In boardrooms and executive offices across the country, CEOs have begun to acknowledge an essential ingredient to success, beyond revenue projections and management strategy. That ingredient is the integrity of our democracy itself.
A surge of state laws cutting back on voting access has drawn unprecedented public opposition from hundreds of companies and executives. Many have passionately spoken out for the freedom to vote, even as they’ve faced criticism from some of their allies.
In recent weeks, I’ve spoken with many of these leaders. It has been a striking assemblage of boldface business names. They sense something is at stake beyond the usual push and pull of politics. They know America’s economic strength depends on having a working democracy, producing a government that has earned public trust. They know a commitment to the hard work of true equality is critical to workforce trust and customer loyalty. They also look around the world and note that countries where democracy is under attack also are countries where corruption reigns and power flows to would-be autocrats.
The business community’s willingness to stand up for all voters is good news for the country. At the same time, the 389 legislative proposals to make it harder to vote, introduced in 47 states, raise complex issues, and executives report that the highly partisan dialogue surrounding these bills adds even more confusion.
Without the time and capacity to analyze each provision of this torrent of voting bills, how can executives be confident about which of these new laws should raise alarms, and which should be encouraged? Many of them have asked, What does good election reform legislation look like, and how will we know when we see it?
What’s at stake
Here are some broad principles I think can help illuminate what’s at stake.
One bedrock value is equal access to our democracy. Many laws that might appear “neutral” or “evenhanded” on their face can have a sharply disparate impact. In 2020, for example, many Black and brown voters who tend to live in poorer and more densely populated areas more often chose early or absentee voting. So erecting barriers to early or absentee voting highly correlates to race. States should not impose undue burdens on certain types of voters by enacting provisions targeted at geographic areas or methods of voting that can have disproportionately negative impacts on some voters more than others.
Another key value is participation by all eligible voters. That goal favors automatic and same-day voter registration—and in our mobile modern society, it also favors early voting and vote by mail options, as well as adequate polling places.
Election security is also a crucial value. This includes reasonable systems of voter verification that provide confidence in elections. A range of fair and well-tested mechanisms for such verification exist and can be readily extended to new methods of voting. We should also ensure that systems guard against substantiated instances of voter fraud and other threats, including cyberattacks from foreign adversaries.
Finally, elections are best when they are run with transparency and nonpartisanship. This requires fair, objective, and open methods of counting ballots and resolving disputes over their counting. Neither partisanship nor political pressure has a place in the straightforward factual determination of which ballots were cast for whom, and the electoral machinery of a state should reflect that core principle.
Violating widely shared values
Full and fair access that rejects discriminatory effects. Maximum participation by eligible voters. Safe, secure, and verifiable elections. A commitment to nonpartisan administration. These are not Democratic or Republican ideas. They are commonsense criteria for making sure eligible Americans can freely access the polls and be confident that the ballots they cast will be counted. When laws fail this test, it is not “partisan”—or “taking sides”—to point out when these values are being violated.
After a momentous election year in which the pandemic required states all over the nation to adopt new voting strategies such as expanded mail-in and early voting, states are predictably considering or adopting legislation to address the implications of these changes.
Some of this legislation has drawn such strong objections precisely because it violates these widely shared principles. Some provisions would make it harder for eligible voters to cast their ballots, without meaningfully enhancing the security and integrity of the electoral process. Other provisions would have a disparate impact on minority voters or make election administration and certification appear more partisan.
Georgia’s new law, for example, now makes it a misdemeanor for anyone to provide water or snacks to those waiting to vote. Though seemingly neutral on its face, this disproportionately affects Black and brown voters, who often find themselves waiting on extremely long lines to cast a ballot because of polling place closures in their neighborhoods—a hurdle far fewer white voters face. The same legislation, moreover, shifts considerable election authority from the Secretary of State and county election officials to a state election board controlled by the legislature—a move that almost surely will make election administration more susceptible to the influence of politics. Florida just joined Georgia by enacting provisions that seem to target voters of color with uncanny accuracy. Texas and other states are moving to enact similar restrictions.
Again, the principles suggested here are not partisan; they can and should serve as a widely shared metric for all election reform, cutting across party lines. Looking across the national map, one can find examples of more restrictive voting procedures in “blue states” that require reform and more expansive ones in “red states” that can serve as models for reform. For example, “blue” Connecticut offers no in-person early voting, and mail-in voting is available only to those who meet a narrow set of criteria. Only last year did Delaware, New York, and Massachusetts allow both early voting and “no-excuse” vote by mail. By contrast, “red” Utah offers universal vote by mail coupled with unburdensome and highly reliable ballot tracking using a computer bar code for verification, and Kentucky enacted a bipartisan election reform law that expands voter access in a number of ways. But careful attention should be paid when states move backward on voter access, particularly if the new restrictions would impact certain groups of voters differently from others.
Here is a resource from my organization, the Brennan Center, that can give executives, and all citizens, a detailed look at current efforts to change state voting laws and the provisions that both expand and restrict voting access. I also recommend the business task force formed by Leadership Now as a resource that can help keep executives up to date.
Business leaders have already made a difference by speaking out. Now they should address, with even greater clarity, the measures being pushed, before they are passed into law. And they should articulate, with confidence, policies that exemplify these core principles.
The voting rights of millions of Americans—and the integrity of American democracy—depend on it.
Michael Waldman is president of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law. He is the author of The Fight to Vote.
