Why Voting Is Still Hard in America

Last updated 2 months ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.

Voting is the cornerstone of American democracy, a fundamental right that allows citizens to shape their government. However, the process of casting a ballot in the United States is far from simple or uniform. It is a complex patchwork of federal, state, and local laws that can create significant, and often confusing, hurdles for millions of eligible Americans.

This examination explores the key reasons why it is still hard to vote in America. We will examine the entire process, from the initial challenge of registering to vote, to the barriers encountered when casting a ballot, to the systemic and political forces that can dilute the power of a single vote.

The issues include voter registration systems, the controversy over voter ID laws and roll purges, the challenges of in-person and mail-in voting, the disenfranchisement of citizens with felony convictions, and the impact of gerrymandering and misinformation.

In This Article

The article examines why voting remains difficult for many Americans, identifying a complex mix of state and local rules that vary widely and often create barriers. Problems include burdensome registration processes, strict voter ID laws, polling‑place closures, long wait times, confusing mail-in voting rules, and the continued disenfranchisement of people with felony convictions. On top of these structural hurdles, practices such as gerrymandering and the spread of misinformation further weaken both the power of individual votes and public trust in the fairness of elections.

So What?

Because access to voting varies significantly by state and local jurisdiction, many eligible citizens face real obstacles simply to cast a ballot — a situation that undermines equal representation. These barriers particularly affect marginalized and low-income communities, restricting their ability to influence government. Strengthening democracy requires reform to simplify registration and voting procedures and protect all citizens’ access to the ballot, thereby preserving the legitimacy and inclusivity of the electoral process.

Getting and Staying Registered

The act of voting in the United States almost always begins long before Election Day with the process of voter registration. It is a prerequisite for voting in federal elections in every state except North Dakota. Far from a simple, one-time act, registration is an ongoing status that can be surprisingly complex to obtain and, for millions of Americans, alarmingly easy to lose.

The rules governing this foundational step are not uniform; they are a mosaic of state and local policies that create a landscape of unequal access, where a citizen’s ability to participate in democracy can depend heavily on their zip code.

A Maze of Deadlines

The United States does not have a national, universal system for voter registration. Instead, the responsibility for creating and maintaining voter rolls falls to thousands of state and local election officials, each operating under a different set of rules.

While federal laws provide a basic framework, they leave states with significant discretion, resulting in a confusing and often burdensome system for citizens. The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA), also known as the “Motor Voter Act,” sought to standardize and expand registration opportunities, in part by setting a maximum pre-election registration deadline of 30 days.

Within that 30-day window, however, states have adopted a wide array of deadlines. This variation creates a landscape where voter access is highly dependent on geography. As of 2024, 22 states have registration deadlines falling between 16 and 30 days before an election.

States like Alaska, Arkansas, and Texas require voters to register a full 30 days in advance. Others, like Alabama and California, have a 15-day cutoff. At the other end of the spectrum, 22 states plus the District of Columbia have embraced the most permissive policy: Election Day Registration, also known as Same-Day Registration (SDR), which allows eligible citizens to register and vote in a single trip.

These disparate and often arbitrary deadlines can serve as a significant barrier, effectively disenfranchising citizens who become engaged in the political process only in the final weeks before an election, who move to a new address shortly before Election Day, or who are simply unaware of the specific rules in their state.

The burden falls particularly hard on young people, who tend to have more mobile lifestyles and irregular school or work schedules that make navigating registration deadlines more difficult.

To help citizens navigate this complex system, federal and state governments provide resources. Websites such as USA.gov and portals maintained by the National Association of Secretaries of State offer tools for voters to check their registration status, find their local deadlines, and update their information.

State-by-State Voter Registration Deadlines

Source: Data compiled from Vote.org

The Purge Problem

Maintaining accurate voter registration lists is a critical and necessary function of election administration. This process, known as a voter purge, is intended to remove the names of individuals who are no longer eligible to vote in a particular jurisdiction, such as those who have died, moved out of state, or been convicted of a disenfranchising felony.

When done correctly, this list maintenance helps ensure that election mail is sent to the correct address and that voter rolls are not bloated with outdated entries.

However, the practice has become intensely controversial because these purges are often flawed and overly aggressive, resulting in the wrongful removal of hundreds of thousands of eligible voters from the rolls each election cycle.

The scale of this problem has grown substantially in recent years. According to data from the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, over 19 million voters were purged from registration lists between the 2020 and 2022 elections. This figure represents a 21% increase from the 2014–2016 period, which itself was a 33% increase from the number of voters removed between 2006 and 2008.

The risk of inaccurate purges is heightened by the increasing pressure placed on election officials by partisan and election denial groups. These organizations often use unreliable or outdated data to generate mass challenges to the eligibility of thousands of voters, compelling officials to investigate and potentially remove them.

The methods used for purges can also be discriminatory. Some states have targeted naturalized citizens under the rationale of removing noncitizens, or have used characteristics that disproportionately affect Black and Brown communities and people experiencing poverty.

For an individual voter, the consequence of a wrongful purge is profound. A citizen who has voted for years may not receive their absentee ballot or, more commonly, will arrive at their polling place on Election Day only to be told their name is not on the list.

The human impact of this bureaucratic failure was starkly illustrated during the 2000 presidential election in Florida. Countless voters, like Cathy Jackson and Donnise DeSouza, arrived at their precincts with valid registration information but were told they were not on the rolls. After hours of confusion, busy phone lines to election offices, and being sent back and forth between precincts, they were ultimately denied their right to vote.

The experience can be so bewildering that it creates lasting confusion. Earl Edwards of Memphis, Tennessee, was told by a poll worker in 2010 that a felony appeared next to his name, preventing him from voting. For the next nine years, he believed he had a felony conviction, which affected his ability to find jobs and housing. He later discovered, with the help of an advocacy group, that he had never been convicted of a felony and had been eligible to vote the entire time.

The combination of aggressive purges and strict registration deadlines creates a particularly potent barrier to voting. A citizen who is wrongfully purged is often unaware of the error, as mailed notification cards are frequently ignored or mistaken for junk mail.

When they discover the problem on Election Day, it is too late to re-register in a state with a 15- or 30-day deadline. This creates a vicious cycle where a bureaucratic error, combined with a restrictive deadline, results in disenfranchisement.

In states with Same-Day Registration, this problem is largely neutralized, as a voter can simply re-register on the spot. But in states without this fail-safe, the two policies work in tandem to suppress votes, turning a correctable error into a denial of a fundamental right.

The Debate Over Automatic and Same-Day Registration

In response to the persistent challenges of an outdated, paper-based registration system that leaves one in four eligible Americans unregistered, reformers have championed policies designed to modernize the process and make it more accessible and efficient.

The two most prominent reforms are Automatic Voter Registration (AVR) and Same-Day Registration (SDR). Both have been adopted by a significant number of states, but they remain at the center of a fierce national debate about the proper balance between voter access and election security.

Automatic Voter Registration (AVR)

AVR systems fundamentally change the registration process from “opt-in” to “opt-out.” Under this model, eligible citizens are automatically registered to vote or have their existing registration updated whenever they interact with a designated government agency, most commonly the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), unless they actively decline.

As of 2024, 23 states and the District of Columbia have enacted some form of AVR.

Arguments In Favor: Proponents, including organizations like the Brennan Center for Justice, argue that AVR is a transformative yet simple change that yields multiple benefits. By using electronic data transfers from government agencies, AVR improves the accuracy of voter rolls, reducing errors from handwritten forms and keeping addresses current as people move.

This increased accuracy and efficiency saves taxpayer money; one estimate suggests processing a single paper registration form costs roughly $4.72 in labor. Furthermore, by ensuring more people are correctly registered before Election Day, AVR reduces the potential for long lines, voter confusion, and the need for provisional ballots.

The potential impact on participation is significant. An analysis of the proposed federal Freedom to Vote Act estimated that its AVR provisions could lead to the registration of nearly 8 million new voters and result in 3.8 million additional ballots cast in a general election.

Arguments Against: Opponents raise several concerns, centering on election integrity, privacy, and government overreach. The Heritage Foundation, for instance, has argued that AVR could “significantly damage the integrity of America’s voter registration system” by increasing the likelihood of ineligible individuals or duplicate registrations being added to the rolls.

They contend that when combined with Same-Day Registration, AVR creates a “sure formula for registration and voter fraud.” Beyond security, some argue that AVR violates a citizen’s right to choose whether to participate in the political process, infringing on the “freedom to be left alone by the government.”

There are also practical concerns, including the initial startup costs of new technology and the need for complex collaboration between different government agencies.

Same-Day Registration (SDR)

SDR, also known as Election Day Registration, allows any eligible citizen to register to vote and cast a ballot at the same time, either during an early voting period or on Election Day itself. As of June 2024, it is available in 22 states and the District of Columbia.

Arguments For: Supporters view SDR as a powerful tool to increase participation and remedy the shortcomings of arbitrary registration deadlines. The League of Women Voters of New Jersey estimates that SDR can increase overall voter turnout by 5% and by as much as 10% among voters under 24.

Research has shown that states with SDR often see higher turnout among Black and Latinx voters. It also acts as a crucial fail-safe, allowing eligible citizens who may have moved recently, missed a deadline, or been incorrectly purged from the rolls to correct the issue at the polling place and cast a ballot that counts.

Arguments Against: Opponents contend that SDR creates significant logistical challenges for election officials. A town clerk from Massachusetts argued that registration deadlines are in place for an important administrative reason: to ensure officials can verify eligibility and prepare accurate voter lists for a fair and orderly election.

Trying to process new registrations while also running an election can lead to “administrative chaos” and overwhelm poll workers. Another line of argument suggests that SDR encourages “ill-informed voting” by catering to individuals who are unengaged in the process until the very last minute, whereas registering in advance demonstrates a more thoughtful commitment to civic participation.

The clear divide between states that have adopted these modernizing reforms and those that have maintained more restrictive, deadline-based systems reflects a deeper political conflict. The debate is not merely about administrative preference but is fundamentally about the composition of the electorate.

The data shows that reforms like SDR and AVR tend to increase participation among younger, more mobile, and more diverse populations—demographics that often favor one political party over the other. Therefore, the decision to maintain a high “cost of voting”—in terms of time, effort, and vigilance required to navigate complex registration rules—can be seen as a deliberate policy choice to shape who participates in an election.

Barriers at the Polls and By Mail

Successfully navigating the voter registration process is only the first step. Once registered, a citizen must then overcome the hurdles associated with the act of voting itself. Whether a person chooses to vote in person on Election Day, during an early voting period, or by mail, they may encounter a range of obstacles that can make casting a ballot difficult or even impossible.

From strict identification requirements and long lines at under-resourced polling places to confusing rules for mail-in ballots, these barriers represent the second major front in the ongoing struggle over access to the ballot box in America.

The Voter Identification Controversy

Perhaps no single issue in the modern voting rights debate is as contentious as voter identification laws. The central conflict pits the stated goal of ensuring election integrity against the demonstrable burden these laws can place on eligible citizens.

While the 2002 Help America Vote Act (HAVA) established a baseline ID requirement for first-time voters who register by mail, many states have enacted far more stringent laws for all voters.

The legal landscape shifted significantly in 2008, when the Supreme Court, in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, upheld Indiana’s strict photo ID law. The Court ruled that states have a valid interest in preventing voter fraud and that such laws were not, on their face, an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote. This decision was widely seen as a green light for other states to pursue similar legislation.

As of 2025, 36 states have laws that either request or require voters to show some form of identification at the polls. These laws, however, are not monolithic and exist on a spectrum of severity, which can be understood along two key dimensions:

Photo vs. Non-Photo: Some states mandate an ID with a photograph, such as a driver’s license, passport, or state-issued ID card. Other states are more flexible, accepting non-photo documents like a current utility bill, bank statement, paycheck, or voter registration card.

Strict vs. Non-Strict: This distinction hinges on what happens to a voter who arrives at the polls without the required ID. In “strict” states, the voter must cast a provisional ballot and then take an additional step after Election Day—such as returning to an election office with a valid ID—for their vote to be counted. If they fail to do so, their ballot is rejected.

In “non-strict” states, the voter has an immediate remedy at the polling place, such as signing a sworn affidavit attesting to their identity, which allows them to cast a regular ballot that will be counted without further action.

Proponents of these laws argue they are a common-sense safeguard necessary to prevent in-person voter impersonation fraud and bolster public confidence in election outcomes. Opponents, however, describe them as a solution in search of a problem.

Extensive research has consistently shown that the type of fraud these laws are designed to prevent is exceedingly rare. Critics argue that the true purpose of these laws is to suppress the vote by creating an unnecessary hurdle for eligible citizens.

The burden of obtaining a qualifying ID is not distributed equally across the population. For many, it can be a significant obstacle. It may require taking time off work to visit a government office, securing transportation, and paying for underlying documents like a birth certificate or marriage license, which can be costly and difficult to obtain.

Studies have shown that these burdens disproportionately affect racial and ethnic minorities, low-income individuals, students, the elderly, and people with disabilities. A 2025 study of Texas’s Senate Bill 1, which imposed new ID number requirements for mail-in voting, found that Black, Latino, and Asian voters had their applications and ballots rejected for ID-related issues at significantly higher rates than white voters.

The human cost of these bureaucratic hurdles is well-documented in personal stories collected by organizations like VoteRiders. These accounts detail the struggles of individuals like Amanda in Ohio, who faced repeated rejections at the Bureau of Motor Vehicles; Russell, who needed assistance obtaining an ID in order to vote for the first time in 45 years after a period of incarceration; and Deana Brotherton, a transgender woman in North Carolina who became unhoused and struggled to obtain an ID that correctly reflected her identity.

The academic research on the ultimate impact of these laws on voter turnout presents a mixed and debated picture. Some studies have found no statistically significant negative effect on overall turnout rates. However, a growing body of rigorous research has concluded that strict ID laws do have a “differentially negative impact on the turnout of racial and ethnic minorities” and can depress overall turnout by as much as three percentage points.

The 2025 Texas study, for instance, found a powerful chilling effect: voters whose mail ballot applications were rejected due to the new ID rules were 16 percentage points less likely to vote in the subsequent general election.

Voter ID Law Classifications by State

Source: Data compiled from NCSL, Movement Advancement Project

Note: Classifications reflect requirements for in-person voting and may have exceptions. “Strict” means a voter without ID must take additional steps post-Election Day for their vote to count. “Non-Strict” means a voter has an option, like signing an affidavit, to cast a regular ballot at the polls.

The Vanishing Polling Place and the Long Wait

For those who choose to vote in person, the most basic requirement is having a place to go. Yet, for many Americans, that place is getting farther away and the lines are getting longer. The closure and consolidation of polling places has accelerated dramatically since 2013, when the Supreme Court’s decision in Shelby County v. Holder eliminated the federal preclearance requirement of the Voting Rights Act.

This provision had required states and counties with a history of discrimination to get federal approval before making changes to their election procedures, including moving or closing polling locations.

A landmark 2019 report from The Leadership Conference Education Fund, Democracy Diverted, documented the staggering scale of these closures. In the six years between 2012 and 2018, the report identified 1,688 polling place closures in jurisdictions that had previously been covered by the preclearance requirement.

The closures were heavily concentrated in a few key states: Texas led the nation with 750 closures, followed by Arizona with 320 and Georgia with 214. The impact was sometimes extreme; some counties in Georgia closed over 80% of their polling sites, leaving residents in large rural areas with only a single location to cast their vote.

Fewer polling places inevitably led to greater burdens on voters, including longer travel distances and increased wait times. Quantitative research has established a clear causal link between these burdens and lower voter turnout. Studies have found that polling place consolidation directly reduces participation.

One analysis estimated that for every one mile increase in the distance a voter must travel to their polling place, the likelihood of them voting decreases by up to 1.23 percentage points in a primary election and 0.99 percentage points in a general election. These effects are not felt equally; polling place closures disproportionately impact communities of color, who are more likely to rely on public transportation and have less flexibility to travel long distances to vote.

Even for voters whose polling place hasn’t moved, long lines can be a powerful deterrent. While the national average wait time in the 2022 election was a manageable six minutes, this figure masks deep and persistent disparities.

In that same election, more than 10% of voters in Tennessee, Florida, and the District of Columbia waited over 30 minutes to vote. Research consistently shows that average wait times are significantly longer in precincts with higher percentages of minority voters, more renters, and lower household incomes.

These disparities are often a direct result of unequal resource allocation. A Brennan Center study found that counties with fewer electoral resources—meaning fewer polling places, voting machines, and poll workers per voter—had significantly longer wait times. The study also found that counties that had become less white over the preceding decade tended to have fewer resources per voter than counties that had grown whiter.

The cumulative effect of these barriers is significant. A voter may face a direct financial cost to obtain a required ID, a time and travel cost due to a distant polling place, and a further time cost waiting in a long line. Each of these hurdles, while perhaps seeming minor in isolation, adds to a cumulative burden that can make the “cost” of voting prohibitively high for many citizens, particularly those with limited time, money, and transportation options.

The Mail-In Ballot Debate

In response to the challenges of in-person voting, and accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic, states have increasingly offered alternative methods for casting a ballot. As of 2024, 47 states and the District of Columbia provide some form of in-person early voting, with periods ranging from three to 46 days.

Additionally, 28 states offer “no-excuse” absentee voting, allowing any registered voter to request a mail ballot, while another eight states and D.C. conduct their elections primarily by mail, automatically sending a ballot to every registered voter.

Arguments for Mail-In Voting: Proponents champion these options as a way to dramatically increase accessibility and convenience. They allow voters to bypass challenges like inflexible work schedules, childcare needs, transportation issues, or disabilities that make in-person voting difficult.

Research indicates that a switch to all-mail voting can increase turnout by a modest 2 to 3 percentage points, and it does so without providing a significant structural advantage to either political party. States like Oregon, Washington, and Colorado, which have conducted elections by mail for years, have developed a set of best practices for security—such as signature verification and ballot tracking—and have not experienced any major voter fraud scandals.

Arguments Against Mail-In Voting: Opponents, however, raise significant concerns about the security and integrity of mail-in voting. They argue that mail ballots are more vulnerable to fraud than in-person voting, citing risks of ballot theft, coercion of voters by family members or campaign workers, and illegal “ballot harvesting,” where third parties collect and submit ballots.

Another major criticism is the potential for significant delays in reporting election results. Unlike in-person votes that are typically counted on election night, mail ballots can take days or even weeks to arrive and be processed, which opponents argue can undermine public confidence and create opportunities for legal challenges.

Some, like the Heritage Foundation, make a more fundamental argument: that a ballot is too important a document to be trusted to the mail system, which is susceptible to loss or non-delivery.

Following the widespread use of mail-in voting during the 2020 election, many states have moved to impose new restrictions. A key trend in 2025 has been the elimination of “postmark grace periods.” Previously, states like Kansas, North Dakota, and Utah would count ballots that were postmarked on or before Election Day, even if they arrived at the election office a few days later.

New laws in these states now require ballots to be received by the close of polls on Election Day to be counted, effectively disenfranchising voters who mailed their ballots in good faith but were subject to postal service delays.

This debate highlights the same fundamental tension seen in other areas of election law: a conflict between those who prioritize maximizing access and convenience and those who prioritize maximizing security, even at the cost of disenfranchising some eligible voters.

Systemic Barriers to Representative Democracy

Beyond the logistical hurdles of registering and casting a ballot, a number of deeper, systemic forces are at play that can make it hard to vote or dilute the power of a vote once it is cast. These barriers are not about the mechanics of a single election but are woven into the legal and political fabric of the country.

They include laws that strip voting rights from millions of citizens with felony convictions, the practice of manipulating district lines to predetermine election outcomes, and the pervasive spread of disinformation designed to erode trust and suppress participation. These systemic issues raise fundamental questions about fairness, equality, and whether the American political system truly reflects the will of all its people.

When the Sentence Ends: Felony Disenfranchisement

The United States stands as a stark outlier among modern democracies in its practice of stripping voting rights from citizens with criminal convictions. In 2022, an estimated 4.6 million Americans were barred from voting due to a felony conviction, a population larger than that of many states. Nearly three-quarters of these individuals are not in prison but are living in their communities, working, paying taxes, and raising families while being denied a voice in their government.

This practice has deep and troubling roots in American history. While forms of disenfranchisement existed in ancient Greece and colonial America, the widespread use of felony convictions as a tool to bar voting expanded dramatically in the southern states after the Civil War. It became a key part of the effort to suppress the political power of newly-enfranchised African American men.

This legacy continues to manifest in stark racial disparities today. Nationally, one in every 13 voting-age Black Americans is disenfranchised due to a felony conviction, a rate more than four times higher than that of non-Black Americans. In some states, the figure is as high as one in five.

There is no national standard governing this issue; instead, a confusing and often contradictory patchwork of state laws determines who loses their right to vote and how, if ever, they can get it back. The policies fall into several broad categories:

No Disenfranchisement: In Maine, Vermont, and the District of Columbia, citizens never lose their right to vote, even while incarcerated for a felony.

Automatic Restoration Upon Release: In 23 states, voting rights are automatically restored once an individual is released from prison.

Completion of Full Sentence: In 15 states, restoration only occurs after an individual has completed their entire sentence, including any period of probation or parole.

Post-Sentence Action Required: A group of 10 states imposes the most significant barriers, requiring formerly incarcerated citizens to take additional action after their sentence is complete. This can include a multi-year waiting period, petitioning a court or the governor for restoration, or paying off all outstanding fines, fees, and restitution related to their conviction.

The complexity of these laws is a barrier in itself. The process for restoration can be so opaque and burdensome that many formerly incarcerated individuals are unsure of their own eligibility status or incorrectly assume they are permanently barred from voting.

The requirement to pay off all legal financial obligations, as implemented in states like Florida and Tennessee, can function as a modern-day poll tax, effectively creating permanent disenfranchisement for those who cannot afford to pay. This system of bureaucratic and financial hurdles ensures that for millions of Americans, their sentence continues long after they have served their time.

Felony Disenfranchisement and Rights Restoration Policies by State

Source: Data compiled from NCSL, Brennan Center, Wikipedia, LGBT MAP

Gerrymandering: When Your Vote Counts Less

Even when a citizen successfully registers and casts a ballot, the impact of that vote can be severely diminished by gerrymandering. This is the practice of drawing the boundaries of legislative districts to create an unfair political advantage for one party or group.

In a fairly drawn system, voters choose their politicians. In a gerrymandered system, politicians effectively choose their voters, creating “safe” districts where the outcome of the general election is a foregone conclusion.

Map-drawers, typically state legislators from the party in power, use sophisticated data and software to achieve their partisan goals through two primary techniques:

Cracking: This tactic involves splitting a concentration of the opposing party’s voters across several districts. By dividing their strength, these voters become a minority in each district, making it nearly impossible for them to elect their preferred candidate anywhere.

Packing: This is the opposite strategy, where the opposing party’s voters are crammed into as few districts as possible. In these “packed” districts, their preferred candidate wins by an overwhelming, landslide margin. While they secure that one seat, their excess votes are “wasted,” and their influence in all surrounding districts is eliminated.

The result of partisan gerrymandering is a legislature that does not accurately reflect the political preferences of the state’s population as a whole. It leads to skewed, unrepresentative outcomes where a party can win a minority of the statewide popular vote but still capture a majority of the legislative seats.

For example, in a perennial swing state like North Carolina, a carefully drawn gerrymander can virtually guarantee one party will win 10 or 11 of the state’s 14 congressional seats, regardless of shifts in voter sentiment.

This practice makes elections less competitive, increases political polarization, and leads many voters to feel that their participation does not matter. Because of residential segregation patterns, gerrymandering often has a racial dimension, as cracking and packing communities of color becomes an effective way to achieve a partisan advantage.

The Information War: How Misinformation Suppresses the Vote

A growing and insidious barrier to voting is the deliberate spread of false and misleading information. It is important to distinguish between disinformation, which is false content intentionally created to deceive and harm, and misinformation, which is the unintentional sharing of that false content. Both pose a significant threat to the democratic process.

This “information war” takes several forms. One common tactic is the promotion of false narratives about widespread voter fraud. These claims, which are not supported by extensive research showing that fraud is extremely rare, are used to create public distrust in election outcomes and to build political support for passing more restrictive voting laws.

Another tactic directly targets voters with deceptive practices. This can include flyers, social media posts, or text messages that provide incorrect information about polling place locations, voting hours, or voter eligibility requirements, all with the goal of tricking people into not voting or having their ballot disqualified.

These campaigns often target specific demographics, including communities of color, with tailored messages designed to suppress their participation.

State and local election officials, along with non-partisan advocacy groups, are actively working to combat this threat. They engage in “mythbusting” campaigns on social media and direct voters to use trusted sources of information, such as official government election websites.

However, in a polarized media environment, countering the erosion of public trust remains one of the most significant challenges facing American elections.

These systemic barriers—the bureaucratic maze of felony disenfranchisement, the representational distortion of gerrymandering, and the corrosive effect of disinformation—operate on a different level than logistical hurdles like ID laws or long lines.

They function by making the entire political system more opaque, confusing, and intimidating. Unlike the overt prohibitions of the past, these modern barriers work under a veneer of legality and administrative necessity. The result, however, is often the same: the disenfranchisement and discouragement of eligible voters, undermining the core principle of a government by and for the people.

The Legal and Legislative Battleground

The difficulty of voting in America is not a static condition but the result of an ongoing, high-stakes battle being fought in the nation’s courts and legislative chambers. This conflict is defined by landmark Supreme Court decisions that have reshaped the legal landscape and a deeply polarized Congress where two fundamentally different visions for the future of American elections are in direct opposition.

The outcome of these legal and legislative fights will determine whether access to the ballot expands or contracts for millions of citizens in the years to come.

The Post-Shelby Landscape

For nearly half a century, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA) stood as the single most powerful piece of federal legislation protecting the right to vote. It was a landmark achievement of the Civil Rights Movement that banned discriminatory practices like literacy tests and poll taxes, which had been used for decades to prevent Black Americans from voting, particularly in the South.

The VRA’s most potent tool was Section 5, the “preclearance” provision. Under this section, states and local jurisdictions with a documented history of racial discrimination in voting were legally required to obtain approval, or “preclearance,” from the U.S. Department of Justice or a federal court before implementing any changes to their voting laws or procedures. This powerful mechanism prevented discriminatory laws from ever taking effect.

The jurisdictions subject to preclearance were determined by a “coverage formula” laid out in Section 4 of the act.

This system was dramatically upended in 2013 by the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision in Shelby County v. Holder. The Court did not strike down the preclearance requirement itself, but it invalidated the Section 4 coverage formula, ruling that it was outdated and no longer constitutional.

Without a formula to determine which jurisdictions were covered, the preclearance requirement became unenforceable, effectively gutting the heart of the Voting Rights Act.

The impact was immediate and profound. Within hours of the decision, states that had previously been under federal oversight began to announce and implement a wave of new, restrictive voting laws. These included strict photo ID requirements, cuts to early voting periods and Sunday voting, and the mass closure of polling places.

The consequences have been measurable: research has shown that the gap in voter turnout between white and non-white voters has widened in the jurisdictions that were formerly subject to preclearance.

Current Legislative Fights

The current legislative environment in Washington reflects a deep and partisan divide over the federal government’s role in elections. This conflict is a constitutional tug-of-war, pitting the principle of states’ rights to administer elections against the federal government’s authority to protect the fundamental voting rights of its citizens. This has resulted in two opposing legislative agendas.

The Pro-Access Agenda

Advocates for expanding voter access are pushing for federal legislation that would establish national standards for voting and restore the protections of the VRA. Two key bills form the core of this agenda:

The John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act (H.R. 14): Introduced in the House of Representatives in March 2025, this bill is a direct response to the Shelby County decision. It seeks to restore the full power of the VRA by creating a new, modernized coverage formula that would once again subject states and localities with recent histories of voting discrimination to federal preclearance.

The bill would also strengthen legal protections against practices that result in vote dilution, particularly those affecting communities of color.

The Freedom to Vote Act: This comprehensive piece of legislation aims to create a baseline of pro-voter policies for all federal elections across the country. Its key provisions would mandate that all states offer Automatic Voter Registration (AVR), Same-Day Registration (SDR), no-excuse vote-by-mail, and at least two weeks of in-person early voting.

The bill also includes measures to ban partisan gerrymandering for congressional districts and to provide protections for non-partisan election officials against harassment and intimidation.

The Restrictive Agenda

In opposition, another legislative agenda seeks to impose new nationwide restrictions on voting, arguing they are necessary for election security, and to push back against what it views as federal overreach.

The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act (H.R. 22): This bill, which passed the House of Representatives in April 2025, would enact a nationwide requirement for all individuals to provide documentary proof of U.S. citizenship—such as a passport, birth certificate, or naturalization papers—when registering to vote in federal elections.

Critics argue this would effectively end online and mail-in voter registration for many and could disenfranchise millions of eligible American citizens who do not have easy access to these specific documents. Research from the Brennan Center indicates that more than 21 million citizens lack such readily available papers.

Executive Order on Election Integrity (March 2025): An executive order issued in March 2025 directed federal agencies to take actions that align with the goals of the SAVE Act. This includes ordering the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) to add a proof-of-citizenship requirement to the national mail voter registration form and mandating that federal agencies, like the Department of Homeland Security, provide state officials with access to federal databases to verify the citizenship status of registered voters.

Several provisions of this order have been challenged in court on the grounds that the president lacks the constitutional authority to unilaterally regulate federal elections.

The narrative of “election integrity” has become a powerful political tool, used not only to justify new restrictive voting laws but also to support efforts to exert partisan control over the non-partisan machinery of elections.

For example, the “Project 2025” platform proposes shifting the authority for prosecuting election-related offenses within the Department of Justice and dismantling the role of federal agencies that combat election disinformation, all based on the unsubstantiated premise that widespread voter fraud is not being adequately addressed.

This represents a two-pronged strategy: first, passing laws that make it harder for specific demographics to vote, and second, taking control of the administrative and enforcement mechanisms to ensure the rules are interpreted in a politically favorable way.

Emerging State-Level Trends in 2025

While the battle continues at the federal level, the primary front remains in the states, where legislatures are actively reshaping election laws. The year 2025 marked a significant shift in this landscape. For the first time since systematic tracking began in 2021, the number of new state laws restricting voter access surpassed the number of laws expanding it. Only one in three new election-related laws enacted in 2025 improved voter access or election administration.

Several key restrictive trends emerged during the 2025 legislative sessions:

• Stricter Voter ID Laws: States moved to make their existing ID laws even more stringent. Kentucky, Montana, and West Virginia eliminated options for voters to use non-photo forms of identification. Indiana passed a law explicitly prohibiting the use of student IDs for voting, a measure that directly targets younger voters.
• Elimination of Mail Ballot Grace Periods: A growing number of states are tightening deadlines for mail-in ballots. Kansas, North Dakota, and Utah all passed laws eliminating their “postmark deadlines,” which previously allowed ballots postmarked by Election Day to be counted if they arrived shortly after. Now, ballots in these states must be physically received by the close of polls on Election Day, a change that will disenfranchise voters whose timely ballots are delayed by the postal service.
• New Hurdles for Military and Overseas Voters: Spurred by the federal executive order, several states, including Arizona, Indiana, and Texas, introduced proposals that would create new barriers for military service members and other Americans living abroad, such as requiring them to provide documentary proof of their overseas residency to vote.

Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstances.