Doom-and-gloom seems to define most discourse about voting rights and the 2024 election.
Three years ago, insurrectionists stormed the U.S. Capitol to thwart a peaceful transition of power. A recent poll shows that a quarter of Americans believe the FBI coordinated the attack. Donald Trump has defended the rioters and hints at pardoning them all if elected.
Even worse, he has declared that, if elected again, he would be a dictator—but only on “day one.” He faces a multitude of criminal and civil lawsuits stemming from his efforts to undermine American democracy, raising the prospect of a presidential candidate juggling his campaign schedule with his court schedule. The Supreme Court will soon hear a case from Colorado on whether he is eligible to run for president, given his role in the insurrection.
Meanwhile, several states severely gerrymandered their political maps during redistricting and enacted cutbacks on voting rights, such as Idaho’s recent decision to remove student IDs as valid voting IDs. Election officials face threats and harassment. Courts will be vital in the 2024 election, and we know that the U.S. Supreme Court does not usually favor voters.
So, why am I ultimately optimistic about American democracy? As a professor of election law and voting rights, am I unaware of the challenges facing our system?
I am not naïve. As I write in a book to be published in May, the Court presents a significant barrier to a free and fair democracy. And yet, I still see the glass as half-full instead of half-empty.
First, numerous grassroots efforts are expanding voter participation and engaging the electorate. Michigan will implement new laws to ease voter registration, require nine days of early voting, and allow voters to fix clerical errors on their ballots. New Jersey��just passed a law to allow 17-year-olds to vote in the primary if they are 18 by Election Day—although the law will not take effect until the 2026 midterms. Newark, NJ just enfranchised 16- and 17-year-olds for school board elections, becoming the largest jurisdiction to lower the voting age to 16. Colorado and Oregon are asking Joe Biden’s administration to let them register voters who receive Medicaid. Local election officials in myriad places, including pivotal Arizona and Georgia, are working on innovative strategies to engage young voters, such as videos and comic books. Civic organizations are committed to voter education and empowerment.
Second, although the Supreme Court has not been particularly open to challenges regarding voting rights, courts still issue decisions that can help voters. The Wisconsin Supreme Court threw out a severely gerrymandered map and ordered a fairer map for this year’s election. A Wisconsin judge issued an order to clarify the rules for a witness signature on absentee ballots, likely resulting in fewer rejected ballots. A Minnesota judge rejected a challenge to a state law that will enfranchise thousands of individuals with felony convictions after they are released from incarceration.
Of course, courts have also issued rulings that diminish voting rights, such as a Georgia decision that the group True the Vote’s efforts to challenge over 360,000 voter registrations before the 2021 U.S. Senate runoff election did not amount to voter intimidation under the Voting Rights Act. However, the court expressed “concerns” about the tactic. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower court decision that had struck down a Texas law requiring a “wet signature” for voter registration, which will force voters who submit a registration form electronically or via fax to also submit a copy of their voter registration form with an original signature. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an unprecedented decision saying that private parties cannot bring suit under the Voting Rights Act. But even litigation that fails to vindicate voters’ rights can keep the issues in the public discourse.
Finally, my conversations with activists, policymakers, election officials, and voters demonstrate that hope—with a healthy dose of skepticism—is in the air. The 2020 election was historic, with massive voter turnout even during a pandemic, yet interest in the 2024 election may be even higher. I have faith in voters—if they actually engage in an effort to protect democracy. The alternative is to throw up our hands and assume that we can’t impact the system. A healthy democracy requires all of us to participate—and be optimistic about what is possible while being realistic about the challenges ahead.
When we were brainstorming ideas for the name of my new radio series and podcast—launching in February—the producers initially thought “Democracy Optimist” was too rosy. Doesn’t it paint a false picture of hope in an era where many believe we could be on the brink of authoritarianism?
But that’s the point. We need hope, not despair. There are good reasons to be optimistic about the ability to run a free and fair election where—regardless of the candidates—democracy wins. But it requires a commitment from all of us.
Let’s get to work.
