widespread and deeply felt, raising critical questions about the future of voting rights in the U.S. To understand this complex issue, it’s crucial to explore the nature of voter suppression, the state and federal regulations shaping voting access, and the potential solutions to ensure fair and equal voting opportunities for all.

What is voter suppression?

Voter suppression refers to actions taken to reduce or limit certain groups’ ability to participate in the voting process. These actions can take many forms, from restrictive identification laws and purges of voter rolls to reduced polling hours or voting locations. Historically, voter suppression has been used as a tool to marginalize specific populations, particularly Black Americans, Indigenous communities, people of color, and low-income voters. Despite strides toward equality in voting rights over the past century, new forms of suppression continue to emerge, keeping the issue highly relevant in American society.

Strict voting laws across different states

The recent wave of restrictive voting laws highlights how state legislatures can shape the voting landscape, often with a stark impact on underrepresented communities. For instance, in 2021, Georgia passed Senate Bill 202, a sweeping voting law that restricts access to absentee ballots, limits drop box availability, and allows state intervention in local election boards. Similarly, Texas passed Senate Bill 1, which limits early voting hours, prohibits drive-through voting, and increases criminal penalties for voter assistance. These laws, often justified as measures to ensure election security, have drawn significant criticism for their tendency to create barriers to voting rather than enhance the security of the process.

Such measures disproportionately affect marginalized groups, including Black and Hispanic communities, elderly voters, students, and people with disabilities. Reducing early voting hours, for instance, can make it challenging for hourly workers and those without flexible schedules to vote. Furthermore, limiting access to absentee ballots directly affects elderly or immunocompromised individuals who may not feel safe voting in person. The effects of these laws are particularly troubling given that voting is meant to be a right accessible to all eligible citizens, not a privilege that comes with caveats.

The federal regulatory framework on election law

On the federal level, several landmark laws have aimed to protect and ensure voting rights. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA) was a significant milestone in combating racial discrimination in voting, particularly in Southern states. However, the effectiveness of the VRA was substantially weakened in 2013 with the Supreme Court’s decision in Shelby County v. Holder, which struck down key provisions requiring certain states with histories of discrimination to obtain federal approval before changing voting laws. This decision has paved the way for states to implement more restrictive laws without federal oversight.

More recently, efforts to strengthen voter protections through the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act and the Freedom to Vote Act have been introduced in Congress. These bills propose to restore and expand federal oversight, requiring states with records of discriminatory practices to clear new voting changes with federal authorities. However, political polarization and partisan divides have stalled these efforts, leaving federal protections lacking in the face of increasing restrictions.

The impact of voter suppression on marginalized communities

The effects of restrictive voting laws are not uniformly felt across the population. Studies show that Black, Hispanic, Native American, and low-income voters face higher rates of disenfranchisement due to barriers created by restrictive laws. For example, strict voter ID requirements disproportionately affect minorities and low-income individuals because they are statistically less likely to possess government-issued IDs. Similarly, rural communities, which often have higher Native American populations, suffer when polling locations are reduced or placed far from accessible transportation routes.

These barriers collectively create a cycle of disenfranchisement. When fewer people from marginalized communities participate in elections due to voter suppression, these communities lose political representation and influence. This underrepresentation then reinforces policies that fail to address or even exacerbate the challenges these groups face, perpetuating a damaging cycle.

Legal and advocacy efforts to combat suppression

In response to the rise of restrictive voting laws, numerous legal and advocacy efforts have emerged to protect and expand voting rights. Organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the NAACP Legal Defense Fund have filed lawsuits challenging restrictive laws on the grounds that they violate the Equal Protection Clause or infringe on constitutionally guaranteed voting rights. Additionally, the Department of Justice has been actively involved in combating voter suppression, launching investigations into states with new restrictive measures.

Advocacy groups are also working to raise awareness about voting rights and educate communities on how to navigate new voting requirements. By empowering citizens with information, these organizations help counteract the effects of suppression and ensure that people understand their rights and the resources available to them.

Possible solutions to ensure equal voting access

Enacting laws like the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act would restore critical federal oversight of state voting law changes, particularly in areas with histories of voter suppression. By requiring federal clearance for new laws in these states, Congress can help prevent discriminatory practices before they take effect. Implementing automatic voter registration and same-day registration would simplify the registration process, making it easier for eligible voters to participate in elections. Automatic voter registration, already adopted in over 20 states, automatically registers citizens to vote when they interact with certain government agencies unless they opt out.

Providing more early voting days and increasing access to vote-by-mail options would give voters more flexibility, particularly those with rigid work schedules or mobility challenges. Ensuring these options are widely available can make voting more accessible and increase turnout among marginalized groups. Voting restrictions on formerly incarcerated people contribute to the disenfranchisement of millions. States could restore voting rights for those who have served their sentences, recognizing their reintegration into society and their right to participate in democracy. Civic engagement programs and educational campaigns are essential to help voters understand their rights and the voting process. Educating voters on new laws, IDs, and deadlines empowers them to navigate the voting process confidently and exercise their rights.

As restrictive voting laws continue to affect the lives of millions, it’s crucial to recognize the impact of voter suppression and work towards a more inclusive democracy. Through robust federal protections, expanded access to voting, and grassroots advocacy, the United States can take steps to protect the right to vote for all its citizens. Ensuring that every eligible person has an equal opportunity to participate in democracy isn’t just a legal necessity—it’s a moral imperative.