We Just Want Stephen Colbert
To Come To Our College SuperPac

dedicated to public service

in the interest of voters

and democratic participation

This is a Legacy Site, Super PAC was renamed 18-24 February 2015

Knowledge is the prereq of democracy.

* indicates linked page is waiting for content.

A History of Voter Suppression

Luke Savonis, Andrew Ragusa, Emma Kaufman,
Nick Pfisterer, and Justice Haynes
December 10, 2012

To download a PDF version of A History of Voter Suppression or continue reading below.
In this report, we have sought to create a comprehensive summary of voter suppression in the United States and an analysis of the current Voter ID laws that many say are a form of voter suppression as well, although there is significant controversy on this matter. First, a more general summary is given regarding the voting rights of different peoples then a more specific history is drawn out with the most significant voter suppression measures listed beginning in 1776 with the creation of the Declaration of Independence.

A General History

The American saga of voter suppression over the past 200 years reveals a lot about the nature of suffrage in the United States. What is less commonly known is that the U.S. Constitution never plainly declares that all citizens have a right to vote. In Article VI, Section 3 of the Constitution, it is stated, "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." That being said, each state was given a considerable amount of autonomy in their establishment of requirements for eligible voters. This was especially true if there is no federal law or constitutional amendment that specifically addresses who becomes a citizen.

In the beginning era of American democracy, only white men with real land, property or a significant amount of wealth to be taxed were allowed to vote. African Americans who were free were enfranchised in four states. The states disavowed the property qualification by the Civil War, which enabled most white men to vote – whether or not they owned property. But all women, African Americans and many non-Christian religious groups were not allowed to vote. The Civil War marked a dramatic shift for suffrage in American history.

After the Civil War, a plethora of amendments were ratified and added to the Constitution. Four of them applied specifically to the issue of voter suppression and enhanced the voting rights of particular demographics. These Reconstruction-era extensions declared the following conditions could be used to keep citizens from voting: "All persons born or naturalized are citizens of the United States and the state where they reside" (14th Amendment, 1868), "Race, color, or previous condition of servitude" (15th Amendment, 1870), "On the account of sex" (19th Amendment, 1920).

Unfortunately, despite the 15th Amendment's intentions to extend suffrage for those previously held in slavery, a conservative group of Democrats from the South (known as the Dixiecrats) put up major obstacles to prevent enfranchisement. The Dixiecrats started to enforce a group of policies in 1877 that were specifically designed to prevent blacks from voting. These were called 'Jim Crow Laws', and included many restrictive qualifications such as literacy tests, which made it extremely difficult for former slaves who lacked enough education to pass. Often times, white males were exempt from literacy tests if they satisfied certain requirements, such as the grandfather clause.

The impact of literacy tests on voter registration still ripples out into today's society. According to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) website, "Poll taxes and literacy tests have given way to more modern voter suppression tactics packaged as voter ID laws, restrictions to voter registration and cuts to early voting" (ACLU). This means that even though literacy tests are mostly illegal today, they began the creation of new ways to strategically suppress voters. As an example of the impact these techniques could have on an election, the ACLU goes on the say, "With these new laws in effect, up to 5 million voters could be turned away at the polls in November," (ACLU) referring to the 2012 election.

Although they have mostly been made illegal and they are strongly discouraged, there are some examples of literacy tests taking other forms in modern-day society. One of these forms is the voter restrictions on convicted and ex-felons. Daniel Goldman proclaims that, "The structure and effect of felon disenfranchisement laws have many similarities to a relic from Chief Justice Warren's days: literacy tests" (Goldman). In theory, elections are supposed to reflect the popular public opinion. This typically means all citizens of a state regardless of race, religion, or social status. However, in the 1964 Supreme Court decision Reynolds v. Sims, convicted felons and ex-convicts were excluded from voting.

Goldman states: "The incarceration boom of the past three decades, combined with the corresponding collateral consequences stemming from criminal convictions, has ingrained into modern society a minority underclass resembling that of the stratified societal structure present during the Jim Crow era. Felon disenfranchisement laws deny the right to vote to a whopping 2.3% of the U.S. voting-age population: most of this disenfranchised group are citizens " (Goldman). Goldman considers this as a form of literacy test because, "Today, felon disenfranchisement laws discriminate against, and politically exclude, minorities in many similar ways…" as literacy tests. (Goldman)

The grandfather clause when referring to voter suppression pertains to the a clause that states those whose grandfathers had the right to vote before the civil war were exempt from literacy and property restrictions of voting. Conveniently, however, the only people with the right to vote before the civil war were whites. Therefore, only wealthy, white male property owners were exempt from voting restrictions. The creation of the grandfather clause was intended "…to keep uneducated, impoverished African American former slaves and their children from voting, but without denying poor and illiterate whites the right to vote. Although this type of grandfather clause has been ruled unconstitutional and no longer in use, the term grandfather clause is still applied today in similar fashions.

Another method of voter suppression that some states implemented was the poll tax. This is a tax implemented to force people to pay a certain amount of money in order to allow them to vote at polling places. The primary use for this tax was to make the tax high enough that it would exclude minorities, particularly African and Native Americans, as well as poor whites. Poll taxes were mainly used during the time in which Jim Crow Laws were being applied, which was mainly after the Fifteenth Amendment allowed for members of all races to receive the ability to vote. In 1964, the 24th amendment was ratified (Breedlove v. Suttles) to abolish the poll tax in federal elections but not state elections. The abolishment of the poll tax was extended to the states in 1966, after Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections. This decision relied more heavily on the Equal Protection laws provided under the 14th amendment, rather than the 15th amendment.

Anyone who attempted to break these laws or protest them was often faced with horrific violence. The campaign of suppression and intimidation was so effective that by the year 1940, only 3% of African Americans who were of legal voting age were actually registered. Women were granted the right to vote in 1920 via the 19th Amendment, but the Voting Rights Act of 1965 officially disposed of Jim Crow laws that were prevalent in the South. This act was passed to strengthen the Civil Rights Act of 1957, 1960, and1964 and was later renewed in 1970, 1975, and 1982, according to the North Carolina History Project (NCHP). The act was created with the intention of eliminating "…voter discrimination at the state and local levels" by giving "…the U.S. Attorney General the power to appoint election supervisors for states and districts that still used literacy tests at the polls or had a voter turnout of less than fifty-percent of registered voters in the 1964 election" (NCHP).

This law was meant to extend the right to vote to African Americans as well as, "...The passage of the bill increased African American voting participation and made it possible for African Americans to be elected once again to political office" (NCHP). As a result, the number of registered African Americans rapidly increased following the act. The NCHP also states, "In 1948, only fifteen percent of the black population was registered, and by 1962 it had risen slowly to thirty-six percent. The percentage increased to fifty percent one year after the passage of VRA 65. In the 1966 election, approximately 281,000 blacks voted" (NCHP). This new victory in winning civil liberties and increasing racial equality give the black demographic much more political power and are still increasing in power today.

Time-line of Significant Measures
(18th-20th century):

18th Century:

1776 – The Declaration of Independence is signed. Prevailing limitations on voting rights stay in place, restricting suffrage to white, male property owners. Quakers, Catholics, and Jews are banned from voting. Only 6% of the population is eligible to vote by the first presidential election in 1789.

1790 - The Naturalization Act limits giving citizenship and suffrage to "free white" immigrants of "good moral character". This excluded Native Americans, slaves, free blacks indentured servants and later on, Asians. The law maintained that citizenship could only be inherited through the father.

19th Century:

1818 – Connecticut bans anyone found guilty of a major felony from voting. It is important to note that felony disenfranchisement still exists today – in every state except for Maine and Vermont. Felons are the only section of the population that is barred from voting through law today. More than 5.3 million people who have had a past felony conviction are denied the right to vote as a result. In addition, it is significant to highlight the fact that this ban limits the number of African-Americans who can vote to a large degree. According to the Sentencing Project, "1.4 million African American men, or 13% of black men, is disenfranchised, a rate seven-times the national average.

1819 – Maine implements an amendment to their state constitution that prevents "persons under guardianship" from voting. It is the first state to do so. By the year 1940, over 80 percent of states would have comparable provisions preventing people with mental disabilities from voting, by labeling them as "persons of unsound mind," "idiots and insane persons," and "lunatics."

1831 - Delaware prohibits poor people from voting, declaring, "paupers who live on the public funds, and who were under the directions of others, who might control their wills, ought not to be permitted to vote." Paupers included people who are unequipped to provide financial resources for themselves, and rely on the support and control of the federal government.

1848 - The Mexican-American War ends with the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and grants citizenship to Mexicans living in Arizona, California, New Mexico, Nevada, and Texas. Unfortunately, there are still qualifications involving fluency in the English language as well as property restrictions, along with violence and intimidation that prevent them from actually voting.

1868 – Election judges in Ohio were allowed to question the ballot of anyone displaying a "visible admixture" of Negro and white blood. Any individual who looked suspicious was required to give two different witnesses to testify that the voter's parents had no black blood.

1872 – Susan B. Anthony and 14 other women were arrested for attempting to vote in Rochester, New York. 1873 – Georgia enforces a law that allows resident administrators to register new voters only during periods of planting and harvest. This was a scheme to disenfranchise black farmers couldn't travel to a county courthouse to register.

1875 - The Supreme Court of Missouri rules in Minor v. Happersett that states have the authority to decide who can and cannot vote. Essentially, this ruling dictates that neither the 14th Amendment nor the Constitution guarantees women's suffrage. The case was a response to an incident that occurred three years earlier, when Virginia Minor and her husband, Francis, sued a registrar from St. Louis who prevented her from registering to vote.

1882 – Chinese Exclusion Act is enacted, and denies suffrage and citizenship to people of Chinese background.

1888 - The Florida Legislature adopts a poll tax and an "eight box" law, causing a huge decrease in voter turnout among African – American men over the course of four years, where turnout dropped from 62% to 11%. The Eight Box Law was a type of literacy test, which was more indirect. It specified that on the ballot, there were to be separate boxes for each office, and that the voter had to insert the ballot into the corresponding box or it would not count. The ballots could not have party symbols on them and had to be of a certain type and size of paper. Many ballots were arbitrarily thrown out because they slightly deviated from the proposed requirements.

1898 – Louisiana legislators alter their state constitution through the adoption of a "grandfather clause" that prevents uneducated or non-land-owning individuals from voting, whose fathers or grandfathers could not vote in 1867.

20th Century:

1912 – Delegates of the Ohio Constitutional Convention decide that the right to vote would put an "undue burden" on women. This sparked a suffrage movement called the "sex war." During the election that September, a women's suffrage amendment was defeated by only less than 100,000 votes. (Library of Congress)

1914 – In Texas, the White Man's Primary Association is formed in order to prevent Mexican Americans from voting in local elections. (Library of Congress)

1917 – There is a ban in Texas that prevents the use of interpreters for Mexican Americans at the polls.

1922 – Citizenship is denied to Takao Ozawa, a Japanese man. The US Supreme Court denied citizenship to Ozawa because the Naturalization Act only includes white and black men. The US Supreme Court did not classify Japanese under either of these categories. As a result, Ozawa pushed to reclassify Japanese under the white category.

1923 – An Indian immigrant, Bhagat Singh Thind, is also denied citizenship by the US Supreme Court because he does not qualify under the black and white distinction expressed in the Naturalization Act. Thind is denied despite moving to the US ten years earlier (In 1913), and becoming a member of the Army. (Bhagat Singh Thind/Wikipedia)

1924 – Despite Native Americans still being blocked by most state voter suppression laws, the Indian Citizenship Act is passed granting citizenship to any Native Americans who were born in the United States. ("Move On! Has the Native American No Rights That the Naturalized American is Bound to Respect?"/Library of Congress)

1928 – An Arizona Supreme Court case, Porter v. Hall, takes place. The court decision states that Native Americans living on reservations are not allowed to vote because they are considered "wards" of the US government. (Laguna Indian Reservation, Laguna, New Mexico/Library of Congress)

1946 – Recently discharged veteran, Etoy Fletcher, is denied when attempting to register to vote in rural Mississippi. The registrar told Fletcher that, "Niggers are not allowed to vote in Rankin County, and if you don't want to get into serious trouble get out of this building." Afterwards, while waiting for a bus, Fletcher was assaulted, driven in to the woods and beaten, and threatened by four white men. The white men threatened Fletcher that they would kill him if he tried to vote again. ("Death at the Polls"/Library of Congress)

1947 – In Caddo Parish, Louisiana, a registrar enforces a new rule that a black man can only vote if he arrives with three registered white men to vouch for him. (Library of Congress)

1949 – In Georgia, a "registration and purge" law is passed. This law required that a voter must cast a ballot at least once within a two-year period; otherwise, they must re-register. Voters that satisfy this condition were often were subject to literacy tests and questions concerning the voters "good behavior" and "understanding of the duties of citizenship." Blacks were often given much more difficult tests and questions; whereas, whites were often allowed to be tested in groups.

1957 – In Tuskegee, Alabama, municipal boundaries are gerrymandered to exclude almost all of the city's approximately 400 black registered voters while no white voters were excluded.

1962 – The first major nationwide campaign against voter fraud, "Operation Eagle Eye," is launched by the Republican National Committee. As a result, false warnings were sent out to minority neighborhoods warning them to stay away from polls because of the risk of arrest. Latinos in Texas's Rio Grande valley got letters saying, "It probably would be wiser to simply stay at home and not go near the voting place on Election Day, rather than get arrested for interfering with the election judge."

1964 – Literacy Tests are imposed on voter registration in Alabama. These questions include: "Does enumeration affect the income tax levied on citizens in various states?" and "A U.S. senator elected at the general election in November takes office the following year on what date?"

1965 – Several hundreds of nonviolent demonstrators attempted to march from Selma to Montgomery, Alabama, to protest murder of a civil rights activist and the denial of their voting rights. During the march, more than 500 demonstrators were gassed and beaten by law enforcement officials. (Local Police Attack Selma-to-Montgomery Marchers/FBI)

1974 – A US Supreme Court case takes place, Richardson v. Ramirez. The US Supreme Court rules that states can bar convicted felons from voting.

21st century:

The modern era also has many forms of voter suppression that exist through federal law. An example of contemporary voter suppression is current voter ID laws that are in place that suppress voters.

  • Pennsylvania, Texas, Wisconsin, and Mississippi have the strictest laws of the states because of such few options allowed.
  • Pennsylvania allows only a name that matches the precinct registry, a photograph of the individual listed, the seal of a United States government, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, a municipality or institute of higher learning of Pennsylvania.
  • Wisconsin allows Wisconsin driver's license, ID card issued by a U.S. uniformed service, Wisconsin non-driver ID, U.S. Passport, certificate of naturalization issued not more than 2 years before the election, ID card issued by a federally recognized Indian tribe in Wisconsin, or a student ID card with a signature, issue date, and expiration date no later than 2 years after the election.
However, some states provide services or conditions that help the electorate to vote:

  • Georgia provides free voter ID so long as the citizen can pick it up from a ID-issuing office; they also allow expired ID to be used (as does Indiana).
  • Kansas exempts all people with physical disabilities from needing a voter ID and also allows any expired voter ID to be used for the elderly
The second category of states is less restrictive meaning that more options are allowed that are not necessarily a photo ID.

Florida allows both neighborhood and retirement center ID as well as an option for signature matching

Louisiana allows generally recognized photo identification, a driver's license or a special ID card.

The least restrictive category allows even more lenient guidelines and these states generally do not require photo ID.

  • This list is broad including Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, Colorado, Delaware, Kentucky, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Utah, and Washington.
  • For example, Colorado has a much longer list of IDs accepted that includes a Colorado driver's license, Department of Revenue ID card, U.S. Passport, employee ID card from the U.S. government, Colorado state government, or a political subdivision of Colorado, a pilot's license, U.S. military ID card with photo, a utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other government document that shows the name and address of the elector, Medicare or Medicaid card, certified copy of a birth certificate, or a certified documentation of naturalization.
This focus of contemporary voter suppression has transitioned to the debate surrounding voter fraud. This is a heavily contentious issue, especially leading up to the 2012 election with the first African-American president seeking a second term. The debate concerns whether voter fraud is a real issue as this is the stated reason for the voter ID laws – the laws that suppress voters. The only way to fairly explore this issue is to examine each side. First is the side supported by Republicans - that voter fraud is a serious impediment to the welfare of the United States democracy. Then, the second side supported by the Democrats will be considered: that voter fraud is simply a cover for voter suppression.

There is a substantial argument that election fraud is a legitimate concern. Since the 2000 election, a historic effort has been underway to strengthen voting systems across the 50 U.S. states and to address obstacles to broader electoral participation. At both the federal and state level, however, efforts to move forward a reform agenda have frequently been complicated by heated debates over election fraud. Election fraud is by far the reason used most for supporters of voter ID laws. Election fraud is defined in this report as the corruption of the process by which votes are cast and counted. Fraud may involve wrong doing by either individual voters or, as is more commonly the case, by organized groups such as campaigns or political parties. (Levitt,2).

What Is Voter Fraud
and Why Does It Matter?

The integrity of elections is central to American democracy; there can be no compromise on the need for fair elections determined without the taint of fraud—whether on the part of voters, political parties, election administrators, or others. Fraud may involve wrongdoing by either individual voters or, as is more often the case, by organized groups such as campaigns or political parties.

Individual Fraud.

To vote in America, one must go through a two stage process. In nearly all states, an eligible citizen who wants to vote must first register using his or her permanent home address. After successfully completing a voter registration application, the voter goes to the polls and casts his or her ballot. Voters may violate laws governing the registration process by misrepresenting themselves as eligible when they are not, or submitting registration applications for fictitious people, dead people, or real people who can be ineligible or eligible to vote and who may or may not know of or consent to the fraud. Second, voters may commit fraud at the point of voting. A voter may vote multiple times using the name or names of another voter. In the case of a vote cast using the name of a real person, that person may or may not be eligible to vote and may or may not consent to the fraud. Voters consenting to the appropriation of their vote by another may do so because they do not plan to vote, have little interest in voting, or receive some kind of material benefit—a practice called vote buying.

Organized Fraud.

Fraud is easier for organized groups to commit than it is for individual voters because such groups have resources and/or direct access to election machinery. In all but the most extraordinary of cases—for instance, when an election victory depends on a handful of votes—fraud must be committed through a conspiracy to have an impact on the outcome of an election. Existing systems for registration and voting provide considerable opportunity for organized fraud. Such fraud can take several forms.

First, political parties, campaign organizations, or other groups can perpetrate organized fraud through filling out fraudulent absentee or mail-in ballots. Second, local election administrators or poll workers can commit clear-cut fraud by not counting or destroying ballots, allowing votes that should have been barred, and tampering with ballots. Third, interested groups can organize large-scale vote buying—for example, providing incentives for otherwise uninterested voters to go to the polls and vote in a certain way—or coordinate efforts to help large numbers of voters vote more than once.

Beyond these traditional conceptions of fraud, many people are concerned about official efforts to corrupt the election process or erect barriers to participation. For example, election officials can deliberately corrupt the election process by manipulating registration databases to remove the names of people likely to vote in a certain way so that these people are unable to cast ballots when they arrive at polling places. Corruption of this kind was widely alleged to have taken place in Florida and other states during the 2000 election. (Levitt, 10)

Deliberate disenfranchisement of voters may also occur because of other kinds of official misconduct: turning away voters already in line when polls close; intimidating or misinforming voters when they arrive the polls; producing misleading or poorly designed ballots; failing to provide bilingual voting materials, as required by law; failing to upgrade or repair antiquated voting systems in specific election districts; and by other means. Voter fraud has been a Republican issue, with the debate over it being partisan. As Republican legislatures have enacted these laws, Democrats have accused them of disenfranchising voters that would likely vote Democrat (Madhani, 7/4/12).

Examples of Voter Fraud.

According to Hans von Spakovsky, author of Who's Counting - a new book addressing this issue, voter identification fraud is widespread with the most notable instance of election fraud occurring in the election of Minnesota Senator Al Franken. In this election, allegedly 1,099 felons voted out of 2.9 million votes cast where the margin of victory was only 312 votes. State law dictates that once a person has committed a felony they lose the ability to vote. It is a plausible conjecture that the felons voting in Minnesota voted predominantly for Franken since people in prison are disproportionately African and Latin American, who typically vote Democrat. Illegal votes may have won the election for Al Franken (FOX, 8/14/12). In other instances, Florida has begun the process of purging their voter rolls and finding many non-citizens, who also cannot legally vote, but who have previously voted. In a preliminary program they found 50 illegal voters who voted in prior elections. This may have accounted for 10% of the margin of victory of Florida's vote in the highly debated 2000 general election (FOX, 8/4/12).


Is voter fraud such a big threat that we should institute laws that could dramatically reduce voter turn out? Voter ID Laws play an important role in maintaining the integrity of voting in the United States, but most of these laws address the wrong issue, which can lead to a decrease in voter turnout, predominantly among minorities, the old, and the poor. (Borowski, 2) Overall, the disenfranchisement of voters through antiquated voting systems, errors, mismanagement of registration bases, and intimidation or harassment is a far bigger problem today than traditional forms of election fraud, which most Voter ID laws attempt to stop.

The problems in Florida in 2000, which determined the outcome of a presidential election, are dramatic evidence of this point. (Borowski,6) Most examples of traditional voter fraud are isolated and few, while voter disenfranchisement of voters through various avenues is a much bigger problem. Most of the newly instituted voter id laws only focus on the traditional form of voter fraud, which could decrease turn out. Voter ID laws are attempting to fix a small leak in the electoral process, but in essence, it is springing a much bigger leak because of the millions that could be barred from participating in the political process.

In 2007, the Brennan Center released The Truth About Voter Fraud the most extensive analysis of voter fraud claims to date. The report finds that most allegations of fraud turn out to be baseless—and that of the few allegations remaining, most reveal election irregularities and other forms of election misconduct, rather than fraud by individual voters. The type of individual voter fraud supposedly targeted by recent legislative efforts—especially efforts to require certain forms of voter ID—simply does not exist. (Levitt, 4)

The "voter fraud" cry has been increasingly used to justify policies that suppress legitimate voters. But the cry is baseless; allegations of voter fraud—especially polling place impersonation fraud—almost always prove to be inflated or inaccurate. (Levitt, 20) Mislabeling problems as "voter fraud" distracts attention from the real election issues that needs to be resolved. It draws attention away from problems best addressed, for example, by resource allocation or poll worker education or implementation of longstanding statutory mandates, and instead improperly focuses on the voter as the source of the problem.

Voter Fraud is Not A Legitimate Concern:

There has been a lot of concern during the past elections over the idea of voter fraud. Many claim that is a threat to American democracy and the very principles of the voting process. In truth, voter fraud is often overly exaggerated and is made to grab headlines and to justify new restrictions on the exercise of voting. The thing is, voter fraud happens very seldom, and most claims of fraud are often attributed to error and are other prevented by voter ID laws. In reality, voter fraud is often a foolish attempt to win an election. The risk of getting caught far outweighs any attempt to win just one vote. With up to five years of jail time and a $10,000 fine, it's not really worth all the trouble. Also, in regards to the lack of actual voter fraud, there has been no credible evidence to suggest voter fraud us an epidemic. Both Washington state and Ohio have documented evidence of voter fraud and they report that it happens .0009% and .00004% of the time, respectively. There have been vivid anecdotes of voter fraud, like the case of the deceased voters in Baltimore in the mid- 1990's, and the alphabetic ballots of the LBJ election but they have all been proven false, or mainly attributed to something else. They mostly can be attributed to clerical errors, due to either incomplete information given by the voter, mistakes by election officials and faulty assumptions by people looking over election results looking for red flags.

Voter fraud today is often conflated with election misconduct. Many parties call voter fraud on things that could be considered election misconduct. Things such as poll watchers, political flyers and other things that influence a voter's choice for a candidate have all been cries by parties as evidence of voter fraud. However this is evidence of misconduct, not fraud.

Evidence of voter fraud has been twisted into ways to promote particular policy agendas. Claims of voter fraud have been evoked as a problem in order for parties to justify certain election policies. The recent push for stricter voter ID laws has the ability to disenfranchise up to 10% of the electorate. Claims of voter fraud have just been ways for parties to push their own personal agenda, all in order to have a candidate win.


American Civil Liberties Union. (2012) "Voting Rights" web-page.

Beinart, Peter. 1989. "The Real American Voting Problem." Polity. 22 (Autumn):143-156.

Borowski, Greg J. (2005) "Nothing Points to Fraud in 9 Double Voting Cases," Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. August. 22.

Goldman, Daniel S. 2004. "The Modern-Day Literacy Test?: Felon Disenfranchisement and Race Discrimination." Stanford Law Review 57 (November).611-655.

Levitt, Justin. 2007. "The Truth About Voter Fraud." The Brennan Center for Justice. .

Madhani, Aamer. 2012. "Voter-ID laws may handicap black voter turnout, Dems fear." USA Today. July 4.

Mohammed, Zaineb & Deanna Pan. (2012) "Timeline: The Long History of Voter Suppression." Mother Jones, November 4.

North Carolina History Project. n.d."Voting Rights Act of 1965" web-page.

Orey, Byron D'andra, L. Martin Overby, Peter K. Hatemi, Baodong Liu. 2011. "White Support for Racial Referenda in the Deep South." Politics & Policy 39 (August):539-558.

Von Spakovsky, Harold, and John Fund. 2012. Who's Counting? How Fraudsters and Bureaucrats Put Your Vote at Risk. New York: Encounter Books.