Posts Tagged ‘voting’

How Race and Religion is Affecting the American Electorate.

October 6th, 2014 No comments

By: Lauren Zrillo

Blog Category: Religion & Race

There has been recent debate within the American electorate regarding the cause of the stark divide between coalitions who support the two major parties. This debate is centered on why the Republican Party has been unable to win a presidential election in the past two elections. The answer can be boiled down to two crucial factors—race and religion.

Over the past several decades there has been an increase in racial diversity and a shift in moral values. Today, Democratic and Republican voters are far more divided by race, moral beliefs, and policy preferences than in the past fifty years. It is well known that the Republican Party has a major demographic problem—the party is struggling to attract growing demographic groups in America, these groups include young and minority voters.

One problem the Republican Party is having with attracting voters between the ages of 18-33 (young voters) is the shift in moral and religious views the American culture has had in past decades. There has been a drastic decrease among voters who would classify themselves as being religiously observant and most voters between the ages of 18-33 are more likely to vote democratic when it comes to social policies. For example, the dramatic shift in American culture has prided itself on individual autonomy. Therefore, unless the Republican Party changes its outdated views on religious and moral issues young voters will continue to join the Democratic coalition.

Today, American society would like to believe that racial segregation is no longer a crucial problem and all men are treated equal. However, American society remains deeply divided among racial lines especially when it comes to political affiliation. Historically minorities collate with the Democratic Party, while whites collate with the Republican Party and the same is true today. This creates a twofold problem for the Republican Party moving forward. First, African American and Latinos continue to face an uphill battle when it comes to equality with white Americans. These minorities continue to experience poorer education, inferior housing, higher unemployment, and a higher incarceration rate than white Americans. The experiences that minority voters have with these issues sculpt their beliefs about the role the government should have in helping citizens, spending on social services, and taxation. The Democratic Party caters to these issues, which is why minorities continue to join the Democratic coalition. Second, This creates a future problem for the Republican Party because the demographic make-up of the United States is changing. There are more minorities voting then ever before. This is largely due to the large-scale immigration from Latin America and Asia, in addition to the fertility rate being higher among African Americans and Latin Americans. This boils down to a simple realization for the Republican Party—minorities collate with the Democratic Party and the number of minorities voting is growing with each presidential election.

In order to lessen the stark divide between the two coalitions and have a shot at a Presidential seat in the future, the Republican Party must “re-brand” themselves with the issues of race and religion in mind.

The opinions expressed herein are strictly those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Widener Journal of Law, Economics & Race.


Alan I. Abramowitz, How race and religion have polarized American voters, The Washington Post  (Jan. 20, 2014, 12:27 PM), available at

Katie Glueck, Report: How the GOP lost young voters, Politico (Jun. 3, 2013, 6:00 PM), available at

Categories: Headline Tags: , , ,

The Influence of Race and Religion on Voting Trends in the United States

August 11th, 2014 No comments

By: Olivia Italiano

Blog Category: Religion & Race

Over the past several decades, the United States has seen significant cultural and societal shift of increased racial and ethnic diversity, as well as a stark divide of moral and religious values.  In the political sphere, Democrat and Republican supporters are drastically more divided by religious beliefs, ideological orientations, and race than in the past.  Since the 1960s, the racial and ethnic population of the United States has changed drastically, resulting in more non-white voters, including African American, Asian American, and Hispanic voters.

Despite significant improvement in race relations over the last 50 years, American society continues to reflect racial inequality with respect to economic, educational, and employment opportunities. For example, minorities overwhelmingly subjected to inferior housing, higher unemployment rates, and dramatically lower incomes than white Americans.  Unfortunately, minority voters are far more likely to experience prejudice and discrimination on behalf of public and private bureaucracies.

Differing life experiences and disproportionate opportunities are demonstrated through contrasting views on political issues, party identification, and voting behavior.  Morality based issues including abortion and same-sex marriage are frequently rooted in deeply held religious beliefs.  However, religion is not the sole or even primary factor that racial and minority groups rely on when voting.  For example, in the 2012 Presidential Election, the majority of Latino registered voters favored Obama, and stated that they identify with or lean towards the Democratic Party, regardless of their religious beliefs.

The opinions expressed herein are strictly those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Widener Journal of Law, Economics & Race. 


Alan I. Abramowitz, How Race and Religion Have Polarized American Voters, (Jan. 20, 2014), available at

Additional Factors: Gender, Age, Religion, Race, and Ethnicity, available at

Latinos, Religion, and Campaign 2012, (Oct. 12, 2012), available at

Categories: Headline Tags: , , ,

The Consequences of Striking Down § 4: Voter Inequality

February 3rd, 2014 No comments

By: Carla Arias

Blog Category: Racial Implications of Recent Supreme Court Decisions

The United States Supreme Court struck down § 4 of the Voting Rights Act in the summer of 2013.[1] As an integral part of civil rights law, the Voting Rights Act designates which parts of the country must have any voting law changes approved by the federal government.[2]  In a 5-4 decision, the Court held, “[a]t the same time, voting discrimination still exists; no one doubts that. The question is whether the Act’s extraordinary measures, including its disparate treatment of the States, continue to satisfy constitutional requirements. As we put it a short time ago, ‘the Act imposes current burdens and must be justified by current means.’” (emphasis added). [3] Although the decision does not overturn the Act’s ban on discriminatory voting rules, the striking down of § 4 hinders voting equality throughout the country.

Justice Ginsburg dissented stating, “[c]ontinuance would facilitate completion of the impressive gains thus far made; and…, continuance would guard against back sliding.”[4] Section 4 of the Voter Rights Act has proven incredibly successful in “increasing minority registration and access to the ballot.”[5] Section 4 should have remained in place to ensure that the increase in minority registration and access continues.

President Obama was quoted as saying, “[a]s a nation, we’ve made a great deal of progress towards guaranteeing every American the right to vote. But, as the Supreme Court recognized, voting discrimination still exists.”[6] If voter discrimination still exists, as recognized by the Supreme Court, why eliminate an act that has had such success in promoting voting equality. The striking down of § 4 will likely lead to the backsliding Justin Ginsburg noted and undue the progress President Obama emphasized.

The opinions expressed herein are strictly those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Widener Journal of Law, Economics & Race. 

[1] Shelby County, Ala. v. Holder, 133 S.Ct. 2612 (2013).

[2] See 42 U.S.C.A. § 1973b.

[3] Shelby County, Ala. v. Holder, 133 S.Ct. 2612 (2013).

[4]  Id. at 2619.

[5]  Id. at 2632.

[6]  Ryan J. Reilly et al., Voting Rights Act Section 4 Struck Down by Supreme Court, Huffington Post, June 25, 2013,


Pennsylvania Judge Bars Voter-ID law for 2012 Election

December 3rd, 2012 No comments

By: *Christopher King

Blog Category: The Economics of Discrimination

On October 2, 2012, Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court Judge Robert Simpson granted a preliminary injunction in Applewhite v. Commonwealth,[1] thus, putting on hold a law passed by the Pennsylvania legislature earlier this year, requiring Pennsylvania voters to produce photo identification at the polls in order to vote.  Originally, Judge Simpson had denied the plaintiffs’ application for a preliminary injunction.[2]  The plaintiffs, however, appealed to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, who voted to vacate the judge’s order and remanded the case for further review.[3] In its decision, the Court asked the judge to assess the availability of state-issued photo ID, and wrote that the law should be temporary blocked if the judge found that there were voters who would be disenfranchised because of the difficulty in obtaining a photo ID prior to the November general election.[4]


In his October 2nd ruling, Judge Simpson accepted the petitioners’ argument and said that it was logistically impossible to make IDs available to everyone who needed one before the November general election.[5]  Judge Simpson ruled that, while election officials can still request to see a voter’s ID on Election Day, voters are no longer required to show ID in order to cast a regular ballot.[6]  The law as adopted had only allowed for a voter without the required ID to cast a provisional ballot, and for that ballot to be counted only if the voter returned with the proper photo documentation within six days of the election.[7]


The idea of producing identification in order to vote is something that strikes most people as a reasonable requirement.  After all, we need a photo ID to get on an airplane, to enter a number of governmental buildings, or even to buy Sudafed at the drug store.  Supporters of voter-ID laws maintain that the intent of these measures is to ensure that each registered voter is who he says he is and to prevent fraud by persons trying to cast a ballot in someone else’s name.[8]  Again, it seems reasonable enough, so why has there been so much vocal opposition to voter-ID laws?


For starters, a look at the history of voter-ID laws shows that, before 2006, no state required its voters to show government-issued photo ID in order to vote.[9]  Prior to the 2008 election of Barack Obama, the nation’s first African American President, only two states had implemented photo identification requirements for voters.[10]  In 2011 alone, thirty-four states introduced legislation that would require its citizens to show photo identification in order to vote.[11]  Aside from Rhode Island, all voter-ID legislation has been introduced by Republican-controlled legislatures.[12]

According to the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law, 11% of American citizens, and an even greater percentage of low-income and minority citizens, do not possess a government-issued photo ID.[13]  Based on the Brennan Center’s 2006 survey, Citizens Without Proof, 25% of voting-age African Americans have no current government-issued photo ID, compared to just 8% of voting-age white citizens.[14]  The survey also states that 16% of voting-age Hispanic citizens have no current government-issued photo ID.[15]  Citizens with comparatively low incomes are also less likely to possess photo identification.[16]  The survey indicates that at least 15% of voting-age Americans earning less than $35,000 per year do not have a valid government-issued photo ID.[17]


A recent Pennsylvania study comparing people listed in the state’s ID database with its voter rolls found that more than one in seven Pennsylvania voters did not appear to have valid state-issued IDs.[18]  In the city of Philadelphia, nearly one out of every three voters were found to be without the proper photo identification.[19]  While there has been some discrepancy concerning the total number of voters who lack a suitable photo ID, Azavea, a geospatial software firm, used the information relevant to Philadelphia to show a disturbing tendency about where those who do not have an ID are most likely to live.[20]  The firm found that voters who live in the city’s most heavily African American-populated areas are 85% more likely to lack a valid ID than a voter who lives in a predominantly white area.  In addition, voters who live in heavily Hispanic areas were 108% more likely to lack the right ID than those in white neighborhoods.[21]

Finally, opponents of these laws argue that photo ID requirements are similar to a poll tax because, even though the state-issued photo IDs are offered for free, citizens must produce documents that cost money, like passports and birth certificates, in order to obtain the IDs.[22]


The opinions expressed herein are strictly those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Widener Journal of Law, Economics & Race.

*Christopher King is currently a staff member on the Widener Journal of Law, Economics and Race on the Harrisburg campus. To learn more about Christopher King, click the link to visit his page: Christopher King

[1] Applewhite v. Commonwealth, No. 330 M.D. (Pa. Commw. Ct. Oct. 2, 2012), NR/rdonlyres/CFBF4323-B964-4846-8179-88D689375C10/0/CMWSuppDetAppPrelInjOrder _100212.pdf.

[2] Suevon Lee, Everything You’ve Ever Wanted to Know About Voter ID Laws, ProPublica (Oct. 10, 2012, 1:54 PM),

[3] Id.

[4] Id.

[5] Sophia Pearson, Pennsylvania Judge Bars Voter-ID Law for 2012 Election, Bloomberg (Oct. 3, 2012, 12:01 AM),

[6] Id.

[7] Id.

[8] Lee, supra note 2.

[9] Wendy R. Weiser & Lawrence Norden, Brennan Ctr for Justice, Voting Law Changes in 2012 4 (2011), available at

[10] Id. at 2.

[11] Id.

[12] Lee, supra note 2.

[13] Weiser & Norden, supra note 9.

[14] Brennan Ctr for Justice, Citizens Without Proof: A Survery of Americans’ Possession of Documentary Proof of Citizenship and Photo Identification 3 (2006), available at

[15] Id.

[16] Id.

[17] Id.

[18] Dan Froomkin, Pennsylvania Voter ID Law Hits Philadelphia Blacks, Latinos Harder, HuffingtonPost (Aug. 7, 2012),

[19] Id.

[20] Id.

[21] Id.

[22] Lee, supra note 2.