{{About|rights of Americans to vote|what Americans can vote for |Elections in the United States}}
{{short description|none}}
{{Use American English|date = March 2019}}
{{Use mdy dates|date=September 2020}}
{{Infobox Voting rights
| jurisdiction = [[United States]]
| location_header = the [[United States]]
| flag_image = File:Flag of the United States.svg
| image = File:"The Georgetown Election - The Negro at the Ballot Box" by Thomas Nast - Harper's Weekly - March 16, 1867.jpg
| caption = Congress overrode [[Andrew Johnson]]'s [[Veto power in the United States|veto]] to pass the 1867 [[District of Columbia Suffrage Act]] ([[Thomas Nast]], ''[[Harper's Weekly]]'', March 16, 1867)
| poll_tax = [[Twenty-fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Abolished 1964]]
| literacy = [[Voting Rights Act of 1965|Abolished 1965]] for federal elections
| indigenous =
| voting_age = 18 in most jurisdictions
| preregistration_age = 16 in 41 states and D.C.; 17 in 4 states; 17.5 or older in 4 states
| felon_voting = Individual petitions required in 2 states; circumstantial in 5 states; restrictions under probation in 20 states; restrictions under parole in 2 states; unrestricted after prison release in 18 states and 2 territories; unrestricted in Maine, Vermont, Puerto Rico and D.C.
| voter_registration = All states except in North Dakota
| online_vr = Implemented fully in 40 states, D.C. and Guam; in-process in Oklahoma and Maine; implemented in Texas for those renewing licenses
| automatic_vr = Implemented in 15 states and D.C.; in-process in 6 states
| sameday_vr = same-day and early-voting registration in 8 states and D.C.; same-day only in 9 states; early-voting only in 2 states; same-day and early-voting registration in-process in 2 states
| partisan_vr = Partisan registration in 31 states and D.C.; nonpartisan registration in 18 states
| free_elections =
| voter_id = photo ID required in 8 states; photo ID requested in 9 states; non-photo ID required in 3 states; non-photo ID requested in 13 states
| early_voting =
| out_precinct =
| postal_ballot = no-excuse in 35 states (all-postal in 7 states)
| permanent_postal = 10 states
| ballot_collection =
| straight_ticket =
| election_method = First-past-the-post plurality in 44 states; two-round systems in 5 states; ranked-choice voting in Maine
| in_person =
| redistricting = 12 states with nonpartisan or bipartisan commissions for congressional redistricting; 16 states with commissions for legislative redistricting; Iowa uses nonpartisan staff
| prison_redistricting = 10 states prohibit prison redistricting
| ballot_questions = Legislative referral in 49 states and D.C. (26 states with some form of ballot initiative by petition)
| recall =
| fed_rep =
|noncitizen_voting=Banned in federal and all state elections, allowed in some jurisdictions}}
{{United States constitutional law}}
[[File:U.S. Vote for President as Population Share.png|thumb|300px|U.S. presidential election popular vote totals as a percentage of the total U.S. population. Note the surge in 1828 ([[Jacksonian democracy|extension of suffrage to non-property-owning white men]]), the drop from 1890 to 1910 (when Southern states [[Disenfranchisement after the Reconstruction Era|disenfranchised most African Americans and many poor whites]]), and another surge in 1920 ([[Women's suffrage in the United States|extension of suffrage to women]]).]]
{{voting}}
[[Suffrage|Enfranchisement]] and [[disenfranchisement]] of different groups have been a moral and political issue throughout [[United States history]].
Eligibility to vote in the [[United States]] is governed by the [[United States Constitution]] and by federal and state laws. Several constitutional amendments (the [[Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fifteenth]], [[Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Nineteenth]], and [[Twenty-sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Twenty-sixth]] specifically) require that voting rights of U.S. citizens cannot be abridged on account of race, color, previous condition of servitude, sex, or age (18 and older); the constitution as originally written did not establish any such rights during 1787–1870, except that if a state permitted a person to vote for the "most numerous branch" of its state legislature, it was required to permit that person to vote in elections for members of the [[United States House of Representatives]].[U.S. Const. Art. I, s. 2, cl. 1.] In the absence of a specific federal law or constitutional provision, each state is given considerable discretion to establish qualifications for suffrage and candidacy within its own respective jurisdiction; in addition, states and lower level jurisdictions establish election systems, such as [[at-large]] or [[single member district]] elections for [[county council]]s or [[school board]]s. Thus, the enfranchisement or disenfranchisement in one state may be stricter or more lenient than in another state.[{{cite web|url=https://prospect.org/politics/the-many-varieties-of-voter-suppression/|title=The Many Varieties of Voter Suppression|first=Brittany|last=Gibson|publisher=The American Prospect|date=May 28, 2020|access-date=November 30, 2022|archive-date=May 13, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210513134213/https://prospect.org/politics/the-many-varieties-of-voter-suppression/|url-status=live}}] Beyond qualifications for suffrage, rules and regulations concerning voting (such as the [[Poll tax (United States)|poll tax]]) have been contested since the advent of [[Jim Crow laws]] and related provisions that indirectly disenfranchised racial minorities.
A historic turning point was the 1964 [[Supreme Court of the United States|Supreme Court]] case ''[[Reynolds v. Sims]]'' that ruled both houses of all state legislatures had to be based on electoral districts that were approximately equal in population size, under the "[[one man, one vote]]" principle.[{{Cite web|url=https://www.theconstitutionproject.com/portfolio/one-person-one-vote/|title=One Person, One Vote {{!}} The Constitution Project|website=www.theconstitutionproject.com|access-date=September 24, 2019|archive-date=September 24, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190924000224/https://www.theconstitutionproject.com/portfolio/one-person-one-vote/|url-status=live}}][{{Cite web|url=https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/07/one-person-one-vote-a-history/399476/|title=The Case That Could Bring Down 'One Person, One Vote'|last=Smith|first=J. Douglas|date=July 26, 2015|website=The Atlantic|language=en-US|access-date=September 24, 2019|archive-date=September 24, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190924000223/https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/07/one-person-one-vote-a-history/399476/|url-status=live}}][{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1986/11/21/nyregion/one-man-one-vote-decades-of-court-decisions.html|title=One Man, One Vote: Decades of Court Decisions|last=Goldman|first=Ari L.|date=November 21, 1986|work=The New York Times|access-date=September 24, 2019|language=en-US|issn=0362-4331|archive-date=September 24, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190924032254/https://www.nytimes.com/1986/11/21/nyregion/one-man-one-vote-decades-of-court-decisions.html|url-status=live}}] The [[Warren Court]]'s decisions on two previous landmark cases—''[[Baker v. Carr]] (1962)'' and ''[[Wesberry v. Sanders]] (1964)''—also played a fundamental role in establishing the nationwide "one man, one vote" [[United States Electoral College|electoral system]].[{{Cite web|url=https://www.oyez.org/cases/1960/6|title=Baker v. Carr|website=Oyez|language=en|access-date=September 24, 2019|archive-date=September 17, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190917000504/https://www.oyez.org/cases/1960/6|url-status=live}}][{{Cite web|url=https://www.oyez.org/cases/1963/22|title=Wesberry v. Sanders|website=Oyez|language=en|access-date=September 24, 2019|archive-date=July 24, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190724074803/https://www.oyez.org/cases/1963/22|url-status=live}}]
In cases of county or municipal elections, [[Winner-take-all system|winner-take-all]] systems in [[at-large]] districts have been repeatedly challenged as diluting the voting power of racial minorities, violating the Voting Rights Act. Generally the solution to such violations has been to adopt [[single-member district]]s (SMDs), but systems of [[proportional representation]] such as the [[single non-transferable vote]] and [[cumulative voting]] have also been used since the late 20th century to correct for dilution of voting power and enable minorities to elect candidates of their choice.
Citizens living in U.S. territories cannot vote for [[president of the United States]].[{{Cite magazine|url=https://time.com/3736845/john-oliver-last-week-tonight-voting-rights/|title=Watch John Oliver Cast His Ballot for Voting Rights for U.S. Territories|magazine=Time|language=en|access-date=August 13, 2019|archive-date=September 18, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180918033644/http://time.com/3736845/john-oliver-last-week-tonight-voting-rights/|url-status=dead}}] However, those residing in the [[District of Columbia]] can vote for president as a result of the [[Twenty-third Amendment to the United States Constitution|Twenty-third Amendment]].
== Background ==
The right to vote is the foundation of any democracy. Chief Justice [[Earl Warren]], for example, wrote in ''[[Reynolds v. Sims]]'', 377 U.S. 533, 555 (1964): "The right to vote freely for the candidate of one's choice is of the essence of a democratic society, and any restrictions on that right strike at the heart of [[Representative democracy|representative government]]. [...] Undoubtedly, the right of suffrage is a fundamental matter in a free and democratic society. Especially since the right to exercise the franchise in a free and unimpaired manner is preservative of other basic civil and political rights, any alleged infringement of the right of citizens to vote must be carefully and meticulously scrutinized." Justice [[Hugo Black]] shared the same sentiment by stating in ''[[Wesberry v. Sanders]]'', 376 U.S. 1, 17 (1964): "No right is more precious in a free country than that of having a voice in the election of those who make the laws under which, as good citizens, we must live. Other rights, even the most basic, are illusory if the right to vote is undermined."!
In the [[Thirteen Colonies#17th century|17th-century Thirteen Colonies]], [[suffrage]] was often restricted by [[property qualification]]s or with a [[religious test]]. In 1660, [[Plymouth Colony]] restricted suffrage with a specified property qualification, and in 1671, Plymouth Colony restricted suffrage further to only [[Freeman (Colonial)|freemen]] "[[Puritans|orthodox in the fundamentals of religion]]". [[Connecticut Colony|Connecticut]] in mid-century also restricted suffrage with a specified property qualification and a religious test, and in [[Province of Pennsylvania|Pennsylvania]], the [[Province of Carolina]], and the [[Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations]] voting rights were [[History of antisemitism in the United States#Colonial era|restricted to Christians only]]. Under the [[The Duke's Laws|Duke's Laws]] in colonial [[Province of New York|New York]], suffrage did not require a religious test but was restricted to [[Land tenure|landholders]]. In [[Colony of Virginia|Virginia]], all [[White Americans|white]] [[Freeman (Colonial)|freemen]] were allowed to vote until suffrage was restricted temporarily to [[Household#Government definitions|householders]] from 1655 to 1656, to [[Freehold (law)|freeholders]] from 1670 to 1676, and following the death of [[Nathaniel Bacon (Virginia colonist)|Nathaniel Bacon]] in 1676, to freeholders permanently. [[Quakers]] were not permitted to vote in Plymouth Colony or in the [[Massachusetts Bay Colony]], and along with [[Baptists in the United States|Baptists]], were not permitted to vote in several other colonies as well, and [[Catholic Church in the Thirteen Colonies|Catholics]] were [[Disfranchisement|disenfranchised]] following the [[Glorious Revolution]] (1688–1689) in [[Province of Maryland|Maryland]], [[Province of New York|New York]], [[Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations|Rhode Island]], [[Province of Carolina|Carolina]], and [[Colony of Virginia|Virginia]].[{{cite book|last1=Barck|first1=Oscar T.|last2=Lefler|first2=Hugh T.|year=1958|title=Colonial America|place=New York|publisher=[[Macmillan Publishers (United States)|Macmillan]]|pages=258–259}}]
In the [[Thirteen Colonies#18th century|18th-century Thirteen Colonies]], suffrage was restricted to European men with the following property qualifications:[{{cite book|last1=Barck|first1=Oscar T.|last2=Lefler|first2=Hugh T.|year=1958|title=Colonial America|place=New York|publisher=[[Macmillan Publishers (United States)|Macmillan]]|pages=259–260}}]
* [[Connecticut Colony|Connecticut]]: an [[Estate (law)|estate]] worth [[£sd|40 shillings]] annually or [[Connecticut pound|£40]] of [[personal property]]
* [[Delaware Colony|Delaware]]: fifty acres of land (twelve [[Arable land|under cultivation]]) or [[Delaware pound|£40]] of personal property
* [[Province of Georgia|Georgia]]: fifty acres of land
* [[Province of Maryland|Maryland]]: fifty acres of land and [[Maryland pound|£40]] personal property
* [[Province of Massachusetts Bay|Massachusetts Bay]]: an estate worth 40 shillings annually or [[Massachusetts pound|£40]] of personal property
* [[Province of New Hampshire|New Hampshire]]: [[New Hampshire pound|£50]] of personal property
* [[Province of New Jersey|New Jersey]]: one-hundred acres of land, or real estate or personal property [[New Jersey pound|£50]]
* [[Province of New York|New York]]: [[New York pound|£40]] of personal property or ownership of land
* [[Province of North Carolina|North Carolina]]: fifty acres of land
* [[Province of Pennsylvania|Pennsylvania]]: fifty acres of land or [[Pennsylvania pound|£50]] of personal property
* [[Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations|Rhode Island and Providence Plantations]]: personal property worth [[Rhode Island pound|£40]] or yielding 50 shillings annually
* [[Province of South Carolina|South Carolina]]: one-hundred acres of [[Property tax in the United States|land on which taxes were paid]]; or a [[Townhouse|town house]] or [[Land lot|lot]] worth [[South Carolina pound|£60]] on which taxes were paid; or payment of 10 shillings in taxes
* [[Colony of Virginia|Virginia]]: fifty acres of vacant land, twenty-fives acres of cultivated land, and a house twelve feet by twelve feet; or a town lot and a house twelve feet by twelve
By the time the [[Constitution of the United States|United States Constitution]] came into effect on March 9, 1789,[{{Cite web |title=The Constitution |url=https://bidenwhitehouse.archives.gov/about-the-white-house/our-government/the-constitution/ |access-date=2022-03-15 |website=The White House |language=en-US}}] a small number of [[free negro|free Blacks]] were among the voting citizens (men of property) in some states.[{{Cite book |title=The African American Electorate: A Statistical History |publisher=CQ Press |year=2012 |isbn= 978-087289508-9 |editor-last= Walton |editor-first=Hanes Jr. |volume=I Chap. 4 |page=84 |editor-last2= Puckett |editor-first2= Sherman C. |editor-last3=Deskins |editor-first3=Donald R.}}] The Constitution did not originally define who was eligible to vote, allowing each state to determine who was eligible. In the early history of the U.S., some states{{which|date=October 2019}} allowed only [[White American|white]] male adult property owners to vote, while others{{which|date=October 2019}} either did not specify race, or specifically protected the rights of men of any race to vote.[{{Cite web |title=The Founders and the Vote {{!}} The Right to Vote {{!}} Elections {{!}} Classroom Materials at the Library of Congress {{!}} Library of Congress |url=https://www.loc.gov/classroom-materials/elections/right-to-vote/the-founders-and-the-vote/ |access-date=2022-03-15 |website=Library of Congress |archive-date=March 15, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220315184325/https://www.loc.gov/classroom-materials/elections/right-to-vote/the-founders-and-the-vote/ |url-status=live }}][{{cite web|title=Expansion of Rights and Liberties - The Right of Suffrage|url=https://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/charters_of_freedom_13.html|website=Online Exhibit: The Charters of Freedom|publisher=National Archives|access-date=April 21, 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160706144856/http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/charters_of_freedom_13.html|archive-date=July 6, 2016}}] Women were largely prohibited from voting, as were men without property.[{{Cite web |date=2017-05-03 |title=White Manhood Suffrage |url=https://americanhistory.si.edu/democracy-exhibition/vote-voice/getting-vote/demanding-vote/white-manhood-suffrage |access-date=2022-03-15 |website=National Museum of American History |language=en |archive-date=June 29, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210629070524/https://americanhistory.si.edu/democracy-exhibition/vote-voice/getting-vote/demanding-vote/white-manhood-suffrage |url-status=live }}] Women could vote in [[New Jersey]] until 1807 (provided they could meet the property requirement) and in some local jurisdictions in other northern states. Free Blacks could also vote in these jurisdictions{{which|date=October 2019}}, provided they could meet the property requirement. In New Jersey particularly, these property requirements were purposely set quite low.[{{Cite book|last=Lewis|first=Jan|url=https://www.rutgerslawreview.com/wp-content/uploads/archive/vol63/Issue3/Lewis.pdf|title=Rethinking Women's Suffrage In New Jersey, 1776-1807|year=2011|pages=1019–1020|archive-date=December 5, 2021|access-date=February 7, 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211205194510/https://www.rutgerslawreview.com/wp-content/uploads/archive/vol63/Issue3/Lewis.pdf|url-status=live}}]
Beginning around 1790, individual states began to eschew property ownership as a qualification for enfranchisement in favor of sex and race, with most states disenfranchising women and non-white men.[{{cite book|first=Laura|last=Free|title=Suffrage Reconstructed: Gender, Race, and Voting Rights in the Civil War Era|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=oCF6CgAAQBAJ|year=2015|publisher=Cornell University Press|isbn=978-1-5017-0108-5|page=[https://books.google.com/books?id=oCF6CgAAQBAJ&pg=PA3 3]}}] By 1856, white men were allowed to vote in all states regardless of property ownership, although requirements for paying tax remained in five states.[{{cite journal|author1=Stanley L. Engerman, University of Rochester and NBER|author2=Kenneth L. Sokoloff, University of California, Los Angeles and NBER|title=The Evolution of Suffrage Institutions in the New World|date=February 2005|url=http://economics.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/Workshops-Seminars/Economic-History/sokoloff-050406.pdf|pages=16, 35|quote=By 1840, only three states retained a property qualification, North Carolina (for some state-wide offices only), Rhode Island, and Virginia. In 1856 North Carolina was the last state to end the practice. Tax-paying qualifications were also gone in all but a few states by the Civil War, but they survived into the 20th century in Pennsylvania and Rhode Island.|access-date=March 10, 2016|archive-date=November 11, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201111211244/http://economics.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/Workshops-Seminars/Economic-History/sokoloff-050406.pdf|url-status=dead}}][{{cite book |first1=Kenneth|last1=Janda|first2=Jeffrey M.|last2=Berry|first3=Jerry|last3=Goldman|title=The challenge of democracy : government in America|date=2008|publisher=Houghton Mifflin|isbn=978-0-618-99094-8|page=[https://archive.org/details/challengeofdemoc0009jand/page/207 207]|edition=9. ed., update |url = https://archive.org/details/challengeofdemoc0009jand |url-access=registration}}] Several states,{{which|date=October 2019}} including [[1838 Pennsylvania Loss of Voting Rights for African American Men|Pennsylvania]] and [[History of the New Jersey State Constitution#Vote Rescinded for Women, non-Whites|New Jersey]], stripped the free black males of the right to vote in the same period.{{citation needed|date=May 2021}}
Four of the fifteen post-Civil War constitutional amendments were ratified to extend voting rights to different groups of citizens. These extensions state that voting rights cannot be denied or abridged based on the following:
* "Race, color, or previous condition of servitude" ([[Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fifteenth Amendment]], 1870)
* Sex ([[Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Nineteenth Amendment]], 1920)
* "[F]ailure to pay any [[Poll tax (United States)|poll tax]] or other tax" for federal elections ([[Twenty-fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Twenty-fourth Amendment]], 1964){{efn|For state elections: ''[[Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections]]'', {{ussc|383|663}} (1966)}}
* Age (for persons "[w]ho are eighteen years of age or older") ([[Twenty-sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Twenty-sixth Amendment]], 1971)
Following the [[Reconstruction era]] until the culmination of the [[civil rights movement]], [[Jim Crow laws]] such as [[literacy test]]s, [[poll tax (United States)|poll taxes]], and religious tests were some of the state and local laws used in various parts of the United States to deny immigrants (including legal ones and newly [[History of laws concerning immigration and naturalization in the United States|naturalized]] citizens), non-white citizens, Native Americans, and any other locally "undesirable" groups from exercising voting rights granted under the Constitution.[{{cite web|url=http://congressbase.com/40/voting-guide-how-to-cast-your-vote-participate-in-government-and-have-your-voice-heard/|title=Voting Guide: How To Cast Your Vote, Participate In Government And Have Your Voice Heard|publisher=Congress Base|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131022120322/http://congressbase.com/40/voting%2Dguide%2Dhow%2Dto%2Dcast%2Dyour%2Dvote%2Dparticipate%2Din%2Dgovernment%2Dand%2Dhave%2Dyour%2Dvoice%2Dheard/|archive-date=October 22, 2013|url-status=dead|access-date=December 18, 2013}}] Because of such state and local discriminatory practices, over time, the federal role in elections has increased, through amendments to the Constitution and enacted legislation. These reforms in the 19th and 20th centuries extended the franchise to non-whites, those who do not own property, women, and those 18–21 years old.
Since the "right to vote" is not explicitly stated in the U.S. Constitution except in the above referenced amendments, and only in reference to the fact that the franchise cannot be denied or abridged based solely on the aforementioned qualifications, the "right to vote" is perhaps better understood, in layman's terms, as only prohibiting certain forms of legal discrimination in establishing qualifications for suffrage. States may deny the "right to vote" for other reasons. For example, many states require eligible citizens to register to vote a set number of days prior to the election in order to vote. More controversial restrictions include those laws that [[felony disenfranchisement|prohibit convicted felons from voting]], even those who have served their sentences. In addition, [[Voter identification laws in the United States|voter ID laws]] vary between the states, with some states strictly requiring a photo ID for one to vote while other states may not require any ID at all.[{{Citation
|url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html
|title=''George W. Bush, et al., Petitioners v. Albert Gore, Jr., et al.''
|date=December 12, 2000
|publisher=Supreme Court of the United States
|access-date=February 22, 2008
|archive-date=October 15, 2007
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071015060335/https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html
|url-status=live
}}]
A state may choose to fill an office by means other than an election. For example, upon death or resignation of a legislator, the state may allow the affiliated political party to choose a replacement to hold office until the next scheduled election. Such an appointment is often affirmed by the governor.[
* '''1790:''' The [[Naturalization Act of 1790]] limited citizenship to "free white persons."][{{cite news |title=Nationality Act of 1790 |url=https://immigrationhistory.org/item/1790-nationality-act/ |access-date=March 5, 2022 |agency=Immigration History.org |archive-date=March 6, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220306001607/https://immigrationhistory.org/item/1790-nationality-act/ |url-status=live }}] In practice, only white male property owners could naturalize and acquire the status of citizens, and the vote.[[[Timeline of voting rights in the United States#refEngerman2005|Engerman]], p. 8–9]
** The [[1828 United States presidential election|1828 presidential election]] was the first in which non-property-holding white males could vote in the vast majority of states. By the end of the 1820s, attitudes and state laws had shifted in favor of universal white male suffrage.[[[Timeline of voting rights in the United States#refEngerman2005|Engerman]], p. 14. "Property- or tax-based qualifications were most strongly entrenched in the original thirteen states, and dramatic political battles took place at a series of prominent state constitutional conventions held during the late 1810s and 1820s."]
** Voter turnout soared during the 1830s, reaching about 80% of adult white male population in the [[1840 United States presidential election|1840 presidential election]].[William G. Shade, "The Second Party System". in Paul Kleppner, et al. ''Evolution of American Electoral Systems'' (1983) pp 77-111] 2,412,694 ballots were cast, an increase that far outstripped natural population growth, making poor voters a huge part of the electorate. The process was peaceful and widely supported, except in the state of Rhode Island where the [[Dorr Rebellion]] of the 1840s demonstrated that the demand for equal suffrage was broad and strong, although the subsequent reform included a significant property requirement for anyone resident but born outside of the United States.
** The last state to abolish property qualification was North Carolina in 1856. However, tax-paying qualifications remained in five states in 1860 – Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, Delaware and North Carolina. They survived in Pennsylvania and Rhode Island until the 20th century.[[[Timeline of voting rights in the United States#refEngerman2005|Engerman]], p. 16 and 35. Table 1] In addition, many poor whites were later disenfranchised.[{{Cite book|last1=Schultz|first1=Jeffrey D.|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=sfmPmrL0N3kC&pg=PA528|title=Encyclopedia of Minorities in American Politics: Hispanic Americans and Native Americans|last2=Aoki|first2=Andrew L.|last3=Haynie|first3=Kerry L.|last4=McCulloch|first4=Anne M.|date=2000|publisher=Greenwood Publishing Group|isbn=978-1-57356-149-5|location=|pages=528|language=en}}][{{Cite book|last=Scher|first=Richard K.|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=POzqBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA13|title=The Politics of Disenfranchisement: Why is it So Hard to Vote in America?|date=2015-03-04|publisher=Routledge|isbn=978-1-317-45536-3|location=|pages=13|language=en}}]
* '''1868:''' Citizenship is guaranteed to all persons born or naturalized in the United States by the [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fourteenth Amendment]], setting the stage for future expansions to voting rights.
* '''1869–1920:''' Some states allow women to vote. Wyoming was the first state to give women voting rights in 1869.
* '''1870:''' The [[Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fifteenth Amendment]] prevents state governments and the federal government from denying the right to vote on grounds of "race, color, or previous condition of servitude".
** [[Disfranchisement after Reconstruction era]] began soon after. Former [[Confederate States of America|Confederate]] states passed [[Jim Crow laws]] and amendments to effectively [[disfranchise]] [[African Americans|African-American]] and poor white voters through [[Poll tax (United States)|poll taxes]], [[literacy tests]], [[grandfather clauses]] and other restrictions, applied in a discriminatory manner. During this period, the [[Supreme Court of the United States|Supreme Court]] generally upheld state efforts to discriminate against racial minorities; only later in the 20th century were these laws ruled unconstitutional. Black males in the Northern states could vote, but the majority of African Americans lived in the South.[{{cite web|url=http://www.cliffsnotes.com/Section/AP-Test-Prep-The-Expansion-of-Suffrage.id-305363,articleId-58202.html|title=AP Tests: AP Test Prep: The Expansion of Suffrage|work=[[CliffsNotes]]|date=January 10, 2010|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100110231456/http://www.cliffsnotes.com/Section/AP-Test-Prep-The-Expansion-of-Suffrage.id-305363,articleId-58202.html|archive-date=January 10, 2010}}]
* '''1915''' Decision in Supreme Court case ''[[Guinn v. United States]]'' rules unconstitutional the use of [[grandfather clause]]s to allow European-Americans to vote while excluding African-Americans.
* '''1920:''' Women are guaranteed the right to vote in all US States by the [[Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Nineteenth Amendment]]. In practice, the same restrictions that hindered the ability of poor or non-white men to vote now also applied to poor or non-white women.
* '''1924:''' All Native Americans are granted citizenship and the right to vote, regardless of tribal affiliation. By this point, approximately two thirds of Native Americans were already citizens.[{{cite book|editor1-last=Madsen|editor1-first=Deborah L.|title=The Routledge Companion to Native American Literature|date=2015|publisher=Routledge|isbn=978-1-317-69319-2|page=168|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=-AapCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA168}}][{{Citation
|url=http://democrats.senate.gov/dpc/dpc-new.cfm?doc_name=sr-108-2-283
|title=The American Indian Vote: Celebrating 80 Years of U.S. Citizenship
|date=October 7, 2004
|publisher=Democratic Policy Committee
|access-date=October 15, 2007 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070927020756/http://www.democrats.senate.gov/dpc/dpc-new.cfm?doc_name=sr-108-2-283 |archive-date = September 27, 2007}}] Notwithstanding, some western states continued to bar Native Americans from voting until 1948.[{{cite journal |title=Challenging American Boundaries: Indigenous People and the "Gift" of U.S. Citizenship |date=2004 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |doi=10.1017/S0898588X04000021 |url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/studies-in-american-political-development/article/challenging-american-boundaries-indigenous-people-and-the-gift-of-us-citizenship/BA37F7B9505AACABCBFBC04A020C2F36 |last1=Bruyneel |first1=Kevin |journal=Studies in American Political Development |volume=18 |pages=30–43 |s2cid=145698348 |url-access=subscription |archive-date=June 17, 2018 |access-date=June 12, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180617210548/https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/studies-in-american-political-development/article/challenging-american-boundaries-indigenous-people-and-the-gift-of-us-citizenship/BA37F7B9505AACABCBFBC04A020C2F36 |url-status=live }}]
* '''1943:''' Chinese immigrants given the right to citizenship and the right to vote by the [[Chinese Exclusion Repeal Act|Magnuson Act]].
* '''1948:''' Arizona and New Mexico became one of the last states to extend full voting rights to Native Americans, which had been opposed by some western states in contravention of the [[Indian Citizenship Act]] of 1924.[{{Cite journal |last=Peterson |first=Helen L. |year=1957 |title=American Indian Political Participation |journal=The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science |volume=311 |pages=116–126 |doi=10.1177/000271625731100113 |s2cid = 144617127}}]
* '''1954–1955:''' Maine extends full voting rights to Native Americans who live on reservations.[{{Cite web|title=James Francis, Penobscot Tribal Historian, Indian Island|url=https://www.portlandmuseum.org/magazine/james-francis-storiesofmaine|access-date=2020-12-29|website=Portland Museum of Art|date=May 2020|language=en-US|archive-date=November 4, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201104001347/https://www.portlandmuseum.org/magazine/james-francis-storiesofmaine|url-status=live}}]{{Sfn|Maine State Museum|2019|p=10}} Activist, [[Lucy Nicolar Poolaw]] ([[Penobscot]]), is the first to cast her vote under the new law.{{Sfn|Maine State Museum|2019|p=10}}
* '''1961:''' Residents of [[Washington, D.C.]] are granted the right to vote in U.S. Presidential Elections by the Twenty-third Amendment.
* '''1962–1964''': A historic turning point arrived after the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] under [[Chief Justice of the United States|Chief Justice]] [[Earl Warren]] made a series of landmark decisions which helped establish the nationwide "[[one man, one vote]]" [[United States Electoral College|electoral system]] in the United States.
** In March 1962, the [[Warren Court]] ruled in ''[[Baker v. Carr]] (1962)'' that [[redistricting]] qualifies as a [[Justiciability|justiciable]] question, thus enabling [[Federal Courts of the United States|federal courts]] to hear redistricting cases.[{{Cite book |url=https://www.sup.org/books/title/?id=26493 |title=Ballot Blocked: The Political Erosion of the Voting Rights Act {{!}} Jesse H. Rhodes |last=Rhodes |first=Jesse H. |publisher=Stanford University Press |year=2017 |isbn=9780804797597 |language=en |access-date=August 13, 2019 |archive-date=September 11, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190911111313/https://www.sup.org/books/title/?id=26493 |url-status=live }}]
* '''1966:''' Tax payment and wealth requirements for voting in state elections are prohibited by the Supreme Court in ''[[Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections]]'', under the [[Equal Protection Clause]] of the Fourteenth Amendment.
* '''1971:''' Adults aged 18 through 20 are granted the right to vote by the [[Twenty-sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Twenty-sixth Amendment]]. This was enacted in response to Vietnam War protests, which argued that soldiers who were old enough to fight for their country should be granted the right to vote.[{{Cite web|url=http://www1.cuny.edu/portal_ur/content/voting_cal/milestones.html|title=Milestones in Voting History / Voting Rights and Citizenship|access-date=March 4, 2011|archive-date=February 27, 2011|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110227020344/http://www1.cuny.edu/portal_ur/content/voting_cal/milestones.html|url-status=dead}}]
* '''1986:''' United States Military and Uniformed Services, [[United States Merchant Marine|Merchant Marine]], other citizens overseas, living on bases in the United States, abroad, or aboard ship are granted the right to vote by the [[Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act]].[{{Citation
|url=http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/voting/42usc/subch_ig.htm
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20010420012534/http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/voting/42usc/subch_ig.htm
|archive-date=April 20, 2001
|title=Registration and Voting by Absent Uniformed Services Voters and Overseas Voters in Elections for Federal Office
|publisher=U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Voting Section
|access-date=January 5, 2007}}]
== Native American people ==
{{see also|Native American civil rights#Voting}}
From 1778 to 1871, the government tried to resolve its relationship with the various native tribes by negotiating treaties. These treaties formed agreements between two sovereign nations, stating that Native American people were citizens of their tribe, living within the boundaries of the United States. The treaties were negotiated by the executive branch and ratified by the U.S. Senate. It said that native tribes would give up their rights to hunt and live on huge parcels of land that they had inhabited in exchange for trade goods, yearly cash [[Life annuity|annuity]] payments, and assurances that no further demands would be made on them. Most often, part of the land would be "reserved" exclusively for the tribe's use.[{{cite web|last=Nur|first=Alio|title=A Long History of Treaties|url=http://www.nebraskastudies.org/0700/frameset_reset.html?http://www.nebraskastudies.org/0700/stories/0701_0140.html|publisher=Native American Citizenship|access-date=December 18, 2013|archive-date=December 19, 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131219022102/http://www.nebraskastudies.org/0700/frameset_reset.html?http://www.nebraskastudies.org/0700/stories/0701_0140.html|url-status=dead}}]
Throughout the 1800s, many [[Tribe (Native American)|native tribes]] gradually lost claim to the lands they had inhabited for centuries through the federal government's [[Indian Removal]] policy to relocate tribes from the [[Southeastern United States|Southeast]] and [[Midwestern United States|Northwest]] to [[Western United States|west of the Mississippi River]]. European-American settlers continued to encroach on western lands. Only in 1879, in the [[Standing Bear]] trial, were American Indians recognized as persons in the eyes of the United States government. Judge [[Elmer Scipio Dundy]] of [[Nebraska]] declared that Indians were people within the meaning of the laws, and they had the rights associated with a writ of [[habeas corpus]]. However, Judge Dundy left unsettled the question as to whether Native Americans were guaranteed US citizenship.[{{cite web|last=Alio|first=Nur|title=Native American Citizenship|url=http://www.nebraskastudies.org/0700/frameset_reset.html?http://www.nebraskastudies.org/0700/stories/0701_0140.html|publisher=nebraska studies.org|access-date=December 18, 2013|archive-date=December 19, 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131219022102/http://www.nebraskastudies.org/0700/frameset_reset.html?http://www.nebraskastudies.org/0700/stories/0701_0140.html|url-status=dead}}]
Although Native Americans were born within the national boundaries of the United States, those on [[Indian reservation]]s were considered citizens of their own tribes, rather than of the United States. They were denied the right to vote because they were not considered citizens by law and were thus ineligible. Many Native Americans were told they would become citizens if they gave up their tribal affiliations in 1887 under the [[Dawes Act]], which allocated communal lands to individual households and was intended to aid in the [[Cultural assimilation of Native Americans|assimilation of Native Americans into majority culture]]. This still did not guarantee their right to vote. In 1924, the remaining Native Americans, estimated at one-third, became United States citizens through the [[Indian Citizenship Act]]. Many western states, however, continued to restrict Native American ability to vote through property requirements, economic pressures, hiding the polls, and condoning of physical violence against those who voted.[{{cite web|last=Alio|first=NUr|title=Native American Citizenship|url=http://www.nebraskastudies.org/0700/frameset_reset.html?http://www.nebraskastudies.org/0700/stories/0701_0140.html|publisher=nebraska studies.org|access-date=December 18, 2013|archive-date=December 19, 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131219022102/http://www.nebraskastudies.org/0700/frameset_reset.html?http://www.nebraskastudies.org/0700/stories/0701_0140.html|url-status=dead}}] Since the late 20th century, they have been protected under provisions of the Voting Rights Act as a racial minority, and in some areas, language minority, gaining election materials in their native languages.
=== Alaska Natives ===
The [[Territory of Alaska|Alaskan Territory]] did not consider [[Alaska Natives]] to be citizens of the United States and so they could not vote.[{{Cite web|title=First Territorial Legislature of Alaska|url=https://www.nps.gov/people/first-territorial-legislature-of-alaska.htm|access-date=2020-11-09|website=U.S. National Park Service|language=en|archive-date=November 28, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201128052355/https://www.nps.gov/people/first-territorial-legislature-of-alaska.htm|url-status=live}}][{{Cite web|title=Citizenship for Native Veterans|url=http://www.nebraskastudies.org/en/1900-1924/native-american-citizenship/citizenship-for-native-veterans/|access-date=2020-11-09|website=Nebraska Studies|archive-date=December 17, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201217034330/http://www.nebraskastudies.org/en/1900-1924/native-american-citizenship/citizenship-for-native-veterans/|url-status=live}}] An exception to this rule was that indigenous women were considered citizens if they were married to white men.[{{Cite news|date=17 September 2020|title=Tillie Paul Tamaree & the Tlingit Community|url=https://www.history.pcusa.org/blog/2020/09/tillie-paul-tamaree-tlingit-community|access-date=2020-11-09|website=Presbyterian Historical Society|archive-date=January 25, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210125203810/https://history.pcusa.org/blog/2020/09/tillie-paul-tamaree-tlingit-community|url-status=live}}] Later, Paul would win a court case that set the precedent that Alaska Natives were legally allowed to vote.[{{Cite news|date=1979-10-19|title=SJ Names Place to Honor Tlingit Woman, Tillie Paul|pages=5|work=Daily Sitka Sentinel|url=https://www.newspapers.com/clip/3761301/campus-building-named-for-tillie-paul/|access-date=2020-11-09|via=Newspapers.com|archive-date=November 19, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201119173604/https://www.newspapers.com/clip/3761301/campus-building-named-for-tillie-paul/|url-status=live}}] In 1925, a literacy test was passed in Alaska to suppress the votes of Alaska Natives.{{Sfn|Cole|1992|p=433}} After passage of the [[Alaska Equal Rights Act of 1945]], Alaska Natives gained more rights, but there was still voter discrimination.{{Sfn|Cole|1992|p=449}}{{Sfn|Tucker|Landreth|Lynch|2017|p=330}} When Alaska became a state, the new [[Constitution of Alaska]] provided Alaskans with a more lenient literacy test.{{Sfn|Christen|2019|p=98}} In 1970, the [[Alaska Legislature]] ratified a constitutional amendment against state voter literacy tests.{{Sfn|Christen|2019|p=98}} The [[Voting Rights Act of 1965]] (VRA), modified in 1975, provided additional help for Alaska Natives who do not speak English, which affects around 14 [[Census areas of Alaska|census areas]].{{Sfn|Alaska Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights|2018|p=1}}{{Sfn|Tucker|Landreth|Lynch|2017|p=336}}{{Sfn|Alaska Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights|2018|p=2}} Many villages with large Alaska Native populations continue to face difficulties voting.{{Sfn|Tucker|Landreth|Lynch|2017|p=342-343}}
== Religious test ==
{{Further|Religious test|Religious discrimination in the United States|Establishment Clause|Free Exercise Clause|Incorporation of the Bill of Rights}}
{{See also|No Religious Test Clause|Religious qualifications for public office in the United States|Barron v. Baltimore|l3=''Barron v. Baltimore''|Torcaso v. Watkins|l4=''Torcaso v. Watkins''}}
In several [[Thirteen Colonies|British North American colonies]] before and after the 1776 [[United States Declaration of Independence|Declaration of Independence]], certain individuals such as [[American Jews|Jews]], [[Quakers]], [[Catholic Church in the United States|Catholics]] or [[Atheism in the United States|atheists]] were excluded from the franchise or from running for elections.[{{Citation
|title=American Suffrage. From Property to Democracy
|first=Chilton
|last=Williamson
|author-link=Chilton Williamson
|publisher=Princeton University Press
|year=1960}}]
The [[Delaware Constitution of 1776]] stated that "Every person who shall be chosen a member of either house, or appointed to any office or place of trust, before taking his seat, or entering upon the execution of his office, shall{{nbsp}}... also make and subscribe the following declaration, to wit: ''I, A B. do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the [[Holy Spirit (Christianity)|Holy Ghost]], one God, blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the holy scriptures of the [[Old Testament|Old]] and [[New Testament|New]] Testament to be given by divine inspiration.''".[{{Citation
|url = http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/states/de02.htm
|title = Constitution of Delaware, 1776
|access-date = December 7, 2007
|publisher = The Avalon Project at [[Yale Law School]]
|url-status = dead
|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20071130011903/http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/states/de02.htm
|archive-date = November 30, 2007
}}] This was repealed by Article I, Section II. of the [[Delaware Constitution of 1792|1792 Constitution]]: "No religious test shall be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, under this State".[{{Citation
|url=http://members.tripod.com/candst/cnst_de.htm
|title=State Constitution (Religious Sections)—Delaware
|access-date=December 7, 2007
|publisher=The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
|archive-date=October 24, 2008
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081024201107/http://members.tripod.com/candst/cnst_de.htm
|url-status=live
}}] The 1778 [[South Carolina Constitution|Constitution of the State of South Carolina]] stated, "No person shall be eligible to sit in the house of representatives unless he be of the [[Protestantism in the United States|Protestant]] religion",[{{Citation
|url = http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/states/sc02.htm
|title = An Act for establishing the Constitution of the State of South Carolina, March 19, 1778
|access-date = December 5, 2007
|publisher = The Avalon Project at [[Yale Law School]]
|url-status = dead
|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20071213082151/http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/states/sc02.htm
|archive-date = December 13, 2007
}}] the 1777 [[Constitution of Georgia (U.S. state)|Constitution of the State of Georgia]] (art. VI) that "The representatives shall be chosen out of the residents in each county{{nbsp}}... and they shall be of the Protestant religion".[{{Citation
|url = http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/states/ga02.htm
|title = Constitution of Georgia; February 5, 1777
|access-date = March 27, 2008
|publisher = The Avalon Project at [[Yale Law School]]
|url-status = dead
|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20071213082118/http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/states/ga02.htm
|archive-date = December 13, 2007
}}]
With the growth in the number of [[Baptists in the United States|Baptists]] in Virginia before the [[American Revolution]], who challenged the established [[Church of England]], the issues of [[Freedom of religion in the United States|religious freedom]] became important to rising leaders such as [[James Madison]]. As a young lawyer, he defended Baptist preachers who were not licensed by (and were opposed by) the established state Anglican Church. He carried developing ideas about religious freedom to be incorporated into the [[Constitutional Convention (United States)|constitutional convention of the United States]].
In 1787, [[Article One of the United States Constitution]] stated that "the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the [[State legislature (United States)|State Legislature]]". More significantly, [[Article Six of the United States Constitution|Article Six]] disavowed the religious test requirements of several states, saying: "[N]o religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
But, in [[Maryland]], [[American Jews|Jewish Americans]] were excluded from state office until the law requiring candidates to affirm a belief in an afterlife[{{Citation
|url=http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc4800/sc4872/003183/html/m3183-1670.html
|title=An Act for the relief of Jews in Maryland, passed February 26, 1825
|date=February 26, 1825
|publisher=Archives of Maryland, Volume 3183, Page 1670
|access-date=December 5, 2007
|archive-date=November 14, 2010
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101114093058/http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc4800/sc4872/003183/html/m3183-1670.html
|url-status=dead
}}] was repealed in 1828.
== African Americans and poor whites ==
{{See also|Black suffrage in the United States|Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Disfranchisement after the Reconstruction era}}
At the time of ratification of the Constitution in the late 18th century, most states had [[property qualification]]s which restricted the franchise; the exact amount varied by state, but by some estimates, more than half of white men were disenfranchised.[{{Citation
|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=JVw0AAAAIAAJ&q=franchise+extension+landless+united+states&pg=PA97
|title=The Constitutional History of the United States, 1765–1895
|author=Francis Newton Thorpe
|access-date=April 16, 2008
|publisher=Harper & Brothers
|year=1898|isbn=9780306719981
}}]
Several states granted suffrage to [[free people of color|free men of color]] after the Revolution, including North Carolina. This fact was noted by [[Benjamin Robbins Curtis|Justice Benjamin Robbins Curtis']] dissent in ''[[Dred Scott v. Sandford]]'' (1857), as he emphasized that blacks had been considered citizens at the time the Constitution was ratified:
{{blockquote|Of this there can be no doubt. At the time of the ratification of the Articles of Confederation, all free native-born inhabitants of the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, and North Carolina, though descended from African slaves, were not only citizens of those States, but such of them as had the other necessary qualifications possessed the franchise of electors, on equal terms with other citizens.[{{cite web|last=Curtis|first=Benjamin Robbins (Justice)|title=''Dred Scott v. Sandford'', Curtis dissent|url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0060_0393_ZD1.html|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120711042949/http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0060_0393_ZD1.html|archive-date=11 July 2012|access-date=16 April 2008|publisher=Legal Information Institute at [[Cornell Law School]]|url-status=dead}}]}}
* In the 1820s, New York State enlarged its franchise to white men by dropping the property qualification, but maintained it for free blacks.[{{cite journal |last=Liebman |first=Bennett |title=The Quest for Black Voting Rights in New York State |journal=Albany Government Law Review |date=August 28, 2018 |volume=11 |page=387 |quote=The most important of the referendum held in New York in the nineteenth century were the three on the question of whether or not to remove the $250 property qualification requirement from Negro voters—a qualification which was not imposed on white voters since 1821.}}]
* The [[North Carolina Supreme Court|Supreme Court of North Carolina]] had upheld the ability of free African Americans to vote in that state. In 1835, because of fears of the role of free blacks after [[Nat Turner's Slave Rebellion]] of 1831, they were disenfranchised by decision of the [[North Carolina Constitutional Convention of 1835|North Carolina Constitutional Convention]]. At the same time, convention delegates relaxed religious and property qualifications for whites, thus expanding the franchise for them.[{{Citation
|url = http://statelibrary.dcr.state.nc.us/nc/stgovt/preconst.htm#1835
|title = The Constitution of North Carolina
|access-date = April 16, 2008
|publisher = State Library of North Carolina
|url-status = dead
|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20080418215043/http://statelibrary.dcr.state.nc.us/nc/stgovt/preconst.htm#1835
|archive-date = April 18, 2008
}}]
* Alabama entered the union in 1819 with universal white suffrage provided in its constitution.
When the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868 after the Civil War, it granted citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction. In 1869, the Fifteenth Amendment prohibited the government from denying a citizen the right to vote based on that citizen's "race, color, or previous condition of servitude". The major effect of these amendments was to enfranchise [[African American]] men, the overwhelming majority of whom were [[freedmen]] in the South.[{{cite web|last=Alio|first=Nur|title=African American Men Get the Vote|url=http://www.iwantmyvote.com/recount/history/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060406194823/http://www.iwantmyvote.com/recount/history/|archive-date=April 6, 2006|publisher=Cobb-LaMarche}}]
After the war, some Southern states passed "[[Black Codes (United States)|Black Codes]]", state laws to restrict the new freedoms of African Americans. They attempted to control their movement, assembly, working conditions and other civil rights. Some states also prohibited them from voting.[{{cite book|last=Rable|first=George C.|title=But There Was No Peace: The Role of Violence in the Politics of Reconstruction|date=2007|publisher=University of Georgia Press|location=[[Athens, Georgia|Athens, GA]]|isbn=978-0-8203-3011-2|page=132 | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=8qn37CH-i9IC}}] For instance, estimates were that 150 blacks were killed in North Carolina before the 1876 elections. Economic tactics such as eviction from rental housing or termination of employment were also used to suppress the black vote. The federal government withdrew its troops as a result of a national compromise related to the presidency, officially ending Reconstruction, and soon afterward the Supreme Court would strike down nearly every law passed through reconstruction that protected freedman from racially motivated violence from private actors while also taking a narrow view to the federal government's ability to enforce laws against state actors who perpetrated racially motivated violence. White Democrats regained power in state legislatures across the South by the late 1870s and declined to enforce laws against white supremacist paramilitary groups.
African Americans were a majority in three Southern states following the Civil War, and represented over 40% of the population in four other states and many whites feared and resented the political power exercised by freedmen.[Gabriel J. Chin & Randy Wagner, [http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/crcl/vol43_1/65-126.pdf "The Tyranny of the Minority: Jim Crow and the Counter-Majoritarian Difficulty"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140531205336/http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/crcl/vol43_1/65-126.pdf |date=May 31, 2014 }}, 43 ''Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review'' 65 (2008)] After ousting the Republicans, whites worked to restore [[white supremacy]].
Although elections were often surrounded by violence, blacks continued to vote and gained many local offices in the late 19th century. In the late 19th century, a Populist-Republican coalition in several states gained [[Governor (United States)|governorships]] and some congressional seats in 1894. To prevent such a coalition from forming again and reduce election violence, the Democratic Party, dominant in all southern state legislatures, took action to disfranchise most blacks and many poor whites outright.
From 1890 to 1908, ten of the eleven former Confederate states completed political suppression and exclusion of these groups by ratifying new constitutions or amendments which incorporated provisions to make voter registration more difficult. These included such requirements as payment of [[Poll tax (United States)|poll taxes]], complicated record keeping, complicated timing of registration and length of residency in relation to elections, with related record-keeping requirements; [[felony disenfranchisement]] focusing on crimes thought to be committed by African Americans,[Gabriel J. Chin, [https://ssrn.com/abstract=433580&high=%20Gabriel%20CHin "Reconstruction, Felon Disenfranchisement and the Right to Vote: Did the Fifteenth Amendment Repeal Section 2 of the Fourteenth?"], 92 ''[[Georgetown Law Journal]]'' 259 (2004)] and a [[literacy test]] or comprehension test.
This was defended openly, on the floor of the Senate, by South Carolina Senator and former Governor [[Benjamin Tillman]]:
{{blockquote|In my State there were 135,000 negro voters, or negroes of voting age, and some 90,000 or 95,000 white voters.{{nbsp}}... Now, I want to ask you, with a free vote and a fair count, how are you going to beat 135,000 by 95,000? How are you going to do it? You had set us an impossible task.
We did not disfranchise the negroes until 1895. Then we had a constitutional convention convened which took the matter up calmly, deliberately, and avowedly with the purpose of disfranchising as many of them as we could under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. We adopted the educational qualification as the only means left to us, and the negro is as contented and as prosperous and as well protected in South Carolina to-day as in any State of the Union south of the Potomac. He is not meddling with politics, for he found that the more he meddled with them the worse off he got. As to his "rights"—I will not discuss them now. We of the South have never recognized the right of the negro to govern white men, and we never will.{{nbsp}}... I would to God the last one of them was in Africa and that none of them had ever been brought to our shores.[{{cite news
|first=Benjamin
|last=Tillman
|title=Speech of Senator Benjamin R. Tillman
|date=March 23, 1900
|magazine=Congressional Record, 56th Congress, 1st Session
|pages=3223–3224
|others=(Reprinted in Richard Purday, ed., ''Document Sets for the South in U. S. History'' [Lexington, MA.: D.C. Heath and Company, 1991], p. 147.)
|url=https://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/55/
|archive-date=June 22, 2019
|access-date=June 30, 2019
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190622215952/http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/55
|url-status=live
}}]}}
Prospective voters had to prove the ability to read and write the [[English language]] to white voter registrars, who in practice applied subjective requirements. [[African Americans|Blacks]] were often denied the right to vote on this basis. Even well-educated blacks were often told they had "failed" such a test, if in fact, it had been administered. On the other hand, illiterate [[whites]] were sometimes allowed to vote through a "[[grandfather clause]]," which waived literacy requirements if one's grandfather had been a qualified voter before 1866, or had served as a soldier, or was from a foreign country. As most blacks had grandfathers who were slaves before 1866 and could not have fulfilled any of those conditions, they could not use the grandfather clause exemption. Selective enforcement of the [[Poll tax (United States)|poll tax]] was frequently also used to disqualify black and poor white voters. As a result of these measures, at the turn of the century voter rolls dropped markedly across the South. Most blacks and many poor whites were excluded from the political system for decades. Unable to vote, they were also excluded from juries or running for any office.
In Alabama, for example, its 1901 constitution restricted the franchise for poor whites as well as blacks. It contained requirements for payment of cumulative [[Poll tax (United States)|poll taxes]], completion of [[literacy tests]], and increased residency at state, county and precinct levels, effectively [[Disfranchisement after Reconstruction era|disenfranchising]] tens of thousands of [[Poor White|poor whites]] as well as most blacks. Historian J. Morgan Kousser found, "They disfranchised these whites as willingly as they deprived blacks of the vote."[J. Morgan Kousser.''The Shaping of Southern Politics: Suffrage Restriction and the Establishment of the One-Party South'', New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974] By 1941, more whites than blacks in total had been disenfranchised.[Glenn Feldman, ''The Disfranchisement Myth: Poor Whites and Suffrage Restriction in Alabama'', Athens: University of Georgia Press, 2004, pp. 135–136]
=== Legal challenges to disfranchisement ===
{{Main|Civil rights movement|Civil rights movement (1865–1896)|Civil rights movement (1896–1954)}}
Although African Americans quickly began legal challenges to such provisions in the 19th century, it was years before any were successful before the [[U.S. Supreme Court]]. [[Booker T. Washington]], better known for his public stance of trying to work within societal constraints of the period at [[Tuskegee University]], secretly helped fund and arrange representation for numerous legal challenges to disfranchisement. He called upon wealthy Northern allies and philanthropists to raise funds for the cause.[Richard H. Pildes, [https://ssrn.com/abstract=224731 "Democracy, Anti-Democracy, and the Canon"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181121211213/https://ssrn.com/abstract=224731 |date=November 21, 2018 }}, ''Constitutional Commentary'' 17 (2000): 13-14, accessed March 10, 2008] The Supreme Court's upholding of [[Constitution of Mississippi|Mississippi's new constitution]], in ''[[Williams v. Mississippi]]'' (1898), encouraged other states to follow the Mississippi plan of disfranchisement. African Americans brought other legal challenges, as in ''[[Giles v. Harris]]'' (1903) and ''Giles v. Teasley'' (1904), but the Supreme Court upheld [[Alabama]] constitutional provisions. In 1915, Oklahoma was the last state to append a [[grandfather clause]] to its literacy requirement due to Supreme Court cases.
From early in the 20th century, the newly established [[National Association for the Advancement of Colored People]] ([[NAACP]]) took the lead in organizing or supporting legal challenges to segregation and disfranchisement. Gradually they planned the strategy of which cases to take forward. In ''[[Guinn v. United States]]'' (1915), the first case in which the NAACP filed a brief, the Supreme Court struck down the grandfather clause in [[Oklahoma]] and [[Maryland]]. Other states in which it was used had to retract their legislation as well. The challenge was successful.
But, nearly as rapidly as the Supreme Court determined a specific provision was unconstitutional, state legislatures developed new statutes to continue disenfranchisement. For instance, in ''[[Smith v. Allwright]]'' (1944), the Supreme Court struck down the use of state-sanctioned all-white primaries by the [[Southern Democrats]]. States developed new restrictions on black voting; Alabama passed a law giving county registrars more authority as to which questions they asked applicants in comprehension or literacy tests. The NAACP continued with steady progress in legal challenges to disenfranchisement and segregation.
In 1957, Congress passed the [[Civil Rights Act of 1957]] to implement the Fifteenth Amendment. It established the [[United States Civil Rights Commission]]; among its duties is to investigate voter discrimination.
As late as 1962, programs such as [[Operation Eagle Eye (United States)|Operation Eagle Eye]] in Arizona attempted to stymie minority voting through literacy tests.{{citation needed|date=December 2020}} The [[Twenty-fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Twenty-fourth Amendment]] was ratified in 1964 to prohibit poll taxes as a condition of voter registration and voting in federal elections. Many states continued to use them in state elections as a means of reducing the number of voters.
The [[American Civil Rights Movement]], through such events as the [[Selma to Montgomery marches]] and [[Freedom Summer]] in Mississippi, gained passage by the [[United States Congress]] of the [[Voting Rights Act of 1965]], which authorized federal oversight of voter registration and election practices and other enforcement of voting rights. Congress passed the legislation because it found "case by case litigation was inadequate to combat widespread and persistent discrimination in voting". Activism by African Americans helped secure an expanded and protected franchise that has benefited all Americans, including racial and language minorities.
The bill provided for federal oversight, if necessary, to ensure just voter registration and election procedures. The rate of African-American registration and voting in Southern states climbed dramatically and quickly, but it has taken years of federal oversight to work out the processes and overcome local resistance. In addition, it was not until the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6–3 in ''[[Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections]]'' (1966) that all state poll taxes (for state elections) were officially declared unconstitutional as violating the [[Equal Protection Clause]] of the Fourteenth Amendment. This removed a burden on the poor.[{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=POzqBgAAQBAJ&pg=PR9|title=The Politics of Disenfranchisement: Why is it So Hard to Vote in America?|last=Scher|first=Richard K.|date=2015|page=viii-ix|publisher=Routledge|isbn=9781317455363}}][{{Cite web|date=2009|title=Civil Rights in America: Racial Voting Rights|url=https://www.nps.gov/nhl/learn/themes/CivilRights_VotingRights.pdf|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150702010008/http://www.nps.gov/nhl/learn/themes/CivilRights_VotingRights.pdf|url-status=dead|archive-date=July 2, 2015|publisher=A National Historic Landmarks Theme Study}}]
Legal challenges have continued under the [[Voting Rights Act of 1965|Voting Rights Act]], primarily in areas of [[Redistricting in the United States|redistricting]] and election systems, for instance, challenging [[at-large]] election systems that effectively reduce the ability of minority groups to elect candidates of their choice. Such challenges have particularly occurred at the county and municipal level, including for school boards, where exclusion of minority groups and candidates at such levels has been persistent in some areas of the country. This reduces the ability of women and minorities to participate in the political system and gain entry-level experience.
== Asian Americans ==
{{Main|Asian American movement}}
Voting rights for Asian Americans have been continuously battled for in the United States since the initial significant wave of Asian immigration to the country in the mid-nineteenth century.[{{Cite book|last=Ward, Geoffrey C.|title=The West : an illustrated history|date=1996|publisher=Little, Brown|others=Duncan, Dayton.|isbn=0-316-92236-6|edition=1st|location=Boston|oclc=34076431}}] The escalation of voting rights issues for Asian immigrants had started with the citizenship status of [[Chinese Americans]] from 1882 with the [[Chinese Exclusion Act]] that was inspired by and built upon the [[Naturalization Act of 1870]].[{{Cite web|date=August 15, 2016|title=Race, Nationality, and Reality|url=https://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2002/summer/immigration-law-1.html|access-date=August 25, 2020|website=National Archives|language=en|archive-date=October 2, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201002153241/https://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2002/summer/immigration-law-1.html|url-status=live}}] The latter act helped the judicial system decide a person's ethnicity, and if the person was white, they could proceed with the immigration process.[{{Cite web|title=Our Documents - Chinese Exclusion Act (1882)|url=https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=false&doc=47|access-date=August 25, 2020|website=www.ourdocuments.gov|archive-date=September 12, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200912032429/https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=false&doc=47|url-status=live}}] Without the ability to become an American citizen, Asian immigrants were prohibited from voting or even immigrating to the United States during this time.
Things started to improve when the [[Chinese Exclusion Act]] was repealed in the mid-twentieth century, and Chinese immigrants were once again able to seek citizenship and voting rights.[{{Cite web|title=FONG, Hiram Leong {{!}} US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives|url=https://history.house.gov/People/Listing/F/FONG,-Hiram-Leong-(F000245)/|access-date=August 25, 2020|website=history.house.gov|language=en|archive-date=February 2, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230202041546/https://history.house.gov/People/Listing/F/FONG,-Hiram-Leong-(F000245)/|url-status=live}}] However, the Asian American community gained significant advancements in their voting rights later, with the [[Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952|McCarran-Walter Act]] of 1952. With this Act, the Asian American community was able to seek citizenship that was not on the basis of race but on a quota system that was dependent upon their country of emigration.[{{Cite web|title=Milestones: 1945–1952 - Office of the Historian|url=https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/immigration-act|access-date=August 25, 2020|website=history.state.gov|archive-date=May 12, 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220512024547/https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/immigration-act|url-status=live}}] Shortly after the [[Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952|McCarran-Walter Act]], the [[Voting Rights Act of 1965|Voting Rights Act]] was signed by President [[Lyndon B. Johnson]] in 1965. It thus came a new era of civil liberties for Asian Americans who were in the voting minority.[{{Cite web|title=Our Documents - Voting Rights Act (1965)|url=https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=false&doc=100|access-date=August 25, 2020|website=www.ourdocuments.gov|archive-date=September 11, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200911092634/https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=false&doc=100|url-status=live}}][{{Cite web|title=Historical Reported Voting Rates|url=https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/voting-and-registration/voting-historical-time-series.html|access-date=August 25, 2020|website=The United States Census Bureau|language=EN-US|archive-date=August 31, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200831062418/https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/voting-and-registration/voting-historical-time-series.html|url-status=live}}]
== Women ==
{{Main|Women's suffrage in the United States}}
A parallel, yet separate, movement was that for [[women's suffrage]]. Leaders of the suffrage movement included [[Susan B. Anthony]], [[Elizabeth Cady Stanton]], [[Carrie Chapman Catt]], and [[Alice Paul]]. In some ways this, too, could be said to have grown out of the [[American Civil War]], as women had been strong leaders of the [[Abolitionism in the United States|abolition]] movement. Middle- and upper-class women generally became more politically active in the northern tier during and after the war.
In 1848, the [[Seneca Falls Convention]], the first [[women's rights]] convention, was held in [[Seneca Falls, New York]]. Of the 300 present, 68 women and 32 men signed the [[Declaration of Sentiments]] which defined the women's rights movement. The first [[National Women's Rights Convention]] took place in 1850 in [[Worcester, Massachusetts]], attracting more than 1,000 participants. This national convention was held yearly through 1860.
When Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton formed the National Women Suffrage Association, their goal was to help women gain voting rights through reliance on the Constitution. Also, in 1869 [[Lucy Stone]] and [[Henry Browne Blackwell|Henry Blackwell]] formed the [[American Woman Suffrage Association]] (AWSA). However, AWSA focused on gaining voting rights for women through the amendment process. Although these two organization were fighting for the same cause, it was not until 1890 that they merged to form the [[National American Woman Suffrage Association]] (NAWSA). After the merger of the two organizations, the (NAWSA) waged a state-by-state campaign to obtain voting rights for women.
Following footsteps of early suffragists, several notable black women lawyers have also played a significant role in fighting for equal voting rights for women. These lawyers served to advocate for equal rights; over the last century, their legal efforts were focused heavily on addressing the discrimination and oppression of women of color, both stemming from racial and sex bias.[{{Cite book |last=McCammon, Banaszak |first=Holly J., Lee Ann |title=100 Years of the Nineteenth Amendment: An appraisal of Women's Political Activism |publisher=Oxford University Press, Incorporated |date=March 1, 2018 |isbn=9780190265168 |edition=1st |publication-date=March 1, 2018 |pages=258 |language=English}}]
[[Wyoming]] was the first state in which women were able to vote, although it was a condition of the transition to statehood. [[Utah]] was the second territory to allow women to vote, but the federal [[Edmunds–Tucker Act]] of 1887 repealed woman's suffrage in Utah. Colorado was the first established state to allow women to vote on the same basis as men. Some other states also extended the franchise to women before the Constitution was amended to this purpose.
During the 1910s, Alice Paul, assisted by [[Lucy Burns]] and many others, organized such events and organizations as the [[1913 Women's Suffrage Parade]], the [[National Woman's Party]], and the [[Silent Sentinels]]. At the culmination of the suffragists' requests and protests, ratification of the [[Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Nineteenth Amendment]] gave women the right to vote in time to participate in the [[1920 United States presidential election|Presidential election of 1920]].
Another political movement that was largely driven by women in the same era was the anti-[[alcohol (drug)|alcohol]] [[Temperance movement]], which led to the [[Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Eighteenth Amendment]] and [[Prohibition]].[{{cite web |title=Timeline: U.S. Women's Rights, 1848 - 1920 |date=February 24, 2021 |first=Ann-Marie |last=Imbornoni |url=https://www.infoplease.com/history/womens-history/timeline-us-womens-rights-1848-1920 |publisher=Women's Rights Movement in the U.S. |access-date=December 6, 2021 |archive-date=December 9, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211209194920/https://www.infoplease.com/history/womens-history/timeline-us-womens-rights-1848-1920 |url-status=live }}]
== Military ==
Suffrage was never extended to members of the [[United States Armed Forces]] due to military status - individual members of the military received suffrage in accordance with the distinct categorical extensions that occurred throughout the nation's history.[{{Cite book|last=Inbody|first=Donald S.|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Z5l6CwAAQBAJ&pg=PR2|title=The Soldier Vote: War, Politics, and the Ballot in America|date=2016-01-26|publisher=Springer|isbn=978-1-137-51920-7|language=en}}] Matters pertaining to military members voting rights in elections in the United States have focused around two issues: absentee voting rights and requirements for nonpartisanship in election-related activities.
=== Absentee voting rights ===
Many military members stationed overseas were historically excluded from voting, de facto, due to state laws pertaining to absentee voting.[{{Cite journal|last=Martin|first=Boyd A.|date=August 1945|title=The Service Vote in the Elections of 1944|url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/abs/service-vote-in-the-elections-of-1944/2594AF35F78ED8907FE6CAEFAEE0E126|journal=American Political Science Review|language=en|volume=39|issue=4|pages=720–732|doi=10.2307/1949880|jstor=1949880|s2cid=147544139|issn=1537-5943|url-access=subscription|archive-date=September 20, 2021|access-date=September 20, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210920213145/https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/abs/service-vote-in-the-elections-of-1944/2594AF35F78ED8907FE6CAEFAEE0E126|url-status=live}}] The military and the general public were thought to be highly supportive of absentee ballot measures that would enable military members to vote while stationed overseas in active duty.[{{Cite web|title=Department of Defense Directive 1344.10|url=https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodd/134410p.pdf}}][{{Cite web|title=US Office of Special Counsel Hatch Act Overview|url=https://osc.gov/Services/Pages/HatchAct.aspx|access-date=September 20, 2021|archive-date=September 22, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210922152423/https://osc.gov/Services/Pages/HatchAct.aspx|url-status=live}}] The Department of Defense Directive 1344.10 and the [[Hatch Act of 1939|Hatch Act]] outline that members of the armed forces who are on active duty are permitted to express their personal opinions on political candidates, make a monetary contribution to a campaign, sign a petition to place a candidate's name on the ballot, and attend a political event as a spectator. Members on active duty may not participate in partisan activities such as soliciting or engaging in partisan fundraiser activities, serving as the sponsor of a partisan club, or speaking before a partisan gathering. In addition, all military members, including National Guard and Reserve forces, are prohibited from wearing military uniforms at political campaign events. The [[Hatch Act of 1939|Hatch Act]] allows most federal employees to actively participate in political activities outside of the workplace. There are, however, significant restrictions on fundraising, running for office in partisan elections and using one's authority in the political arena.[{{Cite web|title=Department of Defense FAQs on Participation in Political Campaigns|url=https://www.defense.gov/ask-us/faq/Article/1774809/what-is-the-policy-for-participating-in-political-campaigns/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200502021741/https://www.defense.gov/ask-us/faq/Article/1774809/what-is-the-policy-for-participating-in-political-campaigns/|url-status=dead|archive-date=May 2, 2020}}] Senate-confirmed presidential appointees and career and non-career [[Senior Executive Service (United States)|Senior Executive Service]] employees are subject to additional limitations.[{{Cite web|date=2008-08-01|title=The nonpartisan military|url=http://armedforcesjournal.com/the-nonpartisan-military/|access-date=2021-09-20|website=Armed Forces Journal|language=en-US|archive-date=September 20, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210920212845/http://armedforcesjournal.com/the-nonpartisan-military/|url-status=live}}] The three, along with many officers from Marshall's generation, abstained from voting in order to avoid any sense of partisanship that could impair their professional judgement.[{{Cite news|url=https://content.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1881791,00.html|title=A Brief History of Washington, D.C.|last=James|first=Randy|date=February 26, 2009|newspaper=Time|access-date=February 16, 2017|issn=0040-781X|archive-date=February 15, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170215222853/http://content.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1881791,00.html|url-status=live}}]
== Young adults ==
{{main|Voting age#United States}}
{{See also|Twenty-sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution}}
[[File:Voting Rights for 17-year-olds in US States.svg|thumb|right|250px|17-year-olds whose 18th birthday is before the general election may vote in primaries and caucuses in the states shown in blue, but only in presidential caucuses in the states shown in pink.]]
A third voting rights movement was won in the 1960s to lower the voting age from twenty-one to eighteen. Activists noted that most of the young men who were being [[conscription|drafted]] to fight in the [[Vietnam War]] were too young to have any voice in the selection of the leaders who were sending them to fight. Some states had already lowered the voting age: notably [[Georgia (U.S. state)|Georgia]], [[Kentucky]], and [[Hawaii]], had already permitted voting by persons younger than twenty-one.
The Twenty-sixth Amendment, ratified in 1971, prohibits federal and state laws which set a minimum voting age higher than 18 years. As of 2008, no state has opted for an earlier age, although some state governments have discussed it.[{{Citation|url=http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2004/04/08/loc_votingage09.html|title=Should voting age fall to 16? Several states ponder measure.|first=Carl|last=Weiser|date=April 18, 2004|publisher=The Enquirer|access-date=January 5, 2008}}{{Dead link|date=September 2025 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}] California has, since the 1980s, allowed persons who are 17 to register to vote for an election where the election itself will occur on or after their 18th birthday, and several states including Indiana allow 17-year-olds to vote in a primary election provided they will be 18 by the general election.
== Prisoners ==
{{Main|Felony disenfranchisement in the United States}}
[[File:Felony disenfranchisement in the United States.svg|thumb|400px|{{legend|#ffffcc;|Unrestricted}}{{legend|#ffeda0;|Ends after release{{efn|In [[American Samoa]], one has to be on "good behavior" for two years before their enfranchisement, regardless if they are on probation or parole.}}}}{{legend|#feb24c;|Ends after parole}}{{legend|#fc4e2a;|Ends after probation}}{{legend|#e31a1c;|Circumstantial}}{{legend|#800026;|Individual petitions required}}]]
Prisoner voting rights are defined by individual states, and the laws are different from state to state. Some states allow only individuals on probation to vote. Others allow individuals on parole and probation. As of 2012, only Florida, Kentucky and Virginia continue to impose a lifelong denial of the right to vote to all citizens with a [[felony]] record, absent a restoration of rights granted by the [[Governor]] or [[State legislature (United States)|state legislature]].[{{cite web|title=Felony Disenfranchisement Laws in the United States|publisher=The Sentencing Project|date=March 2011|url=http://www.sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/fd_statedisenfranchisement.pdf|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120119133453/http://www.sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/fd_statedisenfranchisement.pdf|archive-date=January 19, 2012}}] However, in Kentucky, a felon's rights can be restored after the completion of a restoration process to regain civil rights.[{{cite web|url=http://learning.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/02/18/should-convicted-felons-be-allowed-to-vote-after-theyve-served-their-time/|title=Should Felons Be Allowed to Vote After They Have Served Their Time?|first=Michael|last=Gonchar|date=February 18, 2014|access-date=August 23, 2016|archive-date=April 28, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190428072753/https://learning.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/02/18/should-convicted-felons-be-allowed-to-vote-after-theyve-served-their-time/|url-status=live}}]
In 2007, the [[Florida Legislature]] restored voting rights to convicted felons who had served their sentences. In March 2011, however, Governor [[Rick Scott]] reversed the 2007 reforms. He signed legislation that permanently disenfranchises citizens with past felony convictions. After the [[2018 Florida Amendment 4]] referendum, however, Florida residents voted to restore voting rights to roughly 1.4 million felons who have completed their sentences.[[http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/state-toughens-policy-of-restoring-rights-to--freed-felons/1184821 "State toughens policy of restoring rights to freed felons"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131020012121/http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/state-toughens-policy-of-restoring-rights-to--freed-felons/1184821 |date=October 20, 2013 }}, ''[[Tampa Bay Times]]'', August 8, 2011]
In July 2005, Iowa Governor [[Tom Vilsack]] issued an executive order restoring the right to vote for all persons who have completed supervision.[{{cite web|url=http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2008/09/23/groups-push-to-expand-exfelon-voting|title=Groups push to expand ex-felon voting|author=Gramlich, John|publisher=Stateline.org|date=September 23, 2008|access-date=September 12, 2014|archive-date=September 27, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180927112858/https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2008/09/23/groups-push-to-expand-exfelon-voting|url-status=live}}] In Puerto Rico, felons in prison are allowed to vote in elections.
Practices in the United States are in contrast to some European nations that allow prisoners to vote, while other European countries have restrictions on voting while serving a prison sentence, but not after release.[{{Cite news|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-12392811|title=Would prisoners use their votes?|last=Kelly|first=Jon|date=February 10, 2011|access-date=April 9, 2019|language=en-GB|postscript=none|archive-date=December 5, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191205235151/https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-12392811|url-status=live}}; {{Cite news|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-11674014|title=Q&A: UK prisoners' right to vote|date=January 20, 2011|access-date=April 9, 2019|language=en-GB|archive-date=October 23, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181023142959/https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-12392811|url-status=live}}] Prisoners have been allowed to vote in [[Canada]] since 2002.[[https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/can-prisoners-vote-or-not-1.705746 "Can prisoners vote or not?"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210308092904/https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/can-prisoners-vote-or-not-1.705746 |date=March 8, 2021 }}, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, September 19, 2008, accessed October 1, 2008.]
The United States has a higher proportion of its population in prison than any other Western nation,[U.S.: 700.23 per 100,000 inhabitants (2002); versus, for example, [[Belarus]] (516.25 per 100,000 inhabitants); South Africa (401.24 per 100,000 inhabitants); [[Latvia]] (362.83 per 100,000 inhabitants) {{Citation
|url=http://www.unodc.org/pdf/crime/eighthsurvey/8sv.pdf
|title=Eighth United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems, covering the period 2001–2002
|publisher=[[United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime]]
|access-date=October 2, 2008
|archive-date=April 23, 2006
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060423044155/http://www.unodc.org/pdf/crime/eighthsurvey/8sv.pdf
|url-status=live
}} (Table 15.1, Total persons incarcerated, with incarceration rates for some nations (e.g., Russia and China) unreported)] and more than Russia or China.[{{cite web|url=http://kcl.ac.uk/depsta/law/research/icps/worldbrief/wpb_stats.php|title=ICPS :School of Law :King's College London : World Prison Brief : King's College London|date=January 26, 2009|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090126223901/http://kcl.ac.uk/depsta/law/research/icps/worldbrief/wpb_stats.php|archive-date=January 26, 2009}}] The dramatic rise in [[United States incarceration rate|the rate of incarceration in the United States]], a 500% increase from the 1970s to the 1990s,[{{cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/jul/13/felon-voting-laws-disenfranchisement|title=Felon voting laws to disenfranchise historic number of Americans in 2012|author=Pilkington, Ed|newspaper=[[The Guardian]] |date=July 13, 2012|access-date=August 7, 2013}}] has vastly increased the number of people disenfranchised because of the felon provisions.
According to the [[Sentencing Project]], as of 2010 an estimated 5.9 million Americans are denied the right to vote because of a felony conviction, a number equivalent to 2.5% of the U.S. voting-age population and a sharp increase from the 1.2 million people affected by felony disenfranchisement in 1976.[Jeff Manza, Christopher Ugger, and Marcus Britton, [http://www.ipr.northwestern.edu/publications/docs/workingpapers/2002/IPR-WP-02-40.pdf "The Truly Disenfranchised: Felon Voting Rights and American Politics"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150924040006/http://www.ipr.northwestern.edu/publications/docs/workingpapers/2002/IPR-WP-02-40.pdf |date=September 24, 2015 }}, [[Northwestern University]] Institute for Policy Research, January 3, 2001.]
== Duration of residency and registration ==
The [[Supreme Court of the United States]] struck down a one-year residency requirement to vote in ''Dunn v. Blumstein'' {{ussc|405|330|1972}},[{{Citation
|publisher=Oyez
|title=Oyez: ''Dunn v. Blumstein'', 405 U.S. 330
|access-date=April 18, 2008
|url=https://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1971/1971_70_13/
|archive-date=May 25, 2008
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080525120730/http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1971/1971_70_13/
|url-status=live
}}] ruling that limits on [[Voter registration in the United States|voter registration]] of up to 30 to 50 days prior to an election were permissible for logistical reasons, but that residency requirements in excess of that violated the [[Equal Protection Clause]] under the Fourteenth Amendment.
The states of Idaho, Maine, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Wyoming allow [[Voter registration in the United States#Election Day / same-day|same-day voter registration]] on Election Day. North Dakota does not require voters to register.[{{cite book|last=Barder|title=American Government and Politics Today|year=2011–2012|publisher=Suzanne Jeans|page=313}}]
== Disability ==
{{Further|Suffrage for Americans with disabilities}}
In some states, people who are deemed [[Competence (law)|mentally incompetent]] are not allowed to vote.[{{cite magazine |last=Leonard |first=Kimberly |date=October 17, 2012 |title=Keeping the 'Mentally Incompetent' From Voting |url=https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/10/keeping-the-mentally-incompetent-from-voting/263748/ |magazine=The Atlantic |access-date=May 29, 2018}}] Voting rights specialist Michelle Bishop has said, "We are the last demographic within the U.S. where you can take away our right to vote because of our identity."[{{cite news |last=Modarressy-Tehrani |first=Caroline |date=October 21, 2016 |title=Disabled and disenfranchised |url=https://www.vice.com/en/article/thousands-of-americans-with-mental-disabilities-may-be-improperly-barred-from-voting/ |access-date=May 29, 2018 |archive-date=August 15, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240815003710/https://www.vice.com/en/article/thousands-of-americans-with-mental-disabilities-may-be-improperly-barred-from-voting/ |url-status=live }}]
In the [[conservatorship]] process, people can lose their right to vote in 39 states and Washington, D.C. if they are deemed "incapacitated" or "incompetent."[{{cite news|title=Thousands Lose Right To Vote Under 'Incompetence' Laws|url=https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/thousands-lose-right-to-vote-under-incompetence-laws_us_5ab25f7ce4b004fe24699810|access-date=May 29, 2018|date=March 21, 2018|archive-date=April 9, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180409002539/https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/thousands-lose-right-to-vote-under-incompetence-laws_us_5ab25f7ce4b004fe24699810|url-status=live}}][{{Cite web|title=Thousands Lose Right to Vote Under 'Incompetence' Laws|url=https://pew.org/2HMUHyo|access-date=2022-02-15|website=pew.org|date=March 21, 2018 |language=en}}] In California, SB 589 was passed in 2015, which created the presumption that those under conservatorship can vote.[{{cite web|title=Victory! New Voting Protections for 50,000 Californians Living with Disabilities|url=https://www.aclunc.org/news/victory-new-voting-protections-50000-californians-living-disabilities|website=ACLU of Northern CA|access-date=May 29, 2018|archive-date=May 29, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180529224616/https://www.aclunc.org/news/victory-new-voting-protections-50000-californians-living-disabilities|url-status=live}}]
== Homelessness ==
{{Main|Homelessness in the United States}}
In the 1980s, homelessness was recognized as an increasing national problem. By the early 21st century, there have been numerous court cases to help protect the voting rights of persons without a fixed address. Low income and homeless citizens face some obstacles in registering to vote. These obstacles include establishing residency, providing a mailing address, and showing proof of identification. Residency requirements vary from state to state.
All potential voters have faced new requirements since 2002, when President [[George W. Bush]] signed the [[Help America Vote Act]] (HAVA).[{{cite web |url=http://www.eac.gov/about_the_eac/help_america_vote_act.aspx |title=Help America Vote Act of 2002, HAVA | The U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) |publisher=Election Assistance Commission |access-date=June 26, 2013 |archive-date=May 22, 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130522065306/http://www.eac.gov/about_the_eac/help_america_vote_act.aspx |url-status=live }}][{{cite web |url=http://www.opencongress.org/wiki/Help_America_Vote_Act |title=Help America Vote Act |publisher=OpenCongress Wiki |access-date=June 26, 2013 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130625083933/http://www.opencongress.org/wiki/Help_America_Vote_Act |archive-date=June 25, 2013 }}] It requires voters to provide their [[Driver's license in the United States|driver's license numbers]], or the last four digits of their [[Social Security Number]] on their voter registration form. This has been enforced.
== Special interest elections ==
Several locales retained restrictions for specialized local elections, such as for school boards, [[Special district (United States)|special districts]], or bond issues. Property restrictions, duration of residency restrictions, and, for school boards, restrictions of the franchise to voters with children, remained in force. In a series of rulings from 1969 to 1973, the Court ruled that the franchise could be restricted in some cases to those "primarily interested" or "primarily affected" by the outcome of a specialized election, but not in the case of school boards or bond issues, which affected taxation to be paid by all residents.[{{Citation
|url=http://supreme.justia.com/constitution/amendment-14/92-voter-qualifications.html
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061031112234/http://supreme.justia.com/constitution/amendment-14/92-voter-qualifications.html
|archive-date=October 31, 2006
|title=U.S. Constitution Annotated
|access-date=April 18, 2008
|publisher=Justia}}] In ''Ball v. James'' {{ussc|451|335|1981}}, the Court further upheld a system of [[plural voting]], by which votes for the board of directors of a [[water reclamation]] district were allocated on the basis of a person's proportion of land owned in the district.[{{Citation
|url=http://supreme.justia.com/us/479/208/index.html
|title=''Tashjian v. Republican Party of Connecticut''
|access-date=April 18, 2008
|publisher=Justia
|archive-date=July 25, 2008
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080725015759/http://supreme.justia.com/us/479/208/index.html
|url-status=live
}}]
The [[Office of Hawaiian Affairs]] of the state of [[Hawaii]], created in 1978, limited voting eligibility and candidate eligibility to [[native Hawaiians]] on whose behalf it manages {{convert|1800000|acre|km2}} of ceded land. The Supreme Court of the United States struck down the franchise restriction under the Fifteenth Amendment in ''[[Rice v. Cayetano]]'' {{ussc|528|495|2000}}, following by eliminating the candidate restriction in ''[[Arakaki v. State of Hawai'i]]'' a few months later.
== Current status by region ==
=== District of Columbia ===
{{Main|District of Columbia voting rights}}
Citizens of the nation's capital, [[Washington, D.C.]], have not been apportioned a representative or US senator in Congress. This is because D.C. is a federal district and not a state and, under the Constitution, only states are apportioned congresspersons.
District of Columbia citizens had voting rights removed in 1801 by Congress, when Maryland delegated that portion of its land to Congress. Congress incrementally removed effective local control or [[home rule]] by 1871. It restored some home rule in 1971, but maintained the authority to override any local laws. Washington, D.C., does not have full representation in the U.S. House or Senate. The Twenty-third Amendment, restoring U.S. Presidential Election after a 164-year-gap, is the only known limit to Congressional "exclusive legislature" from Article I-8-17, forcing Congress to enforce for the first time Amendments 14, 15, 19, 24, and 26. It gave the District of Columbia three [[U.S. Electoral College|electors]] and hence the right to vote for [[President of the United States|President]], but not full U.S. Congresspersons nor U.S. Senators. In 1978, another amendment was proposed which would have restored to the District a full seat, but it failed to receive ratification by a sufficient number of states within the seven years required.
{{as of|2013}}, [[District of Columbia voting rights#Proposal during administration of Barack Obama|a bill]] is pending in Congress that would treat the District of Columbia as "a congressional district for purposes of representation in the House of Representatives", and permit United States citizens residing in the capital to vote for a member to represent them in the House of Representatives. The District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act, S. 160, 111th Cong. was passed by the [[U.S. Senate]] on February 26, 2009, by a vote of 61–37.[{{cite news |last=Warren |first=Timothy |date=February 26, 2009 |title=Senate votes to give D.C. full House vote |url=http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/26/senate-votes-give-dc-full-house-vote/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090228055302/http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/26/senate-votes-give-dc-full-house-vote/ |archive-date=February 28, 2009 |access-date=February 26, 2009 |newspaper=[[The Washington Times]]}} The Senate roll call is here [https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00073] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171229101844/https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00073|date=December 29, 2017}}.]
On April 1, 1993, the [[Inter-American Commission on Human Rights]] of the [[Organization of American States]] received a petition from Timothy Cooper on behalf of the Statehood Solidarity Committee (the "Petitioners") against the government of the United States (the "State" or "United States"). The petition indicated that it was presented on behalf of the members of the Statehood Solidarity Committee and all other U.S. citizens resident in the District of Columbia. The petition alleged that the United States was responsible for violations of Articles II (right to equality before law) and XX (right to vote and to participate in government) of the [[American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man]] in connection with the inability of citizens of the District of Columbia to vote for and elect a representative to the U.S. Congress. On December 29, 2003, The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights having examined the information and arguments provided by the parties on the question of admissibility. Without prejudging the merits of the matter, the Commission decided to admit the present petition in respect of Articles II and XX of the American Declaration. In addition, the Commission concluded that the United States violates the Petitioners' rights under Articles II and XX of the [[American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man]] by denying District of Columbia [[Citizenship in the United States|citizens]] an effective opportunity to participate in their [[United States Congress|federal legislature]].[{{Cite web |url=http://www.dcvote.org/pdfs/oas1203w.pdf |title=Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (Organization of American States) REPORT Nº 98/03* |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111001020855/http://www.dcvote.org/pdfs/oas1203w.pdf |archive-date=October 1, 2011}}]
=== Overseas and nonresident citizens ===
{{Main|Right of expatriates to vote in their country of origin}}
The Overseas Citizens Voting Rights Act of 1976 was the first bill to enshrine the constitutional right to vote in federal elections into law for U.S. citizens living overseas. This bill also established uniform absentee voting procedures for U.S. citizens living overseas in federal elections. The right to vote in the federal elections in the state they most recently lived in before emigrating from the United States was extended to citizens living overseas, provided that they met all the criteria to vote in the federal elections when they resided in the U.S., only excluding the age requirement. To reduce voting fraud, the bill included provisions preventing overseas citizens from voting by absentee ballot in multiple states.[[https://www.congress.gov/bill/94th-congress/senate-bill/95 S.95 - 94th Congress (1975-1976): Overseas Citizens Voting Rights Act] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221026004257/https://www.congress.gov/bill/94th-congress/senate-bill/95 |date=October 26, 2022 }}. (1976, January 2). https://www.congress.gov/ {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200517224927/http://www.congress.gov/ |date=May 17, 2020 }}]
The [[Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act]] ([[UOCAVA]]) of 1986 consolidated and recodified the Overseas Citizens Voting Rights Act and the Federal Voting Assistance Act.[[https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A183315704/AONE?u=29002&sid=summon&xid=5dd1219f Wright, S. F., & Carey, R. (2008, August). Counting on your vote: we ask not for whom you vote. We just want to make sure you can vote for whom you choose. Here's a primer on the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act to make sure you take part in the upcoming historic elections.] ''The Officer'', ''84''(6), 26+. https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A183315704/AONE?u=29002&sid=summon&xid=5dd1219f] The UOCAVA requires that states and territories allow certain groups of U.S. citizens to vote in federal elections. This bill ensures that overseas citizens can register to vote and request an absentee ballot simultaneously through the Federal Post Card Application, making the process of voting overseas easier.
The Secretary of Defense is responsible for the administrative implementation of this bill; the Secretary of Defense has delegated the responsibilities of ensuring the safety and security of overseas voting to the Federal Voting Assistance Program (FVAP).[{{Cite web |date=2015-08-06 |title=The Uniformed And Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act |url=https://www.justice.gov/crt/uniformed-and-overseas-citizens-absentee-voting-act |access-date=2022-10-25 |website=www.justice.gov |language=en |archive-date=December 6, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201206201255/https://www.justice.gov/crt/uniformed-and-overseas-citizens-absentee-voting-act |url-status=live }}] The FVAP works together with individual states to ensure that overseas citizens have full opportunity to participate in Federal elections.[{{Cite web |title=Americans can vote. Wherever they are. |url=https://www.fvap.gov/citizen-voter/reside |access-date=2022-10-25 |website=Federal Voting Assistance Program |language=en |archive-date=November 27, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201127184231/https://www.fvap.gov/citizen-voter/reside |url-status=live }}] Given that the federal act did not include the right for citizens that have never resided in the U.S., individual states must codify these provisions.
In 2009, the Military and Overseas Voting Empowerment Act ("MOVE Act") was passed, which amended the UOCAVA to establish new voter registration and absentee ballot procedures which all states must follow for federal elections. This Act included online forms of absentee ballot requests and voting mechanisms and expanded the ability and made it easier to vote overseas.[{{cite magazine |last=Newkirk II |first=Vann R. |title=Testing Territorial Limits |magazine=[[The Atlantic]] |date=March 30, 2016 |url=https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/03/territorial-limits/475935/ |access-date=23 March 2021 |publisher=[[Emerson Collective]] |location=Washington, D.C. |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210316062625/https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/03/territorial-limits/475935/ |archive-date=16 March 2021 |issn=1072-7825}}] The participants had all formerly lived in Illinois, but because of a change of residency to an unincorporated territory were no longer able to vote. Their claim was that the [[Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act]], as it is implemented, violates the [[Equal Protection Clause]]. At issue was that Illinois, the former residence of all of the plaintiffs, allowed residents of the [[Northern Mariana Islands]] who had formerly lived in Illinois to vote as [[Absentee ballot|absentee voters]], but denied former residents living in other unincorporated territories the same right. The [[United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois|U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois]] ruled in 2016 that under the Absentee Voting Act, former residents of US states are entitled to vote in elections of the last jurisdiction in which they qualified to vote, as long as they reside in a foreign location. Using [[rational basis review]], the court stated that the Northern Mariana Islands had a unique relationship with the United States and could be treated differently. It further pointed out that as the law does not differentiate between residents within a territory, as to who formerly resided in a state, but all are treated equally, no violation occurred.[{{cite journal |last=Fegurgur |first=Franklin Troy |date=2017 |title=Half an American: Guam Veterans' Struggle for Voter Equality |journal=Asian-Pacific Law & Policy Journal |volume=19 |issue=1 |pages=153–200 |url=https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?public=true&handle=hein.journals/aplpj19&div=8&start_page=153&collection=journals&set_as_cursor=0&men_tab=srchresults |access-date=23 March 2021 |publisher=[[William S. Richardson School of Law]] |location=Honolulu, Hawaii |issn=1541-244X |via=[[HeinOnline]]}}] The [[United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit]] concurred with the decision, but dismissed the case for lack of standing because the application of the Absentee Voting Act in Illinois is a state issue.[{{cite web |title=Segovia v. United States |url=https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1886292.html |website=[[FindLaw]] |publisher=[[Thomson Reuters]] |access-date=23 March 2021 |location=Eagan, Minnesota |date=2021 |archive-date=June 14, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210614181706/https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1886292.html |url-status=live }}]
In 2019, John Fitisemanu of [[American Samoa]] challenged his inability to vote because of his status as a non-citizen national of the United States. Though Fitisemanu had lived and paid taxes in Utah for twenty years, and had a U.S. passport, he was unable to vote.[{{cite news |title=Hearing on Birthright Citizenship in U.S. Territories Wednesday |url=https://www.guampdn.com/story/news/local/2020/09/22/hearing-birthright-citizenship-u-s-territories-wednesday/5862334002/ |access-date=23 March 2021 |agency=[[USA Today|USA Today Network]] |date=September 22, 2020 |newspaper=[[Pacific Daily News]] |archive-url=https://archive.today/20210323161423/https://www.guampdn.com/story/news/local/2020/09/22/hearing-birthright-citizenship-u-s-territories-wednesday/5862334002/ |archive-date=23 March 2021 |location=Hagåtña, Guam}}] The [[United States District Court for the District of Utah]], ruled in ''[[Fitisemanu v. United States]]'' (No. 18-36, D. Utah Dec. 13, 2019) that individuals born in American Samoa are [[Birthright citizenship in the United States|birthright citizens]] under Section 1 of the [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution]].[{{cite web |last=Price |first=Anna |date=February 24, 2020 |title=American Samoa: Court Rules Individuals Born in American Samoa Enjoy Birthright United States Citizenship |url=https://www.loc.gov/law/foreign-news/article/american-samoa-court-rules-individuals-born-in-american-samoa-enjoy-birthright-united-states-citizenship/ |website=[[Library of Congress]] |publisher=US Congress |location=Washington, D.C. |url-status=live |access-date=23 March 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210122090000/https://www.loc.gov/law/foreign-news/article/american-samoa-court-rules-individuals-born-in-american-samoa-enjoy-birthright-united-states-citizenship/ |archive-date=22 January 2021}}] The day following the ruling, Fitisemanu registered to vote, but as the ruling was stayed pending an appeal filed in the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit]], he was still unable to participate in casting a ballot.[[https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca10/20-4017/20-4017-2021-06-15.html Justia - Fitisemanu, et al. v. United States, et al.] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221207121820/https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca10/20-4017/20-4017-2021-06-15.html |date=December 7, 2022 }}][{{cite news|last=Pampuro|first=Amanda|date=June 16, 2021|title=American Samoans Are Not Born Into US Citizenship|url=https://www.courthousenews.com/american-samoans-are-not-born-into-us-citizenship/|work=Courthouse News Service|access-date=September 13, 2021|archive-date=September 13, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210913230414/https://www.courthousenews.com/american-samoans-are-not-born-into-us-citizenship/|url-status=live}}] Ahead of the 2020 elections, citizens from the Virgin Islands and Guam, who had formerly lived in Hawaii, instituted an action, ''Reeves v. United States'', challenging their lack of voting rights.[{{cite news |title=New Federal Lawsuit Seeks to Expand Voting Rights in Virgin Islands, other Territories |url=https://viconsortium.com/vi-us/virgin-islands-new-federal-lawsuit-seeks-to-expand-voting-rights-in-virgin-islands-other-territories |access-date=23 March 2021 |date=October 9, 2020 |newspaper=The Virgin Island Consortium |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201025075115/https://viconsortium.com/vi-us/virgin-islands-new-federal-lawsuit-seeks-to-expand-voting-rights-in-virgin-islands-other-territories |archive-date=October 25, 2020 |location=Charlotte Amalie, US Virgin Islands |url-status=live}}]
==== Puerto Rico ====
{{Main|Voting rights in Puerto Rico}}
[[Puerto Rico]] is an [[insular area]]—a [[United States]] [[Organized territory|territory]] that is neither a part of one of the fifty [[U.S. state|states]] nor a part of the [[District of Columbia]], the nation's [[federal district]]. Insular areas, such as Puerto Rico, the [[United States Virgin Islands|U.S. Virgin Islands]] and [[Guam]], are not allowed to choose electors in [[U.S. presidential election]]s or elect voting members to the [[United States Congress|U.S. Congress]]. This grows out of [[Article One of the United States Constitution|Article I]] and [[Article Two of the United States Constitution|Article II]] of the [[United States Constitution]], which specifically mandate that electors are to be chosen by "the People of the several States". In 1961, the Twenty-third Amendment extended the right to choose electors to the District of Columbia.
Any [[Citizenship of the United States|U.S. citizen]] who resides in Puerto Rico (whether a [[Puerto Rican people|Puerto Rican]] or not) is effectively disenfranchised at the national level. Although the Republican Party and Democratic Party chapters in Puerto Rico have selected voting delegates to the national nominating conventions participating in U.S. presidential primaries or caucuses, U.S. citizens not residing in one of the 50 states or in the District of Columbia may not vote in federal elections.
Various scholars (including a prominent U.S. judge in the [[United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit]]) conclude that the U.S. national-electoral process is not fully democratic due to U.S. government disenfranchisement of U.S. citizens residing in Puerto Rico.[Torruella, Juan R. (1985).{{Citation
|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=xDhWAAAACAAJ&q=The+Supreme+Court+and+Puerto+Rico:+The+Doctrine+of+Separate+and+Unequal
|title=The Supreme Court and Puerto Rico: The Doctrine of Separate and Unequal
|first=Juan R.
|last=Torruella
|publisher=University of Puerto Rico Press
|year=1985
|isbn=0-8477-3031-X}}][{{cite web
|url=http://academic.udayton.edu/race/02rights/citizen01.htm
|title=Puerto Rico and a Constitutional Right to vote
|first=José D.
|last=Román
|publisher=University of Dayton
|access-date=October 2, 2007
|archive-date=September 27, 2011
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110927070548/http://academic.udayton.edu/race/02rights/citizen01.htm
|url-status=live
}} (excerpted from: José D. Román, [http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2233&context=ulj "Trying to Fit an Oval Shaped Island into a Square Constitution: Arguments for Puerto Rican Statehood"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210209184255/https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=2233&context=ulj |date=February 9, 2021 }}, 29 ''Fordham Urban Law Journal'' 1681–1713, 1697–1713 (April 2002) (316 Footnotes Omitted))]
{{As of|2010}}, under ''Igartúa v. United States'', the [[International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights]] (ICCPR) is judicially considered not to be [[Self-executing rule|self-executing]], and therefore requires further legislative action to put it into effect domestically. Judge [[Kermit Lipez]] wrote in a concurring opinion, however, that the [[en banc]] majority's conclusion that the ICCPR is non-self-executing is ripe for reconsideration in a new en banc proceeding, and that if issues highlighted in a partial dissent by Judge [[Juan R. Torruella]] were to be decided in favor of the plaintiffs, United States citizens residing in Puerto Rico would have a viable claim to equal voting rights.[{{Cite web|url=https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-1st-circuit/1545899.html|title=FindLaw's United States First Circuit case and opinions.|website=Findlaw|access-date=June 27, 2018|archive-date=September 5, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180905103026/https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-1st-circuit/1545899.html|url-status=live}}]
From the [[United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit|First Circuit]] decision:
{{Blockquote
|text= Congress has in fact acted in partial compliance with its obligations under the ICCPR when, in 1961, just a few years after the United Nations first ratified the ICCPR, it amended our fundamental charter to allow the United States citizens who reside in the District of Columbia to vote for the Executive offices. See U.S. Const. amend. XXIII. Indeed, a bill is now pending in Congress that would treat the District of Columbia as "a congressional district for purposes of representation in the House of Representatives," and permit United States citizens residing in the capitol to vote for members of the House of Representatives. See District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act, S.160, 111th Cong. (passed by Senate, February 26, 2009) (2009). However, the United States has not taken similar "steps" with regard to the five million United States citizens who reside in the other U.S. territories, of which close to four million are residents of Puerto Rico. This inaction is in clear violation of the United States' obligations under the ICCPR.[{{cite web|last=alio|first=nur|title=People with Disabilities and Voting|url=http://www.accessiblesociety.org/topics/voting/|publisher=The Center for an Accessible Society|access-date=December 18, 2013}}] The [[Federal Election Commission]] reported that, in violation of state and federal laws, more than 20,000 polling places across the nation are inaccessible, depriving people with disabilities of their fundamental right to vote.
In 1999, the [[Attorney General of New York|Attorney General of the State of New York]] ran a check of polling places around the state to see if they were accessible to voters with disabilities and found many problems. A study of three [[Upstate New York|upstate counties of New York]] found fewer than 10 percent of polling places fully compliant with state and federal laws.[{{Cite web|url=https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/polling-places-found-inaccessible-disabled|title=Polling Places Found Inaccessible To Disabled|date=November 1, 1999|website=New York State Attorney General|language=en|access-date=February 16, 2017|archive-date=February 17, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170217223626/https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/polling-places-found-inaccessible-disabled|url-status=dead}}]
Many polling booths are set in church basements or in upstairs meeting halls where there are no ramps or elevators. This means problems not just for people who use [[wheelchair]]s, but for people using canes or walkers too. And in most states people who are blind do not have access to [[Braille]] ballot to vote; they have to bring someone along to vote for them. Studies have shown that people with disabilities are more interested in government and public affairs than most and are more eager to participate in the democratic process.
[{{Cite web|url = http://go.galegroup.com/ps/retrieve.do?inPS=true&prodId=GVRL&userGroupName=txshracd2602&resultListType=RELATED_DOCUMENT&contentSegment=9781412927130&isBOBIndex=true&docId=GALE|CX3469300622#1272|title = Encyclopedia of Disability|date = 2006|publisher = SAGE Reference}}]
Voter turnout is lower among disabled people. In the [[2012 United States presidential election]] 56.8% of people with disabilities reported voting, compared to the 62.5% of eligible citizens without disabilities.[{{Cite web|url = http://smlr.rutgers.edu/disability-and-voting-survey-report-2012-elections|title = Disability and Voting Survey Report 2012 Election|publisher = Rutgers University|access-date = February 16, 2016|archive-date = April 8, 2016|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20160408052118/http://smlr.rutgers.edu/disability-and-voting-survey-report-2012-elections|url-status = dead}}]
However, there are options to cast a ballot prior to election day which provide greater accessibility, such as mail-in ballots and early voting. For example, mail-in ballots offer greater accessibility for people who may have trouble physically accessing a polling place, as well as for people whose busy work schedules or home lives prevent them from being able to vote on election day. These options to vote before election day are widely used. According to research by the [https://electioninnovation.org/ Center for Election Innovation & Research] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250607123511/https://electioninnovation.org/ |date=June 7, 2025 }}, in 2020, 69% of ballots were cast prior to election day.[{{Cite web |title=Data Dive: The Growth of Early In-Person and Mail Voting |url=https://electioninnovation.org/research/voting-before-election-day-resources/use-methods-voting-before-election-day/ |access-date=2025-06-09 |website=The Center for Election Innovation & Research |language=en-US |archive-date=September 21, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240921110006/https://electioninnovation.org/research/voting-before-election-day-resources/use-methods-voting-before-election-day/ |url-status=live }}] Not all states have these options available, or available without an excuse, but 97% of voting-eligible citizens live in states that have access to at least one option to vote prior to election day.[[https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/ukalr25&div=25&id=&page= Gordon, Nicole A. "The Constitutional Right to Candidacy." U. Kan. L. Rev. 25 (1976): 545.] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240222105214/https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/ukalr25&div=25&id=&page= |date=February 22, 2024 }}] Different courts have reached different conclusions regarding what sort of restrictions, often in terms of [[ballot access]], public debate inclusion, filing fees, and residency requirements, may be imposed.
In ''[[Williams v. Rhodes]]'' (1968), the United States Supreme Court struck down [[Ohio]] ballot access laws on [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution|First]] and Fourteenth Amendment grounds. However, it subsequently upheld such laws in several other cases. States can require an independent or minor party candidate to collect signatures as high as five percent of the total votes cast in a particular preceding election before the court will intervene.
The Supreme Court has also upheld a state ban on cross-party endorsements (also known as [[electoral fusion]]) and primary write-in votes.
State constitutions have varying requirements for the length of citizenship and residency of the governor but unlike the President, state governors do not need to be natural-born citizens. There is some ambiguity in some state constitutions if a governor must be a citizen or just a resident.
== Voter identification laws ==
{{Main|Voter identification laws in the United States}}
[[File:Map of US Voter ID Laws by State.svg|thumb|400px|Voter ID laws by state, {{as of|2025|08|df=US|lc=y}}:
{{legend|#FF0000|Photo ID required (Strict)}}
{{legend|#FF8000|Photo ID requested (Non-strict)}}
{{legend|#0000FF|Non-photo ID required (Strict)}}
{{legend|#0080FF|Non-photo ID requested (Non-strict)}}
{{legend|#D3D3D3|No ID required to vote}}]]
[[Voter identification laws]] in the United States are laws that require a person to provide some form of [[Identity document|official identification]] before they are permitted to [[Voter registration in the United States|register to vote]], receive a [[ballot]] for an [[election]], or to actually vote in [[elections in the United States]].
Proponents of voter identification laws argue that they reduce [[electoral fraud]] while placing only little burden on voters. Opponents say fraud is extremely rare, and ID requirements intentionally create bureaucratic barriers in order to suppress the votes of specific populations, such as poor people or college students.
== Noncitizen voting ==
{{Main|Non-citizen suffrage in the United States}}
{{See also|Citizenship Clause|Minor v. Happersett}}
[[File:Only citizens can vote clause US Map.png|thumb|left|upright=1.5|Map of US States where in their constitutions they specify that only U.S. citizens can vote as of 2023|alt=coloured map]]
More than 40 states or territories, including colonies before the [[United States Declaration of Independence|Declaration of Independence]], have at some time allowed noncitizens who satisfied residential requirements to vote in some or all elections. This in part reflected the strong continuing immigration to the United States. Some cities like [[Chicago]], towns or villages (in Maryland) today allow noncitizen residents to vote in school or local elections.[{{Citation
|url = http://www.sou.edu/polisci/pavlich/Raskin_Aliens.htm
|title=Legal aliens, local citizens: The historical, constitutional and theoretical meanings of Alien suffrage
|first=Jamin B.
|last=Raskin
|author-link=Jamie Raskin
|publisher=Southern Oregon University
|journal=University of Pennsylvania Law Review
|volume=141
|issue=4
|date=April 1993
|pages=1391–1470
|access-date=December 3, 2007
|doi=10.2307/3312345
|jstor=3312345
|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20081103002119/http://www.sou.edu/polisci/pavlich/Raskin_Aliens.htm
|archive-date=November 3, 2008 |url-access=subscription
}}][{{Citation
|title=Democracy For All: Restoring Immigrant Voting Rights In The United States
|first=Ronald
|last=Hayduk
|publisher=Routledge
|year=2006
|isbn=978-0-415-95073-2 }}]{{efn|See also [[:fr:Droit de vote des étrangers aux États-Unis|Droit de vote des étrangers aux États-Unis]] {{in lang|fr}}.}} In 1875, the Supreme Court in ''[[Minor v. Happersett]]'' noted that "citizenship has not in all cases been made a condition precedent to the enjoyment of the right of suffrage. Thus, in Missouri, persons of foreign birth, who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, may under certain circumstances vote".[{{Citation
|url=http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=88&invol=162
|title=''Minor v. Happersett'' 88 U.S. 162 (1874)
|author=U.S. Supreme Court
|access-date=December 8, 2007
|archive-date=April 29, 2011
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110429220519/http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=88&invol=162
|url-status=live
}}] Federal law prohibits [[Citizenship in the United States|noncitizens]] from voting in federal elections.[{{USC|18|611}} - Voting by aliens.]
As of 2022, Five state constitutions specifically state that "only" a citizen can vote in an election–Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, and North Dakota. With Louisiana and Ohio having a ballot measure in the same year.[{{cite web | url=https://ballotpedia.org/Ohio_Issue_2,_Citizenship_Voting_Requirement_Amendment_(2022) | title=Ohio Issue 2, Citizenship Voting Requirement Amendment (2022) }}]
== Other proposed voting reforms ==
{{main|Electoral reform in the United States}}
* Federal restrictions or enforcement against [[Voter suppression in the United States|voter suppression techniques]]
* Restrict [[gerrymandering]] with politically independent redistricting, or changing to at-large [[proportional representation]]
* Adopt [[Ranked-choice voting in the United States|ranked-choice voting]], [[approval voting]], or other system
* Abolish the [[United States Electoral College|Electoral College]]
* Make Election Day a holiday or weekend, or expand [[early voting]] to increase turnout
* Amend the Constitution to guarantee the right to vote in general, rather than only prohibiting certain forms of discrimination.[{{cite magazine |title=How to Actually Guarantee the Right to Vote: A six-point checklist |author=Richard L. Hasen |magazine=[[The Atlantic]] |url=https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/02/voting-rights-six-elements/677234/ |date=February 13, 2024 |access-date=February 17, 2024 |archive-date=February 17, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240217081513/https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/02/voting-rights-six-elements/677234/ |url-status=live }}][{{cite book |title=A Real Right to Vote: How a Constitutional Amendment Can Safeguard American Democracy |publisher=Princeton University Press |year=2024 |isbn=978-0691257716 |author=Richard L. Hasen}}] Voting in state and Congressional elections can be severely restricted by state laws, and Electoral College votes can be made by state legislatures alone if they so choose. Congress often does not use its power to enforce the existing Constitutional protections; an amendment could require courts to do so more directly.
* Automatic universal voter [[Voter registration|registration]]