1. Racism
1.1. Activism
1.1.1. Social media has been helpful in organizing people a as well as easily spreading information. Social media can also do little to strengthen social movements and effect change, since it is so widely accessible, leading people to engage in "slacktivism," or lazy activism online and not taking real action in their lives to effect change (Obar et al, 2012).
1.1.1.1. This is important because this can give people a false sense of security in terms of candidate success, who is actually voting, how many people are interested in voting, etc.
1.1.2. Education
1.1.2.1. Due to federalism, many citizens are uneducated on their voting rights and how policy is enacted leading to disenfranchised voters through lack of outreach and communication (Shepherd, 2022; Harden, 2022; Moak, 2022).
1.2. Voter Turnout
1.2.1. The racial gap between who actually turns out to vote, combined with restrictive voting laws, will only worsen the imbalance regarding voting presence (70.9% white, 58.4% nonwhite) (Morris, 2022).
1.2.2. In Idaho, the Latino/a/x population has been historically disenfranchised and marginalized; the Democratic Party is aware of this and has been increasing Latino/a/x representation at the polls through community outreach (Maldonado, 2022).
1.2.3. The process of the consideration and adoption of these the restrictive voting laws directly targets marginalized communities and ultimately causes a devastating impact on voter turnout (Bentele & O'Brien, 2013).
1.3. Citizenship
1.3.1. In Arizona, P.O. box numbers are not enough evidence for voters to prove that they are residents of a given district, therefore unable to vote in that district (Capriccioso, 2008).
1.3.1.1. The new voter suppression laws being implemented in Arizona prevent tens of thousands of people from casting a vote in the primaries (Corasaniti, 2022; Reinhard & Yvonne 2022).
1.3.2. The colonial state has utilized the right to vote as a tool for defining citizenship, typically utilizing patriarchal and racist standards. The use of voting rights in this way is especially conflicting in places like Hawaii, where many potential voters lobby for self-governance (Glasberg, 2022, p. 22; Heathcote, 2021; Trask, 2000).
1.3.3. After passing the restrictive voting laws in Arizona, the state ended up prosecuting only a few cases mostly relating to felons voting illegally; the "election fraud" regarding citizenship that was the reasoning behind why the laws were passed did not really exist to begin with (Rouan, 2022).
1.4. Targeted Legislation
1.4.1. Voter suppression legislation targets college students, low-income people, and minorities (Keyes et. al, 2012).
1.4.1.1. Undeniable connections exist between race-neutral policies and felon disenfranchisement laws (Wilson et al, 2015).
1.4.2. Broad and varied voter legislation overwhelmingly disenfranchises minority and vulnerable populations (Kennedy, 2022; Memminger, 2022; Morey, 2022; Stammen, 2022; Venetis, 2020).
1.4.3. The Arizona felon disenfranchisement laws are that if you are in prison, on probation, or on parole, you are not allowed to vote (ACLU Arizona Authors, 2022).
1.4.3.1. One out of every thirteen African-Americans in Arizona are disproportionately affected by this policy due to felony convictions (ACLU Arizona Authors, 2022).
1.4.4. Partisan Citizen Observers are often utilized to further disenfranchise voters based on race and other discriminatory factors, aided by federalism and broad and varied state regulations for appointment and training (Uyeda, 2022).
2. Absentee
2.1. Disability
2.1.1. Absentee voting can exclusion for disabled voters visibility (Spagnuolo & Shanouda, 2017).
2.1.2. Despite policy regularly being passed and enacted that directly impacts citizens with Diminished Mental Capacity, many states have voting rights barring them from voting (Schiffler, 2022).
2.1.3. In Idaho, ballot harvesting has historically not been an issue, and the legislators that are attempting to pass these restrictions could be violating the Americans with Disabilities Act (Russell, 2022).
2.2. Travelers
2.3. Pennsylvania
2.3.1. Absentee ballots are not counted due to minor errors, causing cast ballots to be set aside (Castro, 2022)
3. State Proposals
3.1. Pennsylvania
3.1.1. Pennsylvania proposed HB 1800 which would increase voter disenfranchisement throughout the state (Spahr, 2022; FastDemocracy, 2022; PA House Dems, 2022).
3.2. Idaho
3.2.1. Idaho State Senator Dorothy Moon has been vocal about implementing restrictive voting laws, but so far each bill that has been proposed has passed in the House and died in the Senate (Corbin, 2022; Kirch, 2022).
3.2.1.1. One of these proposals would have made turning in an absentee ballot for an elderly person in your neighborhood or your family a crime, as well as facilitating voting in nursing homes (Clarke, 2022).
3.2.2. Even Idahoans are questioning their representation in the state legislature with the push for restrictive voting laws contrasting with what many understand the "Idaho way" to be (Albritten, 2022).
4. Timeline Restrictions
4.1. Pennsylvania
4.1.1. Absentee and mail-in ballots must be applied for within a time-frame (Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, n.d.; VoteRiders, n.d.).
4.1.1.1. 9 plaintiffs filed a law suite against Pennsylvania for their harsh time restrictions on applying for mail-in and absentee ballots (Clarke, 2018).
4.2. Missouri
4.2.1. Voters must register by 10/18, leaving a small window for voter registration (STLCO Election Board, 2022).
5. Voter IDs
5.1. Missouri
5.1.1. Voter ID laws were enacted in Missouri by the passing of HB 2878 causing a costly burden on low-income voters (Fessler, 2021; Kim & Wang, n.d.; Ludwig, 2021; Phillips, 2022; Starshak, 2022).
5.1.1.1. Voter IDs do not deter fraud, they are only burdensome (Portillo, Bearfield, & Riccucci, 2021).
5.2. Pennsylvania
5.2.1. First time voters must present an ID which requires voters to have residence (VoteRiders, n.d.)
5.3. General:
5.3.1. States with less stringent voting requirements have both better voter turnout and better health outcomes (Heller, 2019; Schachter, 2022).
5.3.2. Voter IDs are not accessible to everyone, yet over 31 states have implemented restrictive voting laws that demand this kind of identification (ACLU Authors, 2021).
6. Gerrymandering/Redlining
6.1. Clean Missouri
6.1.1. Overturning "Clean Missouri" will return Missouri to a committee for redistricting, giving Republicans the upper hand (Churchill, 2019).
6.2. Who Counts
6.2.1. Only counting voting aged people in redistricting silences communities (Riestenberg, 2020).
6.2.1.1. Campaigns employ a "calculus of contact' which leads to a disproportionate neglect of the poor when canvassing, calling, and sending mailers to potential voters--mobilization activities that have a sizeable turnout effect" (Ross, 2019, p. 633)
6.3. Kentucky Courts
6.3.1. Eight states elect judges by districts (including Kentucky) leading to gerrymandering in courts (Shugerman, 2022, p. 20).