Voter Suppression Tactics and the Evidence

What Is Voter Suppression

Voter suppression is any law, rule, or tactic that keeps eligible people from registering or voting, whether that is its purpose or only its effect. Britannica defines it as “any legal or extralegal measure or strategy whose purpose or effect is to reduce voting or registering to vote by members of a targeted racial, political, or religious group” (Britannica). Most tactics today are legal rules about ID, voter lists, polling places, and mail ballots, so the fight is usually over how much each rule costs eligible voters.

The word is contested. Officials who pass these rules usually call them election integrity, and opponents call them suppression. This page sets the labels aside and asks what each rule does and what researchers have measured.

Before You Vote: What to Check

Most of these barriers can be cleared if you check early. Open the situation closest to yours. The general election is November 3, 2026, and registration deadlines in many states fall in October.

Find your situation

Each one lists what to do and the rule behind it.

I am not sure I am still registered

1. Check today at vote.gov, which links to your state's official lookup. Do not wait for Election Day.
2. If you were removed, register again before your state's deadline. Vote.gov lists it.
3. If the deadline has passed, check whether your state offers same-day registration.
4. If a poll worker cannot find your name, ask for a provisional ballot.

The Help America Vote Act guarantees a provisional ballot to anyone who says they are registered and eligible.

I got a card asking whether I moved

1. If you still live there, sign the card and mail it back so your registration stays active.
2. If you moved, update your registration at your new address now.
3. Keep a photo of the card and the date you mailed it.

Under the National Voter Registration Act, a state can remove you if you do not answer this notice and then do not vote in the next two federal general elections.

I do not have the ID my state asks for

1. Look up your state's list of accepted IDs through vote.gov or your state election office. Many accept more than a driver's license.
2. Ask your state election office whether it offers a free ID for voting. Many states do.
3. If you arrive without ID, ask for a provisional ballot and write down the deadline for showing ID afterward.

In the EAC's 2024 survey, 79.5% of states that require ID let a voter without it cast a provisional ballot, and 43.6% require the voter to come back with ID before it counts.

My mail ballot was flagged for a signature problem

1. Answer the notice right away. Cure deadlines are often days, not weeks.
2. Track your ballot on your state's ballot tracker until it shows as accepted.
3. Our mail-in voting guide lists each state's cure process.

A missing or mismatched signature caused about half of all rejected mail ballots in 2024, by the EAC's count.

I have a past felony conviction

1. Check your state's rule before assuming you cannot vote. In most states, voting rights return at some point after a sentence.
2. Ask your state or county election office to confirm in writing.
3. Call 866-OUR-VOTE (866-687-8683) for free help from a trained volunteer.

Seven in 10 of the 4 million people barred from voting are not in prison, per the Sentencing Project. Rules differ widely by state.

My polling place moved, or the line is long

1. Confirm your assigned location with your county before you leave. It may have changed since the last election.
2. Stay in line. Ask a poll worker about the closing-time rule in your state.
3. If you are turned away, call 866-OUR-VOTE before you leave.

Researchers have measured that longer trips and longer lines cost votes, with larger effects in Black neighborhoods and high-minority areas. See the evidence below.

General information, not legal advice. Rules differ by state, and your state or local election office has the final word.

Need help at the polls? Call or text 866-OUR-VOTE (866-687-8683). If anyone is in danger, call 911.

Voter Suppression Before 1965

Today’s fights are measured against an older record. The 15th Amendment barred racial discrimination in voting in 1870, but states found ways around it that looked neutral on paper. The Supreme Court let Mississippi’s poll tax and literacy test stand in 1898. It took until 1915 to strike Oklahoma’s grandfather clause and until 1944 to end Texas’s white primary.

The barriers came down in the 1960s. The 24th Amendment banned poll taxes in federal elections in 1964, the Voting Rights Act followed in 1965, and the Court applied the poll tax ban to state elections in 1966. In 2013, the Court struck down the formula that decided which places needed federal approval to change voting rules.

1. 1870 15th Amendment ratified No state may deny the vote because of race. (source)
2. 1898 Poll tax and literacy test upheld Williams v. Mississippi lets race-neutral tests stand. (source)
3. 1915 Grandfather clause struck Guinn v. United States voids Oklahoma's exemption for descendants of pre-1866 voters. (source)
4. 1944 White primary struck Smith v. Allwright ends Texas's whites-only Democratic primary. (source)
5. 1964 Poll tax banned in federal elections The 24th Amendment is ratified. (source)
6. 1965 Voting Rights Act Suspends literacy tests and requires preclearance in covered states. (source)
7. 1966 Poll tax banned in state elections Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections. (source)
8. 2013 Preclearance formula struck Shelby County v. Holder ends federal pre-approval of rule changes. (source)

How Voting Barriers Rose and Fell, 1870 to 2013: 1870: 15th Amendment ratified (No state may deny the vote because of race.). 1898: Poll tax and literacy test upheld (Williams v. Mississippi lets race-neutral tests stand.). 1915: Grandfather clause struck (Guinn v. United States voids Oklahoma's exemption for descendants of pre-1866 voters.). 1944: White primary struck (Smith v. Allwright ends Texas's whites-only Democratic primary.). 1964: Poll tax banned in federal elections (The 24th Amendment is ratified.). 1965: Voting Rights Act (Suspends literacy tests and requires preclearance in covered states.). 1966: Poll tax banned in state elections (Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections.). 2013: Preclearance formula struck (Shelby County v. Holder ends federal pre-approval of rule changes.).

1870: The 15th Amendment said no state could deny a citizen the vote “on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” 1898: In Williams v. Mississippi, the Court upheld the poll tax and literacy test in Mississippi’s 1890 constitution because they did not name race on their face. 1915: In Guinn v. United States, it struck down Oklahoma’s grandfather clause, which excused from a literacy test anyone whose ancestor could vote before 1866. 1944: Smith v. Allwright ended the Texas Democratic Party’s whites-only primary, in a one-party state where the primary decided the winner. 1964: The 24th Amendment banned poll taxes in federal elections. 1965: The Voting Rights Act suspended literacy tests and made covered states get federal approval before changing voting rules. 1966: Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections extended the poll tax ban to state elections. 2013: Shelby County v. Holder struck down the formula that decided which places needed that approval.

When the Voting Rights Act passed, about one-third of Black adults in the covered states were registered to vote, against two-thirds of white adults (Justice Department). The barriers of that era were written to look neutral, which is why the debate over today’s rules turns on measured effects rather than stated intent. Our Voting Rights Act explainer covers what the law still protects.

Six Tactics and What the Evidence Shows

Some tactics have a clear measured cost. For strict ID, the best studies disagree. The table sets each tactic beside the strongest evidence on its effect.

Strict ID is where honest researchers split. The Government Accountability Office compared Kansas and Tennessee with four states that did not change their rules. Turnout from 2008 to 2012 fell 1.9 to 2.2 points more in Kansas and 2.2 to 3.2 points more in Tennessee, with larger drops among voters aged 18 to 23, people registered less than a year, and Black registrants (GAO). A later national study by Enrico Cantoni and Vincent Pons, using 1.6 billion observations from 2008 to 2018, found strict ID laws had “no negative effect on registration or turnout, overall or for any group” and “no effect on fraud, actual or perceived” (Quarterly Journal of Economics). The authors found that campaigns contacted nonwhite voters more after the laws passed, which “might have offset modest effects.” A rule can raise the cost of voting even when turnout holds steady, because someone had to work harder to pay it.

Distance and lines have clearer effects. In nine Massachusetts and Minnesota towns, voters just across a precinct line from a farther polling place cast 2% to 5% fewer ballots for each extra quarter mile (Cantoni). Smartphone location data from 2016 showed the waiting-time gap by race held even within the same county (Chen and others). The Leadership Conference Education Fund, a civil rights coalition, counted 1,688 polling-place closures from 2012 to 2018 in 757 counties that had needed federal approval for voting changes before 2013 (Democracy Diverted).

Registration deadlines matter most to young voters. Political scientists Jacob Grumbach and Charlotte Hill found that same-day registration raised turnout among voters aged 18 to 24 (Journal of Politics).

How Voter Rolls Are Cleaned, and Who Gets Removed

States are required to keep their voter lists accurate. The 1993 National Voter Registration Act lets a state remove a voter who has died, moved, asked to be removed, or become ineligible under state law. It also bars removing anyone only because they did not vote. The fight is over how states decide who has moved.

Ohio’s answer reached the Supreme Court. Justice Samuel Alito’s majority opinion opened with a 2012 estimate that 24 million registrations nationwide, “about one in eight,” were “either invalid or significantly inaccurate.” Ohio treated two years without voting as a sign that a voter might have moved and mailed that voter a confirmation card. A voter who did not return it and did not vote for four more years was removed.

The trial record showed what that looked like. In 2012 Ohio sent the card to about 1.5 million people, nearly 20% of its registered voters. About 60,000 wrote back that they had moved, and about 235,000 wrote back that they had not. “More than 1,000,000” never answered, Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in dissent, and “there is no reason at all” to think they had moved. The Court held on June 11, 2018, by 5-4, that Ohio’s process followed federal law (Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute). Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent cited an amicus brief finding that Black-majority neighborhoods in downtown Cincinnati had 10% of voters removed for inactivity since 2012, against 4% in a white suburban neighborhood.

Nationally, a third of removals now come from the same two-step process: an unanswered notice, then two missed federal elections.

States reported removing between 3% and 10% of their registered voters in that cycle, and only 1.5% of removals were for criminal convictions (EAC). The number alone does not show suppression. Most removals are people who moved or died, and leaving them on the rolls creates its own problems. The measured risk is the eligible voter who skipped a few elections, never saw a card, and finds out at the polls.

Voting After a Felony Conviction

Laws in 48 states bar at least some people with felony convictions from voting. Only Maine, Vermont, and the District of Columbia let people vote from prison. The rest restore rights at different points, and in 10 states some people stay barred after finishing their whole sentence.

2

23

15

10

• No restriction (2 states) Maine and Vermont. People vote from prison.
• Barred only while in prison (23 states)
• Barred through parole and probation (15 states)
• Barred for some after the sentence ends (10 states) Includes states that require fines paid or a governor's pardon.

Source: The Sentencing Project, Locked Out 2024, Table 1 (state laws as of 2024). D.C. and Puerto Rico also impose no restriction.

The number of people barred from voting has fallen by nearly a third since 2016, as states restored rights and prison and probation populations shrank.

People barred from voting because of a felony conviction (millions)

Category	Value
1976	M1.2
1996	M3.3
2000	M4.6
2004	M5.1
2010	M5.7
2016	M5.9
2020	M4.9
2022	M4.4
2024	M4

Source: The Sentencing Project, Locked Out 2024 (October 2024), including the report's estimates for earlier years.

The burden is not spread evenly. The Sentencing Project estimates that 1 in 22 Black adults cannot vote because of a conviction, or 4.5%, against 1.3% of other adults. Florida alone bars over 961,000 people, including an estimated 730,000 who finished their sentences but still owe court fines and fees, six years after voters passed a ballot measure meant to restore their rights (Sentencing Project). Seven in 10 disenfranchised people are not in prison. Many are working and paying taxes in their communities.

Where the Fights Stand

Courts have blocked most of the federal changes to voter lists and registration since 2025. Congress has not passed the main bill, and no judge has ruled for the Justice Department in its suits for states’ full voter files.

Where the Major Voting-Access Fights Stand

As of September 24, 2026

• SAVE America Act (H.R. 7296) Proposal

  Would require documentary proof of citizenship to register. Passed the House February 11, 2026. An attempt to attach it to a Senate bill failed 48-50 on June 4, 2026. Details on our SAVE Act page.

• Election rules order (EO 14248) Blocked by a court, three provisions, permanently

  In LULAC v. Executive Office of the President, a federal court permanently blocked the proof-of-citizenship rule for the federal registration form on October 31, 2025, then two more provisions on January 30, 2026, holding that election rules belong to the states and Congress. (source)

• Checking voter rolls against federal data (SAVE database) Blocked by a court

  A judge vacated the 2025 overhaul on June 22, 2026. The D.C. Circuit refused to pause that ruling, the League of Women Voters, a plaintiff, announced September 5, 2026. (source)

• Justice Department suits for states' full voter files In litigation, 25 losses, no wins

  A judge dismissed the Washington suit on September 22, 2026, the department's 25th loss. Georgia and Utah are pending, and Oklahoma settled. (source)

• Postal Service ballot-mail rule Blocked by a court, for November 2026

  The Supreme Court refused to let it take effect on September 14, 2026. The case over later elections continues. (source)

• Ohio-style removal for not voting Final ruling, allowed

  Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute, June 11, 2018, 5-4. (source)

Source: Supreme Court opinions and orders; LULAC v. Executive Office of the President; NPR; Washington State Standard; State Democracy Research Initiative (University of Wisconsin); SCOTUSblog

The ledger tracks federal fights. Most voting rules are set by states, which is why checking your own state before each deadline matters more than any national headline. The federal law behind many of these challenges is covered on our Voting Rights Act page, and the proof-of-citizenship bills on the SAVE Act page.

The Honest Disagreement

The case for stricter rules rests on accuracy and confidence. In Crawford v. Marion County Election Board (2008), the Supreme Court upheld Indiana’s photo ID law 6-3. The Court’s official summary says the lead opinion found the state’s interest in protecting public confidence in elections has “independent significance, because such confidence encourages citizen participation in the democratic process” (Crawford). Supporters of voter-roll cleanups cite the same accuracy problem Justice Alito described in Husted: millions of outdated records. They add that the national study found no drop in turnout after strict ID laws.

The case against rests on who pays the cost and what the rules stop. The same Crawford opinion noted that the record held no evidence that in-person voter impersonation, the fraud a photo ID addresses, had occurred in Indiana, though the Court said it had occurred elsewhere. Cantoni and Pons found strict ID had no effect on fraud either. Critics point to the GAO’s finding that young, new, and Black voters bore the largest drops, and to the Ohio record, in which most voters flagged as possible movers never answered at all.

Both sides agree that voter lists should be accurate and that eligible voters should be able to vote. The real dispute is how much cost to eligible voters a state may accept to remove ineligible ones, and who has to prove what.

What the Label Leaves Out

• Not every closed polling place is suppression. Many counties replaced neighborhood precincts with vote centers open to any voter in the county, and the EAC reports that states’ use of vote centers has grown since 2018. Whether a change hurts voters depends on distance, hours, and transit.
• Federal law requires states to remove outdated records. Most removals are for moves and deaths. The question is how carefully a state confirms that a voter has moved.
• Steady turnout does not prove a rule costs nothing. Campaigns and volunteers may spend extra effort to get affected voters over the barrier.
• Threats at the polls are a separate problem. Blocking, following, or threatening voters is covered on our voter intimidation page.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is an example of voter suppression?

Poll taxes and literacy tests are the classic examples, both banned by 1970. Examples debated today include strict photo ID, removing voters who skip elections, closing polling places, and rejecting mail ballots over signatures. Whether a given rule counts as suppression depends on its measured effect on eligible voters.

Is voter suppression illegal?

Some of it is. Intimidating voters and rules that discriminate by race violate federal law, including the Voting Rights Act. Many other restrictions, such as ID requirements and list cleanups, are legal if they follow federal law and a court finds the burden justified.

How do I know if I was purged from the voter rolls?

Check your registration through vote.gov, which links to your state’s official lookup. If you were removed, register again before your state’s deadline, or ask for a provisional ballot at the polls.

Do all states require ID to vote?

No. About 70% of states that answered the EAC’s 2024 survey require some ID to vote in person, and two-thirds of those require photo ID. Most states that require ID let a voter without it cast a provisional ballot.

What You Can Do

1. Check your registration today. Use vote.gov, and check again a week before your state’s deadline. Our voter registration guide lists every state’s 2026 deadline.

2. Mail back any card asking whether you moved. It is the most common path to being removed, and answering it stops the clock.

3. Help one other person check. A friend who recently moved, turned 18, or finished a sentence is the voter most likely to be caught by these rules.

4. Volunteer with Election Protection. The nonpartisan hotline at 866ourvote.org trains volunteers to answer voters’ questions, and the Election Assistance Commission lists how to become a poll worker.

5. Ask Congress to restore federal review of voting changes. The letter below asks your members of Congress to cosponsor the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act.