April, 04 2012, 04:04pm EDT

For Immediate Release
Contact:
Laura Pereyra
Phone: 202.741.6258
Email: lpereyra@americanprogress.org
Release: New CAP Report Shows Latest Voter Suppression Efforts will Disenfranchise Millions
How Conservatives Are Conspiring to Disenfranchise Millions of Americans
WASHINGTON
In today's CAP Action press call with Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC), President and CEO of CAP Action Tom Perriello, and Director of Campus Progress Anne Johnson, the Center for American Progress released a report analyzing the latest voter suppression efforts to disenfranchise Americans. Conservative legislators are introducing and passing legislation that creates new barriers for those registering to vote that shortens the early voting period and imposes new requirements for already-registered voters. But voter fraud is extremely rare and the real result is that many potential voters will be disenfranchised--among them groups like college students, low-income voters, seniors, and minorities.
"This is not a response to systematic fraud, despite the fact that they've made an effort to unveil fraud. This is a response to one thing and one thing only, which is that they don't want people to vote and reforms that Progressives put in place were working" said Tom Perriello in a CAP Action press call today. He went on to say that, "what scared conservatives was that Americans were voting and for some reason they don't want that. And you have to ask the question, why don't they want Americans to vote? Why don't they want seniors and working class families to vote? All of those things make it more difficult to institute a set of economic policies that protect the one-percent instead of providing the American Dream to the American middle class and working class. So, it is important to understand why groups like ALEC...support efforts to systematically disenfranchise."
Efforts to enact voter restriction laws have not been seen on this scale since the era of Jim Crow laws in the South that aimed to disenfranchise blacks after Reconstruction. And right now the effort to rapidly spread these proposals can be seen in states as different as Texas and Wisconsin, led by pro-1 Percent, pro-conservative groups like the American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC. In 2011 more than 30 state legislatures considered legislation to make it harder for citizens to vote, with more than a dozen of those states succeeding in passing these bills. The effort to enact antivoting legislation has continued unabated so far in 2012.
Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC) put it this way, "They are bringing actions against people who were out there working getting people out to the polls accusing them of fraud, and everyone knows that all it was is [they were] transporting people to vote, helping them to vote absentee...And they are unfair and as un-American as anything I have ever seen. This is the kind of thing that is going on today that we saw when things were happening in southern states to keep them from voting and intimidate them. Yes, I am very anxious about where we are today..."
What's more, is as more young and minority voters enter the voting age, conservatives have an increasing reason to strengthen voter ID laws as these voters are strongly progressive. In 2008 about 48 million millennial generation voters--born between 1978 and 2000--became old enough to vote. Two-thirds of these young voters and Hispanic voters delivered their votes to then-Sen. Barack Obama. By 2012 that will increase to 64 million, or 29 percent of all eligible voters. By 2020, 90 million will be eligible to vote, or 40 percent of all eligible voters.
Anne Johnson, Director of Campus Progress, said that "the millennial generation, as a whole, is a very engaged generation-- they volunteer in their communities, they get involved in local efforts to make their communities better places, they participate civically, they volunteer on campaigns. And the idea that people are trying to restrict the access of these young people to voting is unbelievable. These attacks, led by ALEC, other organizations, and conservative legislatures around the country, are really focused on keeping young people out of the electorate. They don't like the way young people are voting and so rather than trying to win on policy issues, they are just going to keep young people out of the electorate by making it harder for them to get registered and for them to vote."
See the following fast facts from the report:
- More than 30 state legislatures considered legislation to make it harder for citizens to vote, with more than a dozen succeeding in passing these bills with the help of pro-1 Percent, pro-conservative groups such as ALEC.
- The five worse states for voting rights are Florida, Texas, Tennessee, Wisconsin, and Kansas.
- 11 percent of American citizens do not possess a government-issued photo ID (that is over 21 million citizens).
- Three of the photo ID bills to have passed--in South Carolina, Texas, and Tennessee--expressly do not allow students to use photo IDs issued by educational institutions to vote, and Wisconsin's bill effectively excludes most student IDs as well.
- Around 3 million Americans tried to vote in the 2008 election but could not, due to voter registration problems.
- As many as 25 percent of African Americans do not possess a current and valid form of government issued ID, compared to 11 percent of all races.
Spreading Suppression: The proliferation of voter suppression laws in 2012

To click the full report, click here.
To listen to today's CAP Action press call, click here.
To contact CAP experts on the issue, please email Laura Pereyra at lpereyra@americanprogress.org or call 202.203.8689.
The Center for American Progress is a think tank dedicated to improving the lives of Americans through ideas and action. We combine bold policy ideas with a modern communications platform to help shape the national debate, expose the hollowness of conservative governing philosophy and challenge the media to cover the issues that truly matter.
LATEST NEWS
Trump’s Lax Approach to Antitrust Helps Spur Banner Year for Corporate Mergers
"Trump’s new antitrust enforcers have demonstrated a willingness to facilitate dealmaking through an uptick in early terminations and settlements," said the American Economic Liberties Project.
Dec 26, 2025
Global corporate mergers surged to near-record highs in 2025, driven in part by US President Donald Trump's lax approach to antitrust enforcement.
The Financial Times reported on Friday that global dealmaking in 2025 topped $4 trillion, including 68 mergers worth $10 billion or more, highlighted by Netflix's $72 billion bid to buy Warner Bros. Discovery and a proposed $85 billion mega-merger between railway giants Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern.
The US alone accounted for $2.3 trillion worth of mergers and acquisitions, which the Financial Times said highlighted the Trump administration's role in green-lighting corporate consolidation.
"Top dealmakers said that the Trump administration’s push to loosen regulation had encouraged companies to explore tie-ups that they might otherwise have been hesitant to pursue," the Financial Times explained.
Andrew Nussbaum, co-chair of the executive committee at law firm Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, told the Financial Times that corporate leaders "see a willingness of the regulators to engage in constructive dialogue" under the second Trump administration, which has given them "a willingness to take on regulatory risk for transactions that are strategic."
The American Economic Liberties Project has also taken note of the Trump administration's role in shepherding through big mergers, and created a Trump Merger Boom tracker earlier this year to document the massive wave of corporate consolidation.
In its analysis of the administration's lax approach to antitrust enforcement, the American Economic Liberties Project said that "Trump’s new antitrust enforcers have demonstrated a willingness to facilitate dealmaking through an uptick in early terminations and settlements."
"Despite pro-enforcement rhetoric early on from Trump’s heads of the FTC and DOJ Antitrust Division," the American Economic Liberties Project added, "it’s becoming increasingly clear that agency leadership is having trouble making their decisions in a vacuum—with a quiet tide of deals granted to companies that have been friendly to the White House."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Lina Khan ‘Scouring New York City Laws’ to Help Zohran Mamdani Drive Down Prices
Khan and members of her team are reportedly "dusting off a little-used 1960s price-gouging statute" in an effort to bolster the mayor-elect's affordability push in New York City.
Dec 26, 2025
Former Federal Trade Commission chair and antitrust trailblazer Lina Khan is reportedly poring over New York City's laws to help Democratic Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani fulfill the central promise of his campaign: making the metropolis more affordable.
According to the New York Times, Khan—in her capacity as co-chair of the mayor-elect's transition team—"has spent weeks scouring New York City’s laws to find dormant or underused mayoral authority that could allow Mr. Mamdani to take action in a hurry."
Potential actions "include specific attempts to drive down apartment rental fees and utility costs and compel businesses to be more transparent about pricing," as well as "dusting off a little-used 1960s price-gouging statute and policing new protections for food delivery workers," the Times reported, citing three unnamed people familiar with internal discussions.
As head of the FTC under former President Joe Biden, Khan took groundbreaking legal action against major corporations such as Amazon and, in the words of one antitrust advocacy group, "reinvigorated enforcement of the Robinson-Patman Act, a long-dormant law designed to prevent price discrimination by big corporations, through two separate cases against PepsiCo and Southern Glazer’s—major victories for smaller and independent businesses."
Khan, according to the Times, hopes to spur similar action in New York City. Members of her team, which includes former federal regulators, have "studied a 1969 consumer protection law meant to prohibit 'unconscionable' business tactics, to potentially target hospitals and sports stadiums where consumers typically have little choice but to pay high prices for products that are cheaper elsewhere."
Additionally, the newspaper reported, "they have looked at whether food delivery companies, which wield significant power in the city, are complying with laws that protect their drivers, and whether landlords are complying with a newly enacted law barring many real estate brokers from collecting thousands of dollars in fees."
Douglas Farrar, a spokesman for Khan, told the Times that the former FTC chair and her team have "worked closely" with the Mamdani transition "to provide key research support on ideas for hitting the ground running."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Bezos-Owned Newspaper Bashes Medicare for All in Christmas Day Editorial
The Washington Post editorial predictably ignores research showing that a single-payer system would save hundreds of billions of dollars—and tens of thousands of lives—each year.
Dec 26, 2025
An editorial published on Christmas by the Jeff Bezos-owned Washington Post inveighed against supporters of Medicare for All in the United States, pointing to the struggles of Britain's chronically underfunded National Health Service as a "cautionary tale" while ignoring research showing that a single-payer system would save the US hundreds of billions of dollars and tens of thousands of lives each year.
The editorial, headlined "Socialized medicine can’t survive the winter," laments the "religious-like devotion to the NHS" in the United Kingdom even as "hospital corridors overflow and routine procedures get canceled due to a catastrophic event commonly known as 'winter.'"
The Post editorial board, led by opinion editor Adam O'Neal, waves away expert analyses showing that the UK government is underinvesting in its healthcare system relative to other countries in Europe, resulting in the kinds of problems the Thursday editorial attributed to the supposedly inherent flaws of single-payer systems.
"This is the dark reality of single-payer and a cautionary tale for the third of Americans who mistakenly believe Medicare for All is a good idea," the editorial declared ominously.
The editorial understates Medicare for All's popularity among US voters. A recent Data for Progress survey found that even after hearing common opposing arguments, 58% of voters strongly or somewhat support improving Medicare and expanding it to cover everyone in the US.
A separate poll conducted by GQR Research found that 54% of voters nationally, and 56% in battleground districts, support Medicare for All. US Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), the co-leader of the Medicare for All Act in the House, is reportedly planning to present those findings to colleagues next month as she pushes Democrats to rally behind her legislation ahead of the critical midterm elections.
Welcome to the newest co-sponsors of my Medicare for All bill in the House!
Medicare for All is not only good policy — as premiums skyrocket for millions of Americans — it is incredibly popular. Let’s keep building momentum for universal health care and get this passed! pic.twitter.com/k5sg7hEkYR
— Rep. Pramila Jayapal (@RepJayapal) December 25, 2025
The renewed push for Medicare for All comes as the corporate-dominated healthcare status quo hits Americans with massive premium hikes stemming from congressional Republicans' refusal to extend Affordable Care Act tax credits.
Predictably, the Post's editorial board—which Bezos has instructed to write "every day in support and defense of two pillars: personal liberties and free markets"—neglected to mention the myriad horrors of the United States' for-profit system in its diatribe against Medicare for All.
The editorial also ignores research showing potentially massive benefits from a transition to Medicare for All, which would virtually eliminate private insurance while providing comprehensive coverage to everyone in the US for free at the point of service.
One study published in The Lancet estimated that a Medicare for All system would save more than 68,000 lives and over $450 billion in healthcare expenditures annually.
An analysis by Yale researchers calculated that "if the US had had a single-payer universal healthcare system in 2020"—which marked the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic—"nearly 212,000 American lives would have been saved that year" and "the country would have saved $105 billion in Covid-19 hospitalization expenses alone."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


