Introducing “Ballot Watch”


October 1, 2014

Click to launch Ballot Watch

Click image to launch Ballot Watch

As the November midterm elections approach, the race for control of the Senate has tightened dramatically. Margins in some key states are so thin that the outcome could be determined by a small number of votes.

Who casts those votes is at the heart of a renewed debate over access to the ballot, sparked by lawmakers in the 28 states that have passed new voting laws in the past five years.

To understand the impact of these changes, FRONTLINE is launching Ballot Watch, an interactive database of voting laws nationwide. It’s the beginning of what will be our ongoing effort to provide the most up-to-date picture of where it is getting harder and easier to vote in America.

Among our findings:

  • Since 2010, 19 states have passed laws that impose restrictions on who can vote. These laws include new voter ID requirements (passed by 14 states, reductions in early voting hours (6 states) and additional prohibitions on voting for felons (4 states).
  • Of those states, 9 have a documented history of discriminating against minority voters.
  • 6 states have passed laws that expand access for voters, either allowing them to vote in person before Election Day or offering greater leeway for those who vote by mail. Delaware has restored some voting rights for felons.
  • 2 states — Idaho and Rhode Island — have passed both restrictive and expansive laws.

These shifts in the election landscape come against an historic backdrop of racial discrimination in voting — in particular against African Americans, but also Latinos, Asian Americans and Native Americans. In 1965, the U.S. passed the landmark Voting Rights Act, which prohibited such discrimination, and the federal government began to single out states with a pattern of denying the vote to minorities. Fifteen states were ultimately required to submit proposed changes to their voting laws to the federal government for approval ahead of time — an action known as “preclearance” — before they could take effect.

In June 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned that provision in Shelby v. Holder, saying the preclearance requirement was outdated because it judged states on their past actions, not their present behavior.

In the wake of the Shelby decision, 6 states — Mississippi, Alabama, Virginia, Texas, North Carolina and Florida — that had been covered under the preclearance requirement implemented new restrictive laws, including stricter voter ID requirements or, in the case of Florida, cutting back on the number of hours during which voters could go to the polls ahead of Election Day.

Also, 3 swing states that were not covered under the preclearance rules have passed restrictive laws that have been challenged in court.

  • Pennsylvania’s new voter ID law was blocked by the state Supreme Court earlier this year.
  • Earlier this month, a federal court allowed a Wisconsin law that introduced new voter ID requirements to proceed in time for the November midterm election.
  • On Sept. 29, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed a new Ohio law that imposes cuts to early voting to proceed for the November midterm election.

We’ll continue to monitor bills and lawsuits as they progress to track nationwide trends and help voters understand what it means at the polls. Check out Ballot Watch here.

Sarah Childress

Sarah Childress, Senior Editor & Director of Local Projects, FRONTLINE



In order to foster a civil and literate discussion that respects all participants, FRONTLINE has the following guidelines for commentary. By submitting comments here, you are consenting to these rules:

Readers' comments that include profanity, obscenity, personal attacks, harassment, or are defamatory, sexist, racist, violate a third party's right to privacy, or are otherwise inappropriate, will be removed. Entries that are unsigned or are "signed" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. We reserve the right to not post comments that are more than 400 words. We will take steps to block users who repeatedly violate our commenting rules, terms of use, or privacy policies. You are fully responsible for your comments.

blog comments powered by Disqus

More Stories

In Wake of Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s Death, McConnell Reverses Course on Supreme Court Vacancy; Vows Vote on Nominee
It’s a markedly different approach than he took in the previous presidential election year of 2016, when a different Supreme Court justice died more than eight months before voters went to the polls.
September 19, 2020
Handling of Public Protests a 'Stress Test' for Police Reform
Violent outbursts have marked the period of unrest since George Floyd died May 25, after Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin pinned the 46-year-old Black man to the ground by his neck. In many cases, police have responded with force to disperse protesters, captured on cameras nationwide — including in Cleveland, Chicago, Seattle and Portland, all cities that were already under court-enforced agreements to reform their police departments. Independent monitors overseeing those agreements say it's possible police could find themselves out of compliance for how they've responded to the recent unrest.
September 18, 2020
Amid George Floyd Protests, a Critical Question: Can the Feds Fix American Policing?
As millions of people rallied in the streets this summer demanding an end to police violence, more than a dozen cities were quietly working on their own police reform process — in conference rooms and court hearings.  
September 16, 2020
A Newark Officer Was Filmed Punching Someone. Jelani Cobb Asked a Police Union Head If It Was Justified.
Their resulting conversation in the new FRONTLINE documentary “Policing the Police 2020” illustrates the debate over use of force in policing: what’s legal, what’s justified and whether those definitions should change.
September 15, 2020