I am very pleased to welcome to ELB Book Corner three contributors to the edited volume,  Our Nation at Risk: Election Integrity as a National Security Issue (Julian E. Zelizer & Karen J. Greenberg eds. NYU Press 2024). The third contribution is from Kareem Crayton:

The election integrity discourse is a nuanced one, since the concept invokes different meanings depending on the audience. Put bluntly, advancing policies under the banner of election integrity often is viewed as subtly endorsing voter suppression for some communities. Assuring a secure and reliable election is critical to our democracy, of course. Yet when those policies consistently interfere with the casting of eligible votes, the intention (even a good faith one) is lost amidst the obvious effects — especially when those burdened are communities of color and in the institutions that serve them. Viewing the experiences of Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) with election integrity proposals vividly illustrates why these policies ought to be considered according to both intentions and their effects.

HBCUs have a rich cultural legacy. For decades, they have been the exclusive site for educating African Americans for much of the country’s history.  Approximately 100 HBCUs exist representing around 3% colleges and universities in the United States. But they are also responsible for a fifth of the country’s Black college graduates each year.

Part of the HBCU legacy in America are the unsavory episodes confronting government interference with the right to vote. These educational institutions figure prominently in many of the well-known chapters of voting rights battles.  In Gomillion v. Lightfoot, for example, the Alabama legislature redrew the city of Tuskegee into a 28-sided gerrymandered figure that intentionally excluded most Black residents in and around Tuskegee University. Part of the state’s aim was to insulate itself from the influence of black votes — even where Black people a majority of voters.

While civil rights legislation including the 1965 Voting Rights Act improved participation and representation in these communities, the experience with suppression is by no means a relic of the past. The combined effect of demographic shifts along with the Court’s trend of weakening civil rights protections has ushered in an era of state election integrity policies that have imposed new burdens on communities in and around HBCUs. Policies like voter ID rules, the disruption of polling place allocation, and voter harassment and intimidation at the ballot box all stem from election integrity concerns that also tend to ignore or minimize their decidedly negative impact on communities of color, specifically on HBCUs. Some examples:

Gerrymandering: The North Carolina legislature’s preferred legislative district map in 2014 included borders that ran right down the main street of North Carolina A&T’s campus in Guilford County. The map located portions of the university and its residents in a district separate from their neighbors. Neither official representing the two districts prioritized issues relevant to the university and neither of them lived in Guilford County. This gerrymandering complicated political organizing and distanced the community from the local, attentive representation that was in place before the redrawing.

Polling Place Allocation: In Georgia’s 2022 elections during Stacey Abrams historic run for Governor, Morehouse College and Spelman College students were met with overwhelmed and confused poll workers who announced that many were no longer assigned to vote at the local campus polling station — the place where they had voted in the past. These changes occurred without notice and the veneer of making management decisions about polling places tended to overlook the expectations that college students would vote on campus. According to reports, many of the young voters left without sufficient guidance on how to identify the correct location. Similarly, early voting sites were removed from Prairie View A&M’s campus in Texas, focusing students (a huge share of voters in the county) to travel long distances in the to vote.

Political Harassment:  In perhaps the most obvious example of using force in the name of securing elections, prosecutors and law enforcement have launched campaigns to police the ballot box.   The banner of “election fraud” includes efforts to curtail ballot access and, in extreme cases, criminalize activity viewed as threatening the process.  Both overlook the historical sensitivity of political violence against black voters. Mustering armed police at polling places near HBCUs, such as Florida A&M University and Jackson State University created an atmosphere of intimidation in the community — which undermines their sense that the electoral process welcomes participation.

Election integrity is a crucial concern, but the the potential harm that some policies cause to voters demands greater caution.  HBCUs often find themselves disproportionately affected by these measures, and the existing law provides fewer opportunities to have their concerns regarded in the crafting of these policies. Policymakers must embrace both sides of the analysis — the burdens and the benefits of election integrity initiatives, so that the work of elections enhances full and fair political participation.