[ad_1]
An elector arrives while a worker passes in front of an advance poll at a polling station in Charlotte on October 23, 2018. (Chuck Burton / AP)
Access to the polls has become a contentious issue in the 2018 electoral cycle at mid-term. The Georgian authorities have been forced to go back this year as part of a plan to close all but two polling stations in a predominantly black county. Authorities of the majority, Latino Dodge City, Kan., Announced that they would offer free bus trips to the city's only polling place, which has a population of 28,000, after the general outcry sparked by the decision to move the voting site outside the city limits, one kilometer from the nearest place. stopping public transport.
The federal data suggest that if current trends regarding polling stations are maintained, these disputes could become more common: between the 2012 and 2016 elections, the number of physical polling stations reported to the Electoral Assistance Commission by Local authorities decreased by nearly 3,000, compared to 119,968 in 2012. to 116,990 in 2016, according to data released late last year by the agency. This followed a decline of over 132,000 polling stations reported in 2008.
According to an analysis of the data, some states, including Indiana and Wyoming, have announced a reduction in their number of physical polling stations by more than 20%. Of the 35 states and the district with complete and comparable data for 2012 and 2016, 18 reported a net reduction in the number of physical polling stations, 15 a reported increase and two no changes.
(Christopher Ingraham's illustration for the Washington Post)
In the table above, we have excluded 16 states. Fourteen of them lacked data on polling stations for at least one county – and sometimes all – for 2012 or 2016. Two other states, Colorado and Washington, implemented the voting – mail programs in 2013 and 2011, respectively. These led to the massive closure of polling stations but had little effect on overall voter participation.
When polling stations are closed, critics often allege that the closures were held for a particular political purpose, which usually prevents certain groups, such as black voters, from voting. But the federal data suggest a variety of reasons why polling stations are closed.
At the national level, the Electoral Assistance Commission has also tended to increase the number of anticipated votes. In a number of states, polling station closures can be explained by the "corresponding decrease in the number of voters in person on polling day," according to the commission.
Jurisdictions were previously subject to prior approval of any amendment to the Voting Act pursuant to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, a requirement that was removed by the Supreme Court of Canada. 2013. These jurisdictions, including nine in all states, have been the subject of intense scrutiny by the federal government because of its history of discriminatory election regulations.
Once these prerequisites have been eliminated, advocates warned against an increase in the number of polling station closures in southern states, likely to make it more difficult for black voters to vote. .
State data collected by the Electoral Assistance Commission paint a complicated picture of closures of polling stations in these regions. Some of the affected states, notably Alabama and South Carolina, increased the total number of polling stations between 2012 and 2016. Others, such as Arizona and Louisiana, have recorded significant declines.
The data available at the county level provide some indication of where polls were opened and closed between 2012 and 2016. These figures alone do not show any apparent relationship between the proportion of non-white voters in a county. and the evolution of the number of voters. polling stations.
(Christopher Ingraham's illustration for the Washington Post)
But county-level data may simply not be granular enough to fully test this relationship. For example, the authorities of some counties may make changes to the voting mainly in areas with large black populations. The reduction in the number of polling stations in these constituencies could be offset by increases elsewhere, leaving the net enrollment at the county level unchanged.
One of the reasons for the requirement of prior authorization under the Voting Rights Act was to detect any potentially discriminatory changes like this that would be difficult to detect otherwise. Once this layer of surveillance is removed, advocates point out that "in the vast majority of cases, closures have gone unnoticed, unreported and contested". A recent analysis of Vice News revealed, for example, that jurisdictions previously subject to prior authorization closed about 20% more polling stations per capita than other jurisdictions.
Beyond these problems, the closure of polling stations in the former preclearance states is a source of potential concern, simply because these states generally have one of the most stringent voting laws in the world. country, making it more difficult for citizens to reside there. For example, four of the nine former pre-clearance states – Mississippi, Alabama, South Carolina, and Virginia – do not offer any early voting periods and allow voters to use ballots by mail only under certain circumstances. , according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. The closure of polling stations in these states is likely to impose more difficulties on voters than the closure of venues that offer and encourage other voting options.
The remaining data at the county level show a mosaic of openings and closures of polling stations across the country. Some regions, such as Massachusetts, Vermont and Delaware, experienced a significant increase in the number of polling stations between 2012 and 2016. Despite their low competition in the presidential elections, these states all recorded an increase in voter turnout at the polls. during this period.
A final potential source of variation in the figures above is the availability of data. Many counties and entire states lack data on polling stations for 2012 or 2016. As with any dataset, the remaining figures may also be subject to error, depending on how diligently the local authorities have communicated information. precise figures to the Electoral Assistance Commission.
[ad_2]
Source link
