Challenges, Caging & Vote Suppression
Unfair challenges or caging practices may lead to the removal of eligible voters from the voter rolls. To guard against these problems, the Brennan Center provides legal assistance to government officials and advocates seeking to ensure that challenges are non-discriminatory and do not result in the disenfranchisement of eligible voters.
Voter Challenges
Voter challenges are formal challenges lodged by political operatives or private citizens to the eligibility of persons presenting themselves to vote, either at the polls or prior to Election Day. Voter challenge laws vary from state to state, as do legally permissible challenge practices. When challenges are used improperly, they can have the effect of intimidating voters or suppress voter participation.
Because this conduct has the potential to interfere with the lawful exercise of the franchise, it is important for everyone involved in the process to have a clear understanding as to what is permissible and what is not permissible conduct. Specifically, voters should be armed with the knowledge that federal and state law afford protections against "ballot security efforts," an umbrella term for a variety of practices that are carried out by political operatives and private groups with the stated goal of preventing voter fraud, when they are discriminatory, intimidating, deceptive, or when they seek to disenfranchise voters on the basis of unreliable information. Those who participate in ballot security programs should take care to ensure that their initiatives do not encroach upon the rights of eligible voters and run afoul of state and federal laws.
Voter Caging
Voter caging is a tactic that jeopardizes eligible citizens' ability to vote. The process involves efforts to identify and disenfranchise improperly registered voters solely on the basis of an undeliverable mailing. The most common method involves three steps:
- send mail to addresses on the voter rolls,
- compile a list of the mail that is returned undelivered, and
- use that list to purge or challenge voters’ registrations on the grounds that the voters on the list do not legally reside at their registered addresses.
Supporters of voter caging defend the practice as a means of preventing votes cast by ineligible voters. Voter caging, however, is notoriously unreliable. If it is treated as the sole basis for determining that a voter is ineligible or does not live at the address at which he or she registered, it can lead to the unwarranted purge or challenge of eligible voters.
The Brennan Center works on federal legislation to prevent voter caging and challenge abuses, including the Caging Prohibition Act of 2009 (S.528 & H.R.103).
Brennan Center Resources
- A Guide to Voter Caging (Justin Levitt & Andrew Allison, 6/29/07)
- To see reported instances of voter caging over the past 50 years, click here.
- Click here for a paper on existing legal tools to protect against abuses of the challenge process (Wendy Weiser & Vishal Agraharkar, 10/22/10)
- Click here for information on 2010 "Ballot Security" Operations 2010 (from media and web sources)
In 1982, after caging in predominantly African-American and Latino neighborhoods, the Republican National Committee and New Jersey Republican State Committee entered into a consent decree with their Democratic party counterparts.
Real Solutions Needed on Voter Deception
A voter deception conviction last week in Maryland illustrates the need for real, not false solutions to combat voter suppression.
Welcome Developments in Colorado
On Friday, a Colorado court denied Secretary of State Scott Gessler’s request for an injunction, allowing Denver to send mail ballots to all registered Denver voters without interference from the Secretary of State’s office.
Maine Student Voters Committed No Voter Fraud
Maine's reaffirmation of a basic principle in federal and state law: students can vote regardless of whether they pay in-state or out-of-state tuition.
Illustrations by Risko
Montana Registration Challenges are Error-Prone and Inconsistent with State & Federal Law
In a three-page letter submitted to Secretary of State Brad Johnson, the Brennan Center explains that the large scale challenges, filed by the Montana Republican Party just a month before the 2008 general election, could deprive thousands of eligible Montana residents from voting and having their ballot counted in November.
Brennan Center Applauds Introduction of House Bill to Protect Against “Voter Caging”
Voting rights experts at the Brennan Center applauded the introduction of legislation by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) sponsored by U.S. Rep. John Conyers (D-MI).
Advocacy: Letters to Election Officials
The Brennan Center submitted letters to state election officials in Arizona, Florida, Illinois, Michigan, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wisconsin, urging them to issue directives and instructions against illegal or improper conduct in anticipation of the 2010 election.
Letter to Montana SOS Regarding Large-Scale Challenges in Six Counties
Letter urges the Secretary of State to reject challenges to 6,000 registered voters.
Testimony Before Senate Committee on Rules and Administration
Testimony regarding vote caging and other unreliable practices that threaten the voting rights of eligible citizens and the integrity of our voter registration lists.
Poll Watchers Need to Respect Voters’ Rights
It has been a long time since voters were legally turned away from the polls in Texas because they were too poor to vote. Sadly, however, that hasn't stopped the King Street Patriots, a Houston-area political organization, from hosting a public discussion about whether existing laws make it too easy for poor people to participate in elections.
Voting Rights in 2011: A Legislative Round-Up
As the 2012 election approaches, a massive crackdown on voting rights is unfolding – the most significant such assault in decades. Millions of Americans risk disenfranchisement, blocked from casting ballots or having them count.
Voting Challenges 2010 - Media Webinar
On October 27, 2010, the Brennan Center presented a webinar on challenges to the 2010 vote for the media. The presentation is updated from an October 13, 2010, briefing at the National Press Club.