Introduction

My theme as chair of the ABA Section of Civil Rights and Social Justice for the 2022–23 bar year is economic justice. I believe that a civil rights agenda without an economic agenda is like clapping with one hand. As the 2022 midterm election approaches, it is particularly timely to focus our attention on the economics of voting rights and the role money plays in our body politic. I want to sincerely thank the authors of this edition of Human Rights magazine for helping me realize my vision of economic justice in the context of voting rights.

Money and wealth have always been implicit or explicit characteristics in American politics. The founding fathers believed that only property owners were entitled to the right to vote. When the Twenty-Fourth Amendment was ratified in 1964, five states still retained a poll tax by state law: Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, Texas, and Virginia. For nearly 100 years, these and other states used poll taxes to deny former slaves and poor whites the right to vote in this country.

The article “How Inequality Impacts Voting Behavior” addresses the correlation between income and voting. Sadly, people with higher incomes have an easier ability to participate in voting. Another article tells the story of how difficult it can be to vote if someone does not have the option to take off from work or leave work early to vote on Election Day. Also, if one truly understands the relationship between poverty and crime, laws that disenfranchise felons from voting should be viewed with a suspicious eye. 

Not only has one’s economic station been used as a barrier to participation in our democracy, but wealth is often the determinative factor in seeking and obtaining public office. Both political parties are guilty of recruiting and supporting candidates who are “self-funders.” Senators Mark Warner (D-VA) and Rick Scott (R-FL) are the two richest members of the U.S. Senate, both having an estimated net worth of over $200 million. One of the first questions asked of a person wanting to run for elective office is, “How much money can you raise?” EMILY’s List is famous for coining the phrase and acronym, “Early Money Is Like Yeast” (it makes the dough rise).

 In the article titled “Gender Parity in Election Laws: Past, Present, and Future,” you will see how money in politics is as influential as ever in U.S. elections and policymaking, and understanding the roles gender and race play is essential to being able to fully assess its implications for our political system and diverse populations. From personal experience and having numerous colleagues run for public office or express an interest in running, the “money question” or the daunting task of having to raise money (from everyone you have ever known) prevents otherwise talented and capable people from making the leap into the political arena.

The long march to ensuring voting rights and expanding the definition of “We the People” hit a significant roadblock by the Supreme Court’s decisions in Citizens United (2010) and Shelby (2013). Citizens United opened the floodgates for corporations to contribute an unlimited amount of money to campaigns. The Shelby decision gutted Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, allowing states with a history of discrimination to enact laws making it more difficult for people to vote. These two decisions will have a devasting generational impact on our political participation and access to justice if we are committed to ensuring a multicultural democracy.

Just in case anyone is wondering, voting is important. If it was not, there would not be such a concerted effort to make it harder to vote in certain communities. Reducing the number of polling machines, limiting the number of days for early voting, and accepting certain I.D. cards while not accepting other forms of I.D. makes voting harder. When something is hard to do, it creates stress and, for many people, becomes discouraging. A belief sets in that it is not worth it to vote. Unfortunately, there are political forces in America that are perfectly content with certain people deciding it’s not worth their time to vote or deciding not to participate in the political process. Instead of expanding their message to include a broader segment of the population, these forces would rather shrink or limit voter participation. Sadly, this is nothing new in our country; it has just become more sophisticated.

Finally, I am grateful to the contributors of this edition who have offered policy solutions to these pressing issues. Our society will not survive if we cannot protect the ideal of “one person, one vote.” We need creative and new ways to protect and think about our American democracy. America is changing. Change makes some people nervous and uncomfortable. Fear of the unknown can result in anxiety. There are political actors who play on and manipulate the public’s fears. Historians have attributed Ben Franklin with saying in response to the question of whether we have a republic or a monarchy, “A republic, if we can keep it.” Can we?