When Competition Goes Too Far: How Polarized Politicians Disenfranchised Minority Groups in America

Just two years ago, Floridians voted overwhelmingly to restore voting rights to 1.4 million felons who finished serving their sentences. Then, almost immediately after this decision, Republican judges passed a law requiring these ex-felons to pay their outstanding fees before being allowed to vote again (Mazzei 2020). How did this seemingly simple law become so partisan? The Republican judges likely knew that this population, the majority of whom are also Black, would vote Democratic, so they restricted their right to vote.

As it turns out, politicians have been manipulating voting laws similar to these since the Civil War in order to restrict certain groups from voting. Most notably, Black people have lost the right to vote, and have even been disproportionately imprisoned as a result. It is in a polarized country with high stakes elections where a politician would likely manipulate laws in such an immoral way. Polarization increases the stakes of elections, because party members are so determined to win against their opponent. This also means that they may sacrifice their own ideologies, and perhaps engage in arguably immoral behavior for their cause. Polarization in American politics has led to a disproportionate removal of many Black people from the electorate via politically motivated voter suppression and disenfranchisement. There must be efforts to re-enfranchise felons, especially ex-felons, because to exclude groups of people in order to win elections is against the ideologies of democracy.

Part I: Increased Polarization

America has become increasingly more and more polarized between liberals and conservatives. According to Lieberman et al., polarization has made our two political parties farther apart than at any time since the Gilded Age (2017, 13). Researchers of five separate survey studies showed that there was a 7% decline in self-declared moderates and a subsequent increase in those either liberal or conservative from the 1970s to the 2010s (Campbell 2016, as cited in Kollman 2019, 443). Hence, the middle ground, a representation of compromise, has shrunk considerably.

The problem with increased partisanship is that people have become more and more attached to the labels of conservative and liberal. This makes decisions easier, because as Kinder & Kam argue, for the average person, government affairs are remote and complex, and being able to know which candidates or issues are associated with which parties is a great psychological convenience (2010, as cited in Kollman 2019, 407-408). When people are more attached to political labels, they can start blindly following a party even when their beliefs do not fall in line. For example, many people do not believe in a big government, and yet almost everyone has reaped the benefits of the welfare system (Lieberman et al. 19). To provide another example, there are many self-identified conservatives who respond to surveys with strong liberal beliefs about certain policy positions (Campbell 447). This shows that it can be difficult to pledge complete allegiance to a party when its ideologies are not totally in line with your own, and yet people do. These examples are a grim foreshadowing of the harm that can come about when a members’ blind allegiance to a party leads them to resort to unethical or unusual behavior in order for their party to win.

Part II: Effects of Polarization

With increased polarization, people develop a blind faith in their ideology, and with a stubborn desire to maintain power, a party’s political decisions become more extreme. This has been shown in politics for decades. When Richard Nixon was initially impeached, Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee initially voted against impeachment, and only until much later when more evidence was revealed did they reverse their vote (Lieberman et al. 24). Here, their commitment to the Republican party kept them from making the more obvious and democratic decision earlier on. Also, not only has Trump been accused of letting Russians interfere to help him win the 2016 election (4), but he has spread degrading opinions about his opponents, threatening to lock Hillary Clinton up (8), and has openly ridiculed institutions of democratic governance (3). He may not have engaged in these desperate attempts to win office if the parties were not so polarized, as it would not have been as detrimental to his party if the other had won. He is not alone in this war-like battle between the two parties. Voters are resorting to extreme measures to threaten the other party as well. During the 2016 Presidential election, armed Trump supporters were seen “menacing” a Democratic Party campaign office and the Republican Party campaign office was firebombed (Rosza 2016, as cited in Epperly et al. 2019, 1). Exit polls even showed that many people voted for Trump just because they disliked Clinton, which highlights the extreme negative views people have developed against the opposite party (Lieberman et al. 6). Politicians and voters are so faithful to their party that they seem unwilling to let the other have a moment of power, and this raises the stakes during elections.

Political polarization has racial consequences, and this is especially seen with voter suppression. Because a lot of power is given to states, and because citizens are responsible for registering to vote, it is easy for politicians to find ways to restrict voting. Unfortunately, because certain racial groups have been known to vote for certain parties, it can be easy for politicians to manipulate voting laws that disfavor these groups in order to win elections. For Black voters in the American South, specifically, researchers have found immense historical evidence showing just how much political parties are willing to restrict their voting rights. After the Civil War, the South enacted literacy tests but exempt poorer white voters from taking it, resulting in the disenfranchisement of 75% of Black voters (Cunningham 1991, 380). Cunningham, in trying to understand the reason behind these risky decisions, stated that this was a time of rigid and intense party competition (381). During that time, the Democratic Party developed such a strong hold over manipulation of voting laws that they held power in every Southern state while Black voter registration declined. For example in Louisiana, because of new restrictive laws, Black voter registration declined from 130,000 in 1896 to 1,342 in 1904 (Epperly et al. 5). Because of such high competition between the political parties, many Black people had been denied their right to vote, which also shrank the electorate considerably, a move that goes against the goals of democracy for wide representation in politics.

Even today, states still have a high capacity to target minorities when instituting voting laws, and this excludes them from participating in politics. For example, North Carolina Republican officials, after recognizing minorities’ growing loyalty to the Democratic Party, restricted voting to times and locations that were least available for Black people (Epperly et al. 9). In many Southern states, in addition to enforcing overcomplicated voter registration laws, the ability to discriminate against people of color at voting booths still goes unchecked (Cunningham 386). Just like during Reconstruction times, party leaders realized that Black votes would be pivotal in elections, and when election outcomes suddenly became more and more competitive, they resorted to reversing Black suffrage. When considering how many Americans are allowed to vote today, (as of 2000), 2.3% of the voting age population is disenfranchised (Manza & Uggen 491) and it has been the most vulnerable voters such as the poor and the people of color who have been at the receiving end of corrupt voting law manipulation. This behavior can have long lasting impacts on the future of America’s democracy, for as Lieberman et al. have echoed, to challenge the participatory rights of minority groups is to challenge democracy itself (16).

Part III: A Case Study: Felon Disenfranchisement

Today, felon disenfranchisement is a powerful case study of voter suppression and a clear example of how political polarization has led to desperate efforts to exclude groups from the electorate in order to win elections. Unfortunately, this has led to the exclusion of disproportionate numbers of Black people from being able to vote, which goes directly against the ideals of democracy. Because of its deeply racial and political roots, we must rethink how we limit voting rights to felons and ex-felons. Arguably, ex-felons should especially be given the right to vote because they can become more active in their communities, and the majority of Americans agree.

Historically, politicians have deliberately linked felon disenfranchisement and race, and one might argue that felons are disenfranchised to such high numbers today because of racism. After the Civil War, states adopted laws against crimes that mostly Black people were likely to be convicted of. During and after Reconstruction, states expanded restrictions on felon populations’ voting rights at the same time that prisons began to contain large proportions of Black people. Even after controlling for many possible third variables, researchers found that states with larger proportions of people of color in their prisons passed more restrictive felon voting laws than states with smaller proportions, showing a direct connection between racial politics and felon disenfranchisement (Manza & Uggen 2004, 492). As of 2004, 1 in every 6 Black men were disenfranchised (499) and this does not even put into account the fact that already fewer racial minorities are registered to vote than white people (Cunningham 374). These laws were based upon and consequently enforced stereotypes about Black people, and if it is these historical stereotypes that are still putting disproportionate numbers of Black people into prisons today, then the system is unjust. Because of political strategy and partisan competition, almost 17% of Black men are not represented in American politics.

The fact is, giving felons or ex-felons the right to vote will always become a political issue because in many cases felons would vote majority democrat. Manza & Uggen calculated that in the Presidential election of 2000, nominee Al Gore could have won the election if ex-felons in Florida were allowed to vote (499). If Republicans had predicted this outcome by analysing felon voting habits, then this would have given them an irresistible incentive to pass a law restricting their right to vote. Even in other elections throughout American history, the outcome could have been switched and the deciding votes would have come from ex-felons. In 1978 and 1988, two senator seats would have switched from Republican to Democrat if ex-felons were allowed to vote (499). When politicians debate felon re-enfranchisement today, there will always be a divide between Republican and Democratic opinion because if more felons can vote, the Republican party will most likely lose votes during elections.

There are so many reasons for why ex-felons should be allowed to vote, whether to help them matriculate back into society or because the majority of Americans believe they should have the right. In two studies cited in Manza & Uggen’s article, a strong majority, up to 80% in one study, of Americans favored the idea of giving ex-felons the right to vote (500). Ex-felons also receive key benefits from being allowed to vote that extend beyond the actual act of voting. It is important for ex-felons to join community organizations and become politically active during their reintegration process. Ex-felons and those on probation and parole, when entering back into their community, can gain an increased capacity to connect with politics if given voting rights, and this will decrease their risk of going back to prison (502). Whether or not one believes that felons still in prison should be allowed to vote, evidence shows that there are great benefits to letting ex-felons vote. What is it, then, that is keeping ex-felons from being restored this uplifting right? When considering the historical connection between race, partisanship, and election strategy, it seems that it is the political leaders so desperate to win elections who need to be persuaded.

Conclusion

Our nation’s increased polarization and the detrimental effects it has on excluding Americans from the electorate is a critical blow to the stability of our democracy. With the left becoming more left and the right becoming more right, parties are feeling the need to go to extremes in order to make the change they want to see. Unfortunately, parties have resorted to the powerful tactic of demobilitizing groups that they calculated would help the other party gain votes. As a result, they are becoming quite content with their small slice of the very small electoral pie, as Cunningham analogized (387). In their quest to win, have they forgotten about what makes a democracy rich, which is wider inclusion? As Manza & Uggen stated, the right to vote is an especially powerful symbol of inclusion (491) and yet it seems nobody is speaking up for the underdog whose right to vote is purposefully ignored.

As the time comes closer to the Georgia senate elections, it is not surprising that such high stakes are being placed on its outcome. From a distance, it would seem unalarming to a Democrat if Republicans ended up gaining the majority of the Senate by just two seats. One would imagine that the Senate could compromise on at least a few of Biden’s propositions. However, many are in consensus that now, with partisan allegiance so strong, no Republican would agree to a Democratic president’s ideas, and very few of his orders will continue to fruition. Therefore, because the President’s future as a changemaker now seemingly depends on these Georgia elections, one might expect some immoral behavior these next few weeks, and as a result, more individuals may lose their ability to vote. Already, election officials closed 6 out of their 11 early voting locations in Cobb County, Georgia this week, which voted for Biden but is Republican controlled. The locations that were removed were also in majority Black and Latino neighborhoods (Fausset & Corasaniti 2020). Still today, politicians will do as much as they can to manipulate voting laws in order to win elections, which is unethical and un-American.

This post was taken from a school paper and was originally written in December of 2020.

Works Cited

Cunningham, Dayna L. "Who Are to Be the Electors? A Reflection on the History of Voter Registration in the United States." Yale Law & Policy Review 9, no. 2 (1991): 370-404.

Epperly, Brad, Christopher Witko, Ryan Strickler, and Paul White. "Rule by Violence, Rule by Law: Lynching, Jim Crow, and the Continuing Evolution of Voter Suppression in the U.S." Perspectives on Politics (2019): 1-14.

Fausset, Richard, and Nick Corasaniti. “Georgia Recertifies Election Results, Affirming Biden's Victory.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 7 Dec. 2020, www.nytimes.com/2020/12/07/us/politics/georgia-recertify-election-results.html?campaign_id=9&emc=edit_nn_20201208&instance_id=24817&nl=the-morning®i_id&segment_id=46325&te=1&user_id=c5d47cccdcc6bd4f196e6167819d8373.

Kollman, Ken. Readings in American Politics: Analysis and Perspectives. W.W. Norton & Company, 2019.

Lieberman, Robert, Suzanne Mettler, Thomas B. Pepinsky, Kenneth M. Roberts, and Richard Valelly. “Trumpism and American Democracy: History, Comparison, and the Predicament of Liberal Democracy in the United States.” Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network, 2017.

Manza, Jeff, and Christopher Uggen. "Punishment and Democracy: Disenfranchisement of Nonincarcerated Felons in the United States." Perspectives on Politics 2, no. 03 (2004): 491-505.

Mazzei, Patricia. “'Real Change': A Race Is On to Register Ex-Felons in Florida.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 4 Oct. 2020, www.nytimes.com/2020/10/04/us/felons-florida-registration-vote.html.