KFF/theGrio Survey of Black Voters - Voter Suppression

KFF/theGrio Survey of Black Voters

Liz Hamel, Follow @lizhamel on TwitterShannon Schumacher, Grace SparksFollow @gracesparks on Twitter, Mellisha Stokes, and Mollyann Brodie Follow @Mollybrodie on Twitter
Published: Oct 18, 2022

Black voters are also concerned about electoral integrity. While a large majority are at least somewhat confident that their own vote will be accurately counted in November, seven in ten are concerned about voter suppression interfering with a fair and accurate election in their state. Half say they have experienced waiting in long lines at their polling place in the past, and one in five have experienced potential voter suppression such as having their registration or identification questioned. Younger Black voters and those who have experienced potential voter suppression in the past are less confident that their vote will be accurately counted this November.

Black Voters Generally Confident Their Vote Will Be Counted, But Concerned About Voter Suppression

Black voters are generally confident that their vote will be accurately counted this November. A large majority (84%) of Black voters say they are at least “somewhat” confident their vote will be accurately counted in this November’s election, including more than four in ten (45%) who say they are very confident. However, younger voters under age 50 are less likely to feel very confident compared to their older counterparts (37% vs. 55%), and about one in five younger Black voters (22%) say they are “not too confident” or “not at all confident” that their vote will be counted accurately.

 

Seven in ten Black voters are worried about voter suppression and almost half are worried about voter fraud interfering with a fair and accurate election in their state this November. Three in four Black voters who are Democrat or lean Democrat say they are worried about voter suppression, compared to about half (48%) of their Republican counterparts. Conversely, Black voters who are Republican or lean toward the party (64%) are more likely than Black Democrats/leaners (42%) to say they are worried about voter fraud. Black voters of all ages are equally likely to express worry about voter suppression, but there is an age gap on concerns about fraud. Half of Black voters under age 50 say they are very or somewhat worried about voter fraud, compared to 38% of voters over 50.

About half of Black voters say they have experienced waiting in long lines at their polling place, while one in five report experiencing acts of potential voter suppression, such as having their voter registration questioned. Nearly half (46%) of Black voters say they have experienced waiting in long lines at their polling place in the past. In addition, small but important shares report experiencing forms of potential voter suppression, including 12% who say they had their voter registration questioned, 11% who say they requested a mail-in ballot but it never arrived or arrived too late, 6% who were told they didn’t have the correct identification, and 5% who say they had their mail-in ballot rejected. Overall, one in five Black voters say they have experienced at least one of these things.

Experiences with potential voter suppression may impact Black voters’ confidence in the electoral process overall, though the survey does not suggest that it will decrease turnout this November. About a third (32%) of Black voters who have experienced potential voter suppression in the past say they are “very confident” their vote will be accurately counted this fall, compared to a larger share of those who have not experienced voter suppression (48%). However, at this point there is no evidence in the survey that these experiences will suppress turnout in November: these two groups are about equally likely to say they are absolutely certain to vote in the upcoming midterm (60% and 65%, respectively) and that they are more motivated to vote this year compared to previous elections (56% and 50%, respectively).

 

Majorities of Black voters say gerrymandering, limiting early voting, and voter ID laws are problems for Black representation in U.S. politics, with larger shares identifying gerrymandering and limiting early voting as major problems. Majorities of Black voters say these things are at least minor problems for Black representation in U.S. politics, with the largest share identifying gerrymandering as a major problem (64%), followed by limiting early voting (55%) and voter ID laws (39%). On all three issues polled, Black Democrats and those who lean Democratic are more likely to say these are problems than Republicans and those who lean toward the Republican party.

Figure 8

Majority Of Black Voters See Gerrymandering, Limiting Early Voting, And Voter ID Laws As A Problem When It Comes To Black Representation

Thinking about our current political system, how much of a problem, if at all, are each of the following when it comes to Black representation in U.S. politics?

Major

 problem

Minor

 problem

Not

 a problem

Gerrymandering, or redrawing election districts to favor one political party

Total Black voters

64%

24%

10%

Democrat/Lean Democrat

68%

21%

9%

Republican/Lean Republican

51%

35%

13%

Limiting early voting and vote by mail options

Total Black voters

55%

28%

17%

Democrat/Lean Democrat

59%

27%

14%

Republican/Lean Republican

35%

33%

32%

Laws requiring voters to show government-issued photo identification

Total Black voters

39%

36%

24%

Democrat/Lean Democrat

41%

38%

21%

Republican/Lean Republican

33%

28%

39%

NOTE: See topline for full question wording.SOURCE: KFF/theGrio Survey of Black Voters (August 24-September 5, 2022)  PNG

This article originally appeared at KFF.org, October 18th, 2022.

Please support and visit The Brooks Blackboard's website, our INTEL page, OPEN MIND page, and LIKE and FOLLOW our Facebook page.

Follow me on Twitter at @_CharlesBrooks   

KFF/theGrio Survey of Black Voters - Voter Motivation

KFF/theGrio Survey of Black Voters

Liz Hamel, Follow @lizhamel on TwitterShannon Schumacher, Grace SparksFollow @gracesparks on Twitter, Mellisha Stokes, and Mollyann Brodie 

Follow @Mollybrodie on TwitterPublished: Oct 18, 2022

The Survey of Black voters, the first under a new partnership between KFF and theGrio, examines the mood and opinions of an important group of voters as the 2022 midterm election approaches. A group that has historically been a solid voting bloc for Democrats, the views of Black voters are often examined as one monolithic group or even sometimes overlooked in midterm election polling. This survey goes beyond the insights that can be gleaned about Black voters from polls of the general public by collecting data from a large enough sample of Black voters to examine variations within the Black electorate by factors such as age, education, political affiliation, and ideology. The survey explores Black voters’ voting intentions, motivations, and views on key electoral issues for the upcoming midterm. It also examines Black voters’ attitudes toward the Democratic and Republican Parties, views on electoral integrity, and past experiences with voter suppression. In addition to these election-related topics, the survey sheds light on how Black voters feel about timely topics including recent Supreme Court decisions, policies affecting LGBT individuals, and policies aimed at improving health for Black people in the United States.

The survey sample is comprised of 1,000 Black adults who identify as Black or African American (including those who identify as Hispanic and/or multi-racial) and who say they are registered to vote.

Half Of Black Voters Say They Are More Motivated to Vote This Year

Half (51%) of Black voters say they are more motivated to vote this year compared to previous elections, while 36% say they are about as motivated and 13% say they are less motivated to vote this year. The share of Black voters who say they are more motivated is similar to the share of White voters (53%) who said the same in another KFF survey fielded in September. Substantial shares of Black voters across groups say they are more motivated this year, but motivation is somewhat higher among older vs. younger Black voters (58% vs. 46%), among those who say they always vote in midterms vs. those who vote less often (65% vs. 42%), and among those who approve of Biden’s job performance vs. those who disapprove (58% vs. 37%). About half of both Black men voters and Black women voters say they are more motivated to vote this year, as do similar shares of those who identify as or lean Democrat and those who identify as or lean Republican. A much smaller share (27%) of those who say they are independent and don’t lean toward either party say they are more motivated to vote this year.

Black voters who are more motivated this year are largely driven by a desire to vote for Democrats or keep Republicans out of office or a general desire for change. Among the 51% of Black voters who say they are more motivated to vote this year compared to previous elections, 28% cite party-related reasons, such as a desire to elect Democrats or to keep Republicans and Trump supporters out of office, and 27% cite a desire for change or dissatisfaction with the status quo. About one in five cite specific issues (21%) or reasons related to democracy, voting rights, and the importance of voting (18%) for their greater motivation. Among the specific issues mentioned, 6% cite abortion rights and 5% cite economic issues as the source of their motivation.

Those who are less motivated largely say that they don’t think their vote will make a difference (22%), that they dislike the candidates (16%), or that they feel all politicians are dishonest (10%).

Majorities of Black voters say they consider candidate’s issue positions, character and experience, and political party when deciding how to vote, but fewer say a candidate’s race is a major factor. Large majorities of Black voters say that a candidate’s position on issues (86%) and character and experience (79%) are major factors in making their decision about how to vote for Congress this year, and a smaller majority (55%) say the same about the candidate’s political party. A much smaller share (21%) say a candidate’s race is a major factor in their decision.

Despite reporting they will consider many things beyond the candidate’s party, three-quarters (77%) of Black voters say that if the election were held at the time of the survey, they would be most likely to vote for the Democratic candidate for Congress in their district, while 11% say they would be more likely to vote for a Republican and another 11% for a candidate from another party.

This article originally appeared at KFF.org, October 18th, 2022.

Please support and visit The Brooks Blackboard's website, our INTEL page, OPEN MIND page, and LIKE and FOLLOW our Facebook page.

Follow me on Twitter at @_CharlesBrooks   

Right-Wing Justices Appear Ready to Eviscerate Affirmative Action in College Admissions

 "Killing affirmative action will have a devastating impact on Black, Hispanic, and Native students," wrote one journalist, "and such a ruling would be totally unjustified by the text or history of the Constitution."

KENNY STANCIL

October 31, 2022

During the course of roughly five hours of oral argument on Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court's far-right supermajority seemed open to rolling back decades of precedent allowing public and private colleges and universities to make race-conscious admissions decisions.

Referring to Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard and Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina—cases he contends were "manufactured to abolish affirmative action in higher education"—Slate's Mark Joseph Stern argued that "all six conservative justices are poised to declare that colleges' consideration of race violates the Constitution's equal protection clause and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which applies equal protection standards to private institutions."

"Because that argument was cynically engineered by white conservatives aggrieved by 'reverse racism'—and is so clearly at odds with an original understanding of the 14th Amendment—progressives have lined up to defend Harvard and UNC," Stern noted, citing "the amicus briefs filed in support of the universities by seemingly every liberal group under the sun."

Late last week, ReNika Moore, director of ACLU's Racial Justice program, said in a statement: "Race-conscious admissions practices help create a diverse student body that benefits the educational experiences of all students. Time and again, lower courts and the Supreme Court have recognized universities' ability to consider race in the admissions process in order to help foster this."

Civil rights attorney Sherrilyn Ifill, former president of the NAACP's Legal Defense Fund, also alluded to the high court's previous decisions upholding race-conscious college admissions, adding that new challenges keep cropping up because "opponents to affirmative action know they have an open door to continue to try and overturn it."

Although the court is not scheduled to hand down an opinion in the pair of cases until next summer, its right-wing justices on Monday questioned the legitimacy of race-conscious admissions, expressing doubt that schools would ever concede an "endpoint" in their consideration of race to build more diverse student bodies.

"The question," according to The Washington Post, "is how broad such a decision by the court's conservative majority might be, and what it would mean for other institutions of higher education."

"Overturning the court's precedents that race can be one factor of many in making admission decisions would have 'profound consequences' for 'the nation that we are and the nation that we aspire to be,' Solicitor General Elizabeth B. Prelogar told the justices during arguments in the Harvard case," the Post reported.

"But the court's conservatives used the two cases to revisit decades of Supreme Court decisions that tolerated a limited use of racial classifications," noted the newspaper. "They seemed unsatisfied with assertions from lawyers representing the schools that the end was near for the use of race-conscious policies. Under repeated questioning, the lawyers conceded they could not provide a date-specific answer to the question: 'When will it end?'"

Notably, as The New York Times pointed out Sunday, both sides in the debate claim to be upholding the legacy of Brown v. Board of Education, the unanimous 1954 ruling that found racial segregation in public education to be unconstitutional. While proponents of affirmative action argue that assembling diverse student bodies is consistent with the civil rights landmark, opponents insist that the decision requires "colorblind" policies.

For instance, Edward Blum, the founder of Students for Fair Admissions, the anti-affirmative action group behind both cases, told NPR on Monday that "the Constitution and our civil rights laws forbid the consideration of race in higher education."

As Vanity Fair's Eric Lutz wrote Monday: "That is not what previous courts have ruled. Since Regents, Grutter, and the 2016 Fisher v. University of Texas decision, the high court has generally upheld universities' race-conscious admissions policies. But this court, with its 6-3 conservative supermajority, has shown little reverence for long-standing precedent—it did away with 50 years of settled law in overturning Roe over the summer—and seems poised to obliterate this one, too."

Justice Clarence Thomas—a beneficiary of affirmative action who has long opposed the policy on the grounds that it is discriminatory—on Monday questioned the meaning and "educational benefits of diversity."

In response to Thomas' inquiry about the original meaning of the 14th Amendment, "the lawyer who wants to abolish affirmative action said that the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which was the foundation for the amendment, was race-neutral," tweeted journalist Cristian Farias.

Farias shared a recent interview he conducted with Eric Foner, in which the esteemed historian of Reconstruction denounced originalism as "intellectually indefensible."

"Colorblindness is not the only original meaning of the 14th Amendment," said Foner. "It was the original meaning in the eyes of some people, but not a lot of others."

In his Monday essay, Stern argued that "killing affirmative action will have a devastating impact on Black, Hispanic, and Native students and such a ruling would be totally unjustified by the text or history of the Constitution."

"But it doesn't follow that the schools in this case use race-conscious admissions for exclusively noble purposes," he wrote, adding:

Instead, elite institutions often use these programs as a Band-Aid to cover deeper structural barriers to genuine diversity among their student bodies—because addressing those problems would require sacrifices that administrators aren't willing to make. A Supreme Court decision outlawing affirmative action will become a scapegoat for universities that see a plunge in enrollment among underrepresented minorities. Progressives should not let them get away with it.

Although the latest legal assault on affirmative action is built on bad history and worse motivations, it did have the benefit of revealing unseemly details about the elite admissions process. The litigation gave the public an unprecedented glimpse into Harvard's standards, which reflect horribly on the school. As Aaron Mak explained in Slate after the trial, Harvard has a preference for four specific groups of applicants known as ALDC: athletes, legacies, those on the dean's list (frequently because of family donations), and the children of faculty. ALDCs constitute about 5% of applicants but 30% of the admitted class. Their admissions rate sits at about 45% compared to the normal rate of less than 5%.

In theory, ALDC preferences are colorblind. In practice, they operate as a massive affirmative action program for white applicants. Over a recent six-year period, 2,200 out of 4,993 admitted white students were ALDC—a figure significantly higher than the overall number of admitted students who are Black (1,392) and Hispanic (1,283). White ALDC students are not overrepresented because they happen to be more qualified; to the contrary, about three-fourths of them would have been rejected without the ALDC boost.

"Elite universities' first response" to the high court's expected elimination of race-conscious admissions in higher education, Stern tweeted, "should be abolishing their affirmative action programs for ultra-privileged white kids."

National Education Association president Becky Pringle said Monday in a statement that "recent events demonstrate that racism and discrimination are not artifacts of American history but persist in every aspect of our society, including our schools, colleges, and universities."

"Affirmative action and programs like it safeguard a stronger future by expanding higher education opportunities to those who have been historically denied a fair shot," said Pringle. "When we ensure the many talents and experiences of students of color aren't overlooked in admissions processes that tend to be biased against them, we create schools, a country, and a future that includes us all. We urge the court to uphold affirmative action in higher education admissions decisions."

Additional Reading:

Supreme Court Poised to Shred What's Left of Voting Rights Act, Plaintiffs Warn,

In 'Dangerous Decision,' Supreme Court Guts Protection of Miranda Rights,