Poverty, Place and Voter Participation: Bridging the Gap

Georgetown Journal on Poverty Law and Policy

Volume XXVIII, Number 2, Winter 2021

201

NOTES

Poverty, Place and Voter Participation:

Bridging the Gap

Michael Redzich*

In West Virginia, Florida, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, there is a

correlation between poverty, place, and lower voter participation. In the 2016

presidential election, the five poorest counties in four of these states exhibited

average voter participation rates that were appreciably lower than their five

wealthiest counties. The fifth state discussed here—Oregon—features the

opposite trend.

This Note briefly explores a sampling of election laws in each state, with a

particular emphasis on voter identification laws and the availability of mail

ballots. It then considers several proposed pieces of federal legislation designed

to expand the franchise. It also considers some of the salient concerns about

voting during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic and litigation surrounding

the 2020 election. Drawing upon various pieces of legislation, the Note then

offers a federal legislative proposal that ties federal dollars to the parity of voter

participation between the poorest and wealthiest census tracts. All of this is

possible with unified Democratic government willing to reform the filibuster. The

reactions of state and federal leaders to the challenge of voting during the

COVID-19 crisis only underscores the need for broad reform. Legislation like

this Note’s “Equal Voter Participation Act of 2021” could survive under several

constitutional theories. The disparity in participation between rich and poor

voters will likely only grow wider with more restrictive state laws and the lack of

a federal response. The time to act is now.

* Michael Redzich is in his third year at Georgetown Law. He grew up in both Nevada and Wyoming.

Michael obtained two bachelor’s degrees summa cum laude from the University of Oklahoma, one in

Letters and the other in Spanish. During his time as an undergraduate, he spent two years as a missionary

in Buenos Aires, Argentina. Michael has a lifelong interest in politics and political history, along a passion

for issues affecting voter disenfranchisement. Upon g raduation from Georgetown, he hopes to work in

poverty-related advocacy. He currently lives in Lancaster, Pennsylvania. © 2021, Michael Redzich.

202 The Georgetown Journal on Poverty Law & Policy [Vol. XXVIII

I. INTRODUCTION: THE STATE OF PLAY IN AMERICA ........................................ 202

II. VOTING WHILE POOR: RATES OF VOTER PARTICIPATION IN THE FIVE

POOREST AND FIVE RICHEST COUNTIES OF FIVE (VERY DIFFERENT)

STATES ............................................................................................................... 205

A. West Virginia ............................................................................................. 205

B. Florida ...................................................................................................... 209

C. Wisconsin .................................................................................................. 213

D. Pennsylvania ............................................................................................. 216

E. Oregon ...................................................................................................... 219

III. HOW TO CLOSE THE GAP.............................................................................. 221

A. Current Proposals ..................................................................................... 221

1. Expanding Access and Ensuring Uniformity for Absentee Votes: H.R.

1275 .................................................................................................... 221

2. Preclearance and Voting by Mail: H.R. 4, The Voting Rights

Advancement Act of 2019 .................................................................. 223

3. National Vote by Mail: S. 26 & H.R. 92 ............................................... 224

B. Responding to the COVID-19 ................................................................... 226

1. A Federal Response to the Coronavirus: The Resilient Elections

During Quarantines & Nature Disasters Act (S. 3440) ....................... 226

2. State Responses to the Coronavirus: A Spotlight on Wisconsin ........... 228

C. A Proposal to Make Voting More Accessible ........................................... 230

D. Finding A Politically Feasible Path ......................................................... 233

IV. A CONSTITUTIONAL DEFENSE ..................................................................... 234

A. Constitutional Hurdles .............................................................................. 235

B. Constitutional Avenues ............................................................................. 237

1. The Spending Power ............................................................................. 237

2. The Commerce Power ........................................................................... 238

3. The Equal Protection Clause ................................................................. 239

V. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................. 240

I. INTRODUCTION: THE STATE OF PLAY IN AMERICA

All eligible voters do not vote in the United States. Only 55.7% of the voting-

age population actually voted in 2016.1 Per data collected by the Organization for

Economic Cooperation and Development, that percentage puts the U.S. ahead of

just five of thirty-five peer nations.2 Theorists posit a number of rationales for this,

1. Drew DeSilver, In Past Elections, U.S. Trailed Most Developed Countries in Voter Turnout, PEW RSCH.

CTR.: FACT TANK (Nov. 3, 2020), https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/11/03/in-past-elections-u-s-

trailed-most-developed-countries-in-voter-turnout/.

2. Id.

N

o. 2] Poverty, Place and Voter Participation: Bridging the Gap 203

including education levels and racial divides.3 For all the salient talk surrounding

political candidates, who has what political base, and which voters might be

persuadable, 4 the correlation between poverty, place, and voter participation

deserves closer scrutiny. Do voters in poor areas vote like those who live in rich

ones? Might disparities arise out of differing state laws? Can the law decouple zip

codes and poverty rates from higher or lower rates of voter participation?

Part II of this Note uses election data from West Virginia, Florida, Wisconsin,

Pennsylvania, and Oregon to describe how poverty and place are correlated to

differences in voter turnout by county. The Note examines West Virginia because

of its shift from being a strong Democratic state to “Trump country”;5 Florida

because of its diversity and history of razor thin election margins;6 Wisconsin

because of its undemocratic division of power, where a minority of voters select a

majority of the legislature;7 Pennsylvania because of its (nearly) keystone status in

the 2020 presidential election;8 and Oregon because of its well-renowned mail

voting system.9 This Note uses data from the U.S. Census Bureau10 to determine

the five counties with the highest and lowest poverty rates in each state, then

compares voter registration data with actual total turnout in each county in order

to determine voter participation rates. The counties vary widely: some contain

densely populated urban areas, while other areas are rural. Notably, the four states

with higher turnout disparities between wealthier and poorer counties had voter

identification (ID) laws, issues with selectively closed polling places, and other

restrictions that made voting harder for poor people.

3. See, e.g., David E. Campbell, What is Education’s Impact on Civic and Social Engagement? ORG.

FOR ECON. COOP. AND DEV., 25, 27 (2006), http://www.oecd.org/education/innovation-

education/37425694.pdf (“Education is widely recogni[z]ed as having a strong correlation with multiple

forms of civic and social engagement . . .”); Rashawn Ray & Mark Whitlock, Setting the Record Straight

on Black Voter Turnout, BROOKINGS (Sept. 12, 2019), https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-

front/2019/09/12/setting-the-record-straight-on-black-voter-turnout/.

4. See Robert Creamer, Why 2020 Is a Turnout Election, THE AM. PROSPECT (Mar. 5, 2020),

https://prospect.org/politics/why-2020-is-a-turnout-election/.

5. Dante Chinni & Matt Rivera, West Virginia: How the Bluest State Became the Reddest, NBC NEWS

(Dec. 18, 2016, 5:16 PM), https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/west-virginia-how-bluest-state-

became-reddest-n697491.

6. Florida, 270 TO WIN, https://www.270towin.com/states/Florida (last visited May 5, 2021).

7. Jay Willis, Republican Gerrymandering Has Basically Destroyed Representative Democracy in

Wisconsin, GQ (Dec. 5, 2018), https://www.gq.com/story/republican-gerrymandering-wisconsin.

8. Nathaniel Rakich, Why Pennsylvan ia Could Decide the 2020 Election, FIVETHIRTYEIGHT (Sept. 15,

2020, 6:00 AM), https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-pennsylvania-could-decide-the-2020-election/;

Jonathan Lai, Philly Isn’t Why Biden Won Pennsylvania. A nd Pennsylvania Probably Isn’t Why Biden Won the

White House, PHILA. INQ. (Nov. 10, 2020), https://www.inquirer.com/politics/election/philadelphia-

pennsylvania-2020-election-tipping-point-state -20201110.html (a cheeky analysis of Pennsylvania voting just a

hair to the left of Wisconsin, the tipping point state that decided the election. The networks calling Pennsylvania

for Biden is nevertheless what put him over the top in their projections.).

9. Jen Kirby, Oregon Already Votes by Mail. Here’s What It Can Teach Us in 2020., VOX (Sept. 28,

2020, 10:30 AM), https://www.vox.com/21401321/oregon-vote-by-mail-2020-presidential-election.

10. See Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates (hereinafter SAIPE), U.S. CENSUS BUREAU,

https://www.census.gov/data-tools/demo/saipe/#/?map_geoSelector=aa_c&s_state=54 (last visited May

5, 2021) (The SAIPE tool is referenced extensively throughout this Section. It is an interactive tool that

requires the user to input information in order to retrieve data).