Chapter 36 — Exercises

These exercises ask you to do what the chapter argues you should be able to do as a citizen: read studies, look at primary sources, steel-man positions you do not hold, and describe the voting-rights system in your own jurisdiction with specifics rather than impressions. The answers to most of these are not in this textbook. The exercises are open-ended on purpose; the goal is the work, not the result.

Exercise 1: Map your state's current voting rules

Working from your state secretary of state's official website (typically sos.[state].gov or the state's "elections" portal), produce a one-page summary of your state's current voting rules. Cover at minimum:

  • Registration: Is online registration available? Automatic registration through the DMV? Same-day registration on Election Day or during early voting? What is the registration deadline (e.g., 30 days before, 15 days before, Election Day)?
  • Identification: What ID is required at the polls? Photo ID, non-photo ID, signed affidavit, or no ID? If a voter lacks ID, what are the alternatives (provisional ballot, signature affidavit)?
  • Early voting: How many days of in-person early voting are offered? At what hours? Weekends?
  • Mail/absentee voting: Is no-excuse absentee voting available, or do voters need to provide a reason? How does a voter request a mail ballot? How is the ballot returned (mail, drop box, in person)? When is it counted?
  • Voter roll maintenance: What is the state's policy for removing voters from the rolls (typically: death, change of address, or — in some states — failure to vote and respond to a notice)?

Compare your state to one neighboring state and one geographically distant state. What are the largest differences? Are the differences clearly partisan, or do they reflect different traditions of election administration?

Exercise 2: Identify a Section 2 case in your jurisdiction

Use the Brennan Center's "Voting Rights Litigation Tracker" (or DOJ's voting-rights case archive, or the Election Law Blog's case index) to identify a recent Voting Rights Act Section 2 case in your state, in your federal circuit, or in a state with similar demographics to yours. Read the most recent court opinion (district court or court of appeals).

Write a 500-word summary that addresses:

  • The challenged practice. What rule, map, or procedure was being challenged? Who adopted it, and when?
  • The plaintiffs' theory. What did the plaintiffs argue under Section 2? Did they invoke the Gingles framework (vote dilution) or the Brnovich guideposts (vote denial)?
  • The court's ruling. Did the plaintiffs win or lose? On what grounds?
  • Your assessment. Set aside whether you agree with the outcome. Was the court's reasoning straightforward application of existing doctrine, or did the case turn on a contested doctrinal question? If the latter, what was the question, and what is the strongest argument on each side?

Exercise 3: Analyze a voter-ID empirical study

Pick one peer-reviewed empirical study on voter-ID effects (Hajnal, Lajevardi, and Nielson 2017; Hopkins, Hanmer, and Wolfinger 2017; Highton 2017; or a more recent study). Read the study, including the methods section.

Answer these questions in writing:

  • What is the unit of analysis? Voters? Counties? States? Years?
  • What is the comparison? Pre/post adoption? Across-state cross-section? Difference-in-differences?
  • What is the estimated effect, and on whom? Aggregate turnout? Particular demographic subgroups? Particular partisan groups?
  • What are the main robustness concerns the authors discuss? What alternative explanations have they tried to rule out?
  • What are the largest critiques in the literature? Find at least one published response or replication study.
  • Bottom line: Given the study and the critiques, what would you say the study has and has not shown? Be careful to distinguish "the data show X" from "I think the policy implication is Y."

Exercise 4: Steel-man both sides of voter ID

Without referring to the chapter, write 400 words steel-manning the case for photo ID requirements at the polls, citing reasons a thoughtful, informed advocate would give. Then write 400 words steel-manning the case against photo ID requirements, citing reasons a thoughtful, informed advocate would give. Both passages must be written in the voice of someone who actually believes the position. Quote at least one academic or policy source for each side.

Then write a 200-word reflection: which arguments did you find harder to write? Which arguments did you find more persuasive after writing them out? Are there any common-ground positions (free state-issued ID, signature affidavit alternatives, easy provisional-ballot rules) that both sides could endorse?

Exercise 5: Reconstruct the Shelby County v. Holder doctrinal logic

Without using a summary, read the majority opinion and the dissent in Shelby County v. Holder (570 U.S. 529 (2013)). The full opinion is publicly available on the Supreme Court website and on Cornell Law's Legal Information Institute.

Answer:

  • What did the Court decide? Be specific: what statutory provision did the Court strike down, on what constitutional ground?
  • What did the Court NOT decide? The majority is explicit that it is not striking down Section 5. Why does that distinction matter?
  • What was the dissent's strongest argument? State it in the dissent's own terms.
  • What is the strongest argument the majority gave that the dissent had to answer? State it in the majority's own terms.
  • Has Congress responded? What has happened with the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act since 2013?

Exercise 6: Felony disenfranchisement in your state

Determine the current rule in your state. Categories to identify: people in prison, people on parole, people on probation, people who have completed all sentences including financial obligations, people in particular categories (e.g., murder, sex offenses, election-related offenses).

For your state, estimate (using Sentencing Project or state Department of Corrections data):

  • How many people are disenfranchised in total?
  • What share are currently incarcerated, on parole, on probation, or have completed sentences?
  • What is the racial breakdown of disenfranchisement in your state, and how does it compare to your state's overall demographics?

Then write 300 words on whether you think your state's rule is appropriate. Steel-man the opposing view in your last paragraph.

Exercise 7: The 2020 court cases

Pick three cases from the 60+ post-2020 election challenges. Suggested starting points: Donald J. Trump for President v. Boockvar (E.D. Pa.), Wood v. Raffensperger (11th Cir.), and Texas v. Pennsylvania (Supreme Court).

For each, identify:

  • Who brought the case, and what did they allege?
  • Did the case proceed to a ruling on the merits, or was it dismissed on procedural grounds (standing, laches, jurisdiction)?
  • If on the merits, what evidence was presented, and what did the court find?
  • Who appointed the judge?

Then write a 300-word summary of what you learned from looking at the cases directly. The chapter argues that the 2020 election was not stolen; the courts examined the claims and found them insufficient. Does the primary-source evidence support that summary, in your judgment?

Exercise 8: Democracy Audit — your district

This is the running Democracy Audit project. For your congressional district:

  • Voter registration rate. What share of voting-eligible adults in your district are registered? How does this compare to your state and to the national average? Use Census ACS data and your state's voter file summary.
  • Turnout. What was turnout in your district in the 2024 general election? In 2022 (midterm)? In 2020? What was turnout in the 2024 primary? Plot the four numbers.
  • Demographic gaps. Are there visible demographic gaps in turnout in your district (by age, race, education, or geography within the district)? What are the data sources, and what are the limits?
  • Recent changes. Has your state changed any voting rules since 2020 (registration, ID, mail voting, drop boxes, polling-place hours)? List the changes and cite the bills.
  • Local news. Find one local-news story from 2024 about voting in your district. What does it report?

Submit as a 1,000-word memo with a "what I learned about my district" conclusion paragraph.

Exercise 9: Comparative system

Pick one peer democracy (Canada, Australia, the UK, France, Germany, India, Brazil) and write a 500-word comparison of its election administration to the United States'. Cover: who runs the elections (national vs. subnational); how voters register (automatic vs. opt-in); how voters identify themselves at the polls; how votes are counted; what the dispute-resolution process looks like; and what the typical turnout rate is. Conclude with one feature you think the U.S. could plausibly borrow and one feature you think would not fit U.S. constitutional structure. Distinguish what you advocate from what you simply describe.

Exercise 10: Trace one VRA reauthorization

The Voting Rights Act has been reauthorized four times since its 1965 enactment: 1970, 1975, 1982, and 2006. Pick one of these reauthorizations and write 600 words on what changed and why. The 1982 reauthorization is particularly consequential because it shifted Section 2 from an "intent" test to a "results" test; the 2006 reauthorization is consequential because it carried forward the coverage formula that Shelby County would strike down seven years later.

For your chosen reauthorization, address:

  • The legislative debate. What were the principal disagreements in Congress? Which members of which parties supported and opposed the reauthorization?
  • The amendments. What did the reauthorization actually change in the statute? What did it leave alone?
  • The Supreme Court context. What recent VRA cases had set the stage for the reauthorization? (For 1982: City of Mobile v. Bolden. For 2006: Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. One v. Holder, then pending.)
  • The downstream consequences. What did the reauthorization make possible — or, in retrospect, what did it fail to address?

Use primary-source legislative history (the Senate Judiciary Committee report is the standard starting point) where possible.

Exercise 11: Two op-eds, one issue

Pick a current voting-rights controversy in your state — a recent state-level voting-law change, a Section 2 lawsuit, a felony-disenfranchisement reform proposal, or something else specifically active right now. Find two op-eds, one written from the political left and one from the political right, both published in mainstream outlets within the last year, that take opposite positions on the controversy.

Read both carefully. Then write 700 words analyzing them.

  • What is each op-ed's strongest empirical claim? Identify one or two specific factual assertions in each piece. Are the assertions supported by sources you can verify?
  • What is each op-ed's strongest normative argument? Set aside the empirical claims. What is the op-ed asking the reader to value, and why?
  • Where do the two pieces talk past each other? Are they making competing claims about the same underlying facts, or are they arguing about different things entirely?
  • What would a reader who has not made up her mind take from each piece? Is the writing trying to inform such a reader or to mobilize a reader who already agrees?
  • Which op-ed is more persuasive on the merits, in your view? Be careful: this is not asking which side you agree with politically. It is asking which piece, judged as an act of public-affairs writing, is doing the better job of presenting evidence, considering counter-arguments, and persuading rather than merely energizing.

Exercise 12: A reasonable-person test

Identify three claims about voting rights that you believe are well-supported by evidence but that you suspect a politically reasonable person on the other side might dispute. For each claim:

  • State the claim precisely. Distinguish empirical from normative components.
  • State the strongest version of the disputing argument. Without straw-manning. Cite a specific source from the disputing perspective if you can.
  • Assess what the data shows. Is the disputing argument actually rebutted by the evidence, or is it possible that you have been overconfident? If you have been overconfident, what does an honest restatement of the claim look like?

Submit as a 600-word reflection. The exercise is not asking you to abandon your views; it is asking you to distinguish the views you can defend with evidence from the views you hold because they are part of your political identity.