Voting rights in the United States have always been a problem since the nation’s founding in 18th century. Over the last 200 years, countless people have fought for their right to vote, from the Founding Fathers to the Civil Rights leaders in the 60s. In the following two centuries, the right to vote has changed from only men with property to everyone who is an American citizen and over 18. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was through to be the last push to allow every American to vote without being discriminated again. In the following decades and into the 2000s, there have been some rollbacks that negatively impacted vulnerable communities.

States can decide their own voting requirements, which is where there is variation in voting regulations across the country. Some states have passed harsher voter ID laws, like Ohio and North Dakota. The U.S. Supreme Court has the power to decide whether a state’s law is unconstitutional. However, as more time has passed, the Supreme Court has done less of this type of interpretation.

In sections 4 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the federal government uses a formula to identify areas that are shown to racially discriminate against certain voters. Section 5 would freeze any electoral changes that would happen in areas that Section 4 deems to racially discriminate against voters. Section 5 would freeze any electoral changes that would happen in areas that Section 4 deems to racially discriminate against voters. Both sections were included to ensure that states with a history of racial discrimination would not change and are now under federal oversight. However, both sections were deemed unconstitutional in 2013 with Shelby County v. Holder because the method being used in Section 4 was outdated. Although Ohio and North Dakota were not under federal supervision, this meant that any passed anywhere in the country would be more difficult to monitor. The little changes that both states have made to voting laws add up overtime and may go unnoticed because it does not affect a noticeable portion of the population. They set a dangerous precedent that needs to be stopped.

North Dakota passed a law that mandated that people who show up to vote in the state had to present a valid ID issued by the North Dakota Department of Transportation. A voter can alternatively show an ID and present a document that has the person’s home address. The problem is that people who live on reservations in the states are no longer able to vote because they do not use traditional street addresses. Although this only affects a “small” portion, about 5000 Native Americans, this sets a dangerous precedent that harsher voter ID laws can be passed to target geographically centered populations. The state can require any additional documentation that places a significant barrier to many.

The state of Ohio passed a bill that will allow for each county to purge voters off their registered voter list if they had not voted in six years. The state’s reason for this is it is easier to remove people who are no longer eligible to vote because some information has changed. People who would be removed from the voter registration list would receive a mailer to inform them and they can send that same mailer back to confirm that they still live there. The problem with mailer is that often, people may not respond to it because they can throw the letter out, not check their mail frequently as most bills and other documents can be accessed electronically, or it gets lost in the mail. In 2019, the state released the names and addresses of people who would be purged from the list. The League of Women Voters looked through that list and found that 40,000 of the 235,000 names on the list were being wrongly removed from the list.

The most plausible solution that would prevent other states from passing stricter voting laws would be to allow Congress to have more oversight over any legislative change regarding voting laws. States that decide to make any changes to voting requirements would have to send the proposed bill to Congress and would be decided by a committee if the law is fair and just. Instead of the formula being used to determine which state or county would be under federal oversight, the bill would be passed from all states directly to Congress for approval.