DENVER – As the presidential race tightens, voter turnout could play a decisive role, and a new study warns that some Americans may have a harder time casting ballots than others.

Spencer Overton, president of the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, says data from the last presidential election points to serious shortcomings in how polling is managed in communities of color.

"African-Americans, on average, waited up to twice as long as whites to vote,” he points out. “Long lines reduce turnout and also cost time and money."

Overton adds in some black communities, people waited in line up to seven hours to vote in 2012.

Nationwide, the Joint Center's study found white voters waited an average of 12 minutes to vote, compared with 19 minutes for Latinos and 23 minutes for African-Americans.

Overton maintains long lines deterred at least 730,000 Americans from voting, and notes that just over 500 votes were enough to determine the outcome of the 2000 presidential election.

Lack of poll workers, voting machines and cuts to the number of early voting days are largely responsible for the delays, Overton says.

He points to a study from the Pew Center on the States that found one in eight voter registration records are invalid or have serious errors, making it hard to accurately predict the resources needed to match voter turnout, and then find voter records when they finally get to the front of the line.

"Amusement parks and other public venues manage wait times and lines with a science called 'queueing theory,' where they collect data and they make sure adequate resources are in place,” he states. “This should be applied to voting."

Overton says to reduce wait times, states, counties and cities should also adopt and enforce minimum wait-time standards, provide adequate funding for voting machines and workers, expand early-voting days and add the option of voting by mail.





get more stories like this via email

New York City residents approved three of Mayor Eric Adams' four charter reforms in last week's election. But how many realized what they were voting for?

Critics of the reform proposals say the language on the ballots may seem harmless, but each proposition expands the power of the mayor or a city agency. For instance, Proposition 3 requires more public notice on public safety legislation - but it also lets agencies hold hearings, bypassing the City Council.

Based on voters' feedback, Perla Silva, senior civic engagement coordinator for Make the Road New York, said the wording of each initiative made them hard to interpret.

"[Proposition] 3 to 6 was very confusing," she said. "They just did not really understand what that meant. The wording around it, the language was just not clear to them. It just sounded like it was supporting and it was going to be helping City Council."

She said voters were equally confused by Proposition 2, which many assumed would lead to cleaner parks and offer more parks for kids. Instead, it increases the policing of homeless people and street vendors.

A Data for Progress survey before the election also showed 65-percent of likely voters hadn't heard about these charter reforms.

Given the scandals surrounding the Adams administration, not all New Yorkers are convinced the mayor should have more power. The Data for Progress survey found 47% of voters worry Adams would put his own needs before theirs.

Adams is staying in the 2025 mayor's race, but faces many challengers for the Democratic nomination. Silva said she isn't surprised.

"Eric Adams increasing his power and his policing technique to 'securing' New York City," she said, "but we know that it's really harming the working class."

She said the propositions could further empower the New York City Police Department.

The New York Civil Liberties Union found that police stops have risen since Adams became mayor - although almost 70% of people stopped have been innocent, and research has shown that violent crimes fell when police stops did.

Some New York House lawmakers supported a bill harmful to nonprofits. H.R. 9495 faced staunch opposition since it would have given the Treasury Secretary unilateral power to revoke tax exemptions for nonprofits considered "terrorist supporting organizations." The bill stems from a disinformation campaign saying Democrats support terrorists and would have jeopardized nonprofits providing aid to Palestinians in Gaza.

Beth Miller, political director with Jewish Voice for Peace Action, said this foreshadows Donald Trump's second term.

"It's very clear that the far-right MAGA Republicans are planning to take every step they can to dismantle our fundamental freedoms including our right to free speech, our right to protest, and attacking the nonprofit civil-society sector and social justice movements and progressive movements," she said.

This isn't the first time a bill like this was voted on in the House. H.R. 6408 passed the chamber earlier this year with staunch bipartisan support. But, it failed in the Senate. With H.R. 9495, 52 Democrats joined all Republicans in the chamber to vote in favor of it. Miller said with a GOP trifecta in Washington next year, lawmakers must watch out for double-edged legislation that could have harmless language and destructive consequences.

One reason so many Democrats support the bill is the other provision of it which gives tax breaks to Americans wrongfully imprisoned abroad or held hostage by terror groups. Miller noted that it's a perfectly sensible thing to pass on its own.

"However, if Republicans actually wanted to push that through, they could have pushed that through separately as a standalone bill and gotten total bipartisan support for it," she continued. "However, they tried to attach it to this other bill because what they really wanted to get through was the piece of this legislation that was all about giving the Trump executive branch more authority."

She added bills like this will be common and noted that Democrats are often too willing to sell out the Palestinian rights movement for the sake of bipartisanship.

Maryland voters swung toward Donald Trump for president by nearly seven points compared to 2020, making the margins in down-ballot races a little too close for comfort for some Democrats.

The final results are still unofficial but they indicate Republicans had their best showing since 2014 in Maryland's rural 6th Congressional District. It still was not enough, however, as Democrat April McClain Delaney defeated Republican Neil Parrott, a former member of the Maryland House of Delegates.

James Gimpel, professor of government and politics at the University of Maryland-College Park, said Trump's stronger performance in blue states contributed to the close 6th District results.

"With Trump stimulating the turnout of the more rural counties, that's going to make that seat more competitive and more Republican," Gimpel explained. "Trump's performance, I think, has boosted the Republican prospects in some of these competitive races all around the country, Maryland included."

McClain Delaney won by nearly five points but the election was the closest win for a Democrat in the district since the "Republican wave" of 2014. The 6th District spans the Maryland panhandle and part of Montgomery County.

The Maryland U.S. Senate race also remained close, but Prince Georges County Executive Angela Alsobrooks, a Democrat, defeated former Republican Gov. Larry Hogan. Alsobrooks won by nearly 10 points. Gimpel pointed out Hogan's criticisms of Trump during his terms as governor may have alienated some supporters.

"He had sort of won the enmity of Donald Trump and presumably, many of Donald Trump's supporters," Gimpel observed. "You have to wonder if maybe he would have done better if he would have gone a little easier on Trump the last four or six years or so."

Hogan did win the governorship in 2018 by a wide margin as a Trump critic. That year, Democrats swept gubernatorial and U.S. House races across the country.


get more stories like this via email