Voter Caging
Citizens serving in active military service, minorities, students, and the homeless have at least one thing in common when it comes to state and federal elections; each group is the target of one of the most deceptive and controversial voter suppression tactics: "voter caging." Resembling the current photo identification dispute, proponents of voter caging have unconvincingly maintained that this practice aids in the prevention of voter fraud. There exists, however, little to no evidence of instances of individual voter fraud. These "phantoms of voter fraud" have been used as the premise to garner support for voter caging and photo identification requirements at the polls. As a result, these efforts have placed partisan politics over voting rights.
Specifically, voter caging involves a campaign, organization, or private party that sends mail marked "return to sender" or "do not forward." The mail returned as undeliverable is then used to compile caging lists. These lists form the basis for challenging votes cast by citizens who do not live at the address at which they are registered to vote. This politically motivated scheme has been artfully employed in an attempt to intimidate and challenge the eligibility of legally-registered voters, predominantly from low-income and minority communities.
Help put an end to caging by supporting the Caging Prohibition Act today!
Caging’s Origins
Minority-biased voter challenge laws originated shortly after the passage of the Fifteenth Amendment in 1869, which prohibited states from denying the right to vote on the basis of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Voter caging, in particular, did not emerge on the election scene until 1958 when an initial voter caging operation was conducted in Arizona. Shortly thereafter, voter caging campaigns surfaced during the development of the Republican "Southern Strategy," in which the party attempted to garner the support of white voters through metaphoric appeals to "states rights." In 1964, the Republican National Committee (RNC) and state Republican parties conducted a nationwide voter caging campaign named "Operation Eagle Eye."
Caging changed from a national strategy to one largely isolated in the states during the 1980s. The Democratic National Committee (DNC) filed suit against the RNC in the New Jersey District Court accusing them of violating the constitutional right of African-American and Hispanic voters through their caging campaign in 1981. In a settlement, the RNC entered into a consent decree stating they would:
"Refrain from undertaking any ballot security activities in polling places or election districts where the racial or ethnic composition of such districts is a factor in the decision to conduct, or the actual conduct of, such activities there and where a purpose or significant effect of such activities is to deter qualified voters from voting; and the conduct of such activities disproportionately in or directed toward districts that have a substantial proportion of racial or ethnic populations shall be considered relevant evidence of the existence of such a factor and purpose."
This consent decree was modified in 1986 after another attempted caging campaign in Louisiana. The modified decree required the RNC to obtain approval from the District Court before embarking on any "ballot security program" (the term the RNC used for their caging efforts), and required them to give the DNC 20 days notice before launching any future "ballot security program." Due to the lax enforcement of these decrees, and the fact that they were only applicable to the national Republican Party, voter caging continued into the early 1990s and re-emerged as a nationwide political strategy in 2004.
Before and since 1958, many of the same discriminatory motives that precipitated the passage of the Fifteenth Amendment remain apparent today.
Click here for an extensive historical and judicial analysis of "voter caging"
2004 Elections
Approximately 77,000 additional voters had their eligibility challenged between 2004 and last year. Indeed, voter caging has solidified itself as a key weapon within the voter suppression arsenal. Florida, one of the nine states that was the target of voter caging efforts, made headlines again earlier this year during Congress’s investigation regarding the termination of several U.S. Attorneys. Allegations resurfaced that Tim Griffin, who served as a RNC opposition researcher in 2004 and as an interim U.S. Attorney in Arkansas at the time of the investigation, had been involved in an effort to cage voters in Jacksonville.
Prohibiting Caging
In an effort to prevent voter caging and blanket challenges to voter eligibility, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, along with twelve co-sponsors, introduced the Caging Prohibition Act in November of 2007. It comprises two crucial provisions:
- 1. Prohibit challenges to a citizen’s right to vote or register to vote based on voter caging practices; and
- 2. Mandate that those who dispute a voter’s eligibility provide in writing, under penalty of perjury, the specific grounds for the alleged disentitlement.
Read the press release from Senator Whitehouse
Passage of this bill would be a significant step in the struggle against voter suppression and intimidation. Consequently, if the bill were law today, the students of Georgia Southern University in Statesboro, Georgia would not have had to endure blanket challenges to their eligibility to vote.
Click here to learn more about GSU and Statesboro
In striving towards the elimination of partisan politics that negatively impact an individual’s right to vote, the National Campaign for Fair Elections together with many of our partners fully endorses the Caging Prohibition Act.