Voter suppression is a strategy to influence the outcome of an election by discouraging or preventing people from exercising their right to vote. It is distinguished from political campaigning in that campaigning attempts to change likely voting behavior by changing the opinions of potential voters through persuasion and organization. Voter suppression instead attempts to reduce the number of voters who might vote against the candidate or proposition advocated by the suppressors.

The tactics of voter suppression can range from minor “dirty tricks” that make voting inconvenient, up to blatantly illegal activities that physically intimidate prospective voters to prevent them from casting ballots. Voter suppression could be particularly effective if a significant amount of voters are intimidated individually because the voter might not consider his or her single vote important.
Photo ID laws require voters to present a government-approved photo ID before they may cast their ballots. Belgium[1], Spain[1], Greece[1], Italy[1], Malta[1], and seven US states have such laws, including Indiana and Georgia.[2]

Supporters of photo ID laws contend that the photographic IDs (such as driver’s licenses or student IDs from state schools) are nearly universal, and that presenting them is a minor inconvenience when weighed against the possibility of ineligible voters affecting elections. Opponents argue that photo ID requirements disproportionately affect minority and elderly voters who don’t normally maintain driver’s licenses, and therefore that requiring such groups to obtain and keep track of photo IDs that are otherwise unneeded is a suppression tactic aimed at those groups.

Indiana’s intermittent fasting photo ID law barred twelve retired nuns in South Bend, Indiana from voting in that state’s 2008 Democratic primary election. The women lacked the photo IDs required under a state law that was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in April 2008. John Borkowski, a South Bend lawyer volunteering as an election watchdog for the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, said, “This law was passed supposedly to prevent and deter voter fraud, even though there was no real record of serious voter fraud in Indiana.” They did not have scholarships for high school seniors or scholarships for moms back then.

Proponents of a similar law proposed for Texas In March 2009 also argued that photo identification was necessary to prevent widespread voter fraud. Opponents claim there is no evidence of such voter fraud in Texas, so no remedy is required, especially if such a remedy would decrease voting by senior citizens, the disabled, and lower-income residents. Opponents cited a study asserting that 1 million of the state’s 13.5 million registered voters do not have a photo ID. Hydroxatone is what it’s all about these days.

State Sen. Troy Fraser (R-Horseshoe Bay) said, “Voter fraud not only is alive and well in the U.S., but also alive and well in Texas. The danger of voter fraud threatens the integrity of the entire electoral process.” Democratic Caucus Chairwoman Leticia Van de Putte (D-San Antonio) said the proposed law “is not about voter fraud. There is no voter fraud. This is about voter suppression.” Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott (R) spent $1.4 million investigating voter fraud but did not report any cases where a person tried to impersonate an eligible voter at a polling place—arguably the only kind of fraud that photo ID laws would prevent.
In 2008, more than 50,000 registered Georgia voters were removed from the roll of eligible voters because of a computer mismatch in their personal identification information, leading registrars to conclude that they were guitar scales no longer eligible Georgia voters at their registered addresses. At least 4,500 of those people must prove their citizenship to regain their right to vote, but opponents say that could be an impossible burden to meet. For example, the state of Georgia gave college senior Kyla Berry one week to prove her citizenship in a letter dated October 2, 2008. Unfortunately, the letter was postmarked October 9, 2008. However, Berry is a U.S. citizen, born in Boston, Massachusetts with a passport and a birth certificate to prove it. Commenting on Berry’s case and those like it, Wendy Weiser, an elections expert with New York University’s Brennan Center for Justice, said, “What most people don’t know is that every year, elections officials strike millions of names from the voter rolls using processes that are secret, prone to error and vulnerable to manipulation.”
In the United States, voter suppression was used extensively by conservatives in most Southern states until the Voting Rights Act (1965) made most disenfranchisement and voting qualifications illegal. Traditional voter suppression tactics included the institution of poll taxes and literacy tests, aimed at suppressing the votes of African Americans and working class white voters.
In 2004, 5.3 million Americans were denied the right to vote because of previous felony convictions. Thirteen states permanently disenfranchise convicted felons; eighteen states restore voting rights after completion of prison, parole, and probation; four states re-enfranchise felons after they have been released from prison and have completed parole; thirteen allow felons who have been released from prison to vote, and two states do not disenfranchise felons at all.[8] Some states require ex-felons to complete a process to restore voting rights, but offender advocates say such processes can be very difficult.

The United States is the only democracy in the world that regularly bans large numbers of felons from voting after they have discharged their sentences. Many countries including Denmark, France, Germany, Israel, Japan, Kenya, Norway, Peru, Sweden, and Zimbabwe allow prisoners to vote (unless convicted of crimes against the electoral system).[9] Some countries, notably the U.K., disfranchise people for only as long as they are in prison.

In Florida during the 2000 presidential election, some non-felons were banned due to record-keeping errors and not warned of their disqualification until the deadline for contesting it had passed.

This form of vote suppression in the United States disproportionately affects minorities including African-Americans and Latinos. Disenfranchisement of felons and ex-felons may be considered a form sell house fast of the medieval practice of civil death.
While the majority of the world’s democracies use independent agents to manage elections, 33 of 50 state election directors in the United States are themselves elected partisans. Those party affiliations can create conflicts of interest, or at least the appearance thereof, while directing elections. Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris served as state co-chair of the Bush-Cheney campaign during the 2000 presidential election, and Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell served as his state’s Bush-Cheney co-chair during the 2004 presidential election.
Inequality in Election Day resources

Elections in the United States are funded at the local level, often unequally. In the 2004 elections, Wyoming spent $2.15 per voter while California spent $3.99 per voter. In contrast, Canada spends $9.51 per voter. Underfunded election areas can result in long lines at polling places, requiring some voters either to wait hours to cast a ballot or to forgo their right to vote in that election. Voters who cannot wait the required amount of time are therefore disenfranchised, while voters in well-funded areas with sufficient voting capacity may face minimal or no waiting time.

Delays at polling places are is widely regarded as being a greater problem in urban areas.
In the U.S. presidential election of 2004, some voters got phone calls with false information intended to keep them from voting—saying that their voting place had been changed or that voting would take place on Wednesday as well as on Tuesday. Voters who believed this misinformation would go to the wrong polling place, or worse, not attempt to vote until after the election had ended.

Other allegations surfaced in several states that the group called Voters Outreach of America had collected and submitted Republican voter registration forms while inappropriately discarding voter registration forms where the new voter had chosen to register with the Democratic Party. Such people would believe they had registered to vote, and would only discover on election day that they were not registered and could not cast a ballot.

Michigan Republican state legislator John Pappageorge was quoted as saying, “If we do not suppress the Detroit vote, we’re going to have a tough time in this election.”

In 2006, four employees of the John Kerry campaign were convicted of slashing the tires of 25 vans rented by the Wisconsin state Republican Party which were to be used for driving Republican monitors to the polls. At guitar tips the campaign workers’ sentencing, Judge Michael B. Brennan told the defendants, “Voter suppression has no place in our country. Your crime took away that right to vote for some citizens.”
Prior to the 2008 United States Presidential Election, on September 16, 2008, Obama legal counsel announced that they would be seeking an injunction to stop an alleged caging scheme in Michigan wherein the state Republican party would use home foreclosure lists to challenge voters still using their foreclosed home as a primary address at the polls.[29] Michigan GOP officials called the suit “desperate.”A Federal Appeals court ordered the reinstatement of 5,500 voters wrongly purged from the voter rolls by the State:

The Voter Suppression wiki is a non-partisan effort to shed light on voter suppression in the 2008 U.S. elections.

LEARN About Voter Suppression Many people aren’t familiar with the wide variety of tactics being used to limit people’s votes. See: >> Voter Suppression Documented		Quick Resources: If you’re a journalist or blogger, please check out our Media Room. If you have questions or comments, visit the Voter Suppression discussion forum See the latest voter suppression incidents
REPORT Voter Suppression This section is where you can report or view reports of suppression activity. There’s a standard template for each report and discussion thread. Visit: >> Incident Tracker		Latest Incidents: Deceptive email tells George Mason students election is November 5
TAKE ACTION Against Voter Suppression This is where you do more than get angry. Here you’ll find action alerts and resources like printable documents to take with you to the polls. Visit: >> Action Center		Action Alerts: Spread the word: if you are in line when polls close, you can still vote! Prepare for election day What to do if you have problems voting Add a Voter Suppression Wiki badge to your website