Ben Goldstein has written this article for the Journal of Law and Politics. Here is the abstract:

In the last few years, federal courts have seen a notable increase in voter intimidation cases. Empirically, instances of voter intimidation, whether litigated or not, may be increasing as well. After briefly offering explanations for this trend, this Article reviews federal laws aimed at voter intimidation, especially Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act. It then considers how courts can reconcile First Amendment speech protections with the need to regulate conduct that interferes with voting, drawing lessons from two recent lawsuits in the 2022 midterm elections
in Arizona.

Rather than solely balancing competing individual rights, courts should embrace a more expansive conception of the governmental interests at stake in voter intimidation cases. In particular, courts should recognize that voting is a separate sphere of civic life—a unique method of public decisionmaking distinct from day-to-day public discourse. As such, the act of voting merits stricter levels of protection than the laissez-faire system governing public discourse.

This Article also suggests that in our post-pandemic era of extended voting, a regime requiring narrowly tailored speech restrictions may be inadequate to safeguard voters from intimidation and interference. Given voting’s essential role in democratic self-governance, courts should not hesitate to enjoin intimidating conduct under Section 11(b), even absent a showing of subjective intent or threatened physical violence. Furthermore, courts should evaluate alleged intimidation not in isolation, but in light of its broader historical and social context and its actual impact on voters.

This looks to be an important piece.