The foundation of our democratic system is built on the tenets of free and fair elections. However, the reality is that representation is not equitable. A thorough examination of recent electoral data reveals glaring disparities in voter participation and representation throughout the United States.
The Union of Concerned Scientists has released a comprehensive precinct-level analysis examining voter turnout and ballot rejection in the 2016, 2020, and 2024 elections across critical battleground states. This analysis shines a light on counties that have been crucial during recent presidential elections, including Allegheny and Philadelphia in Pennsylvania; Columbus, Durham, and Mecklenburg in North Carolina; Cuyahoga and Lorain in Ohio; Fulton County in Georgia; Maricopa County in Arizona; Milwaukee County in Wisconsin; and Wayne County in Michigan.
This data provides a revealing landscape about who participated in the elections and whose ballots were more likely to be accepted, thereby illuminating whose interests were ultimately represented.
Key Findings
In battleground counties, voter turnout is marked by extreme inequality, which could significantly influence race outcomes in tightly contested presidential elections. For instance, in 2020, former President Biden won the electoral vote largely due to fewer than 45,000 votes in pivotal states like Arizona, Georgia, and Wisconsin. Similarly, President Trump’s victory in 2016 came down to fewer than 80,000 votes from key states including Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.
Moreover, these electoral inequalities are compounded over time. Precincts with lower turnout, which often consist of a majority of people of color, face disproportionately high rates of ballot rejection. This translates to tens of thousands of eligible voters not participating in elections over the years and many ballots going uncounted.
Racial Turnout Gap
The decentralized and localized nature of election administration in the United States means that voters encounter vastly different voting experiences, depending on their state or county. Research indicates that various electoral regulations—such as redistricting, voter access policies, and voter file maintenance—adversely impact traditionally marginalized groups. Additionally, studies show disparities in election administration quality, with low-income and majority-people-of-color communities often facing inferior polling conditions compared to their predominantly White counterparts.
The racial turnout gap—a significant metric for assessing electoral fairness—reveals serious inequalities. Our analysis demonstrates that, in each election year studied, majority-White precincts consistently had higher voter turnout. Disturbingly, while turnout in majority-White precincts grew from 2016 to 2024, turnout in majority-Black precincts dropped from 64% in 2016 to 50% in 2024. Similarly, the turnout average in majority-Hispanic precincts fell slightly from 55% to 53% during the same timeframe, highlighting the persistent racial disparity.
Cumulative Voting Inequalities
While analyzing turnout is crucial, it alone doesn’t paint the full picture of voting disparities. Annually, hundreds of thousands of ballots are rejected for various reasons—including late arrivals, missing identification, or signature mismatches. In the 2020 elections, for example, 86,537 mail ballots were rejected among the seven states evaluated in our report. The data supports previously established findings that younger, less experienced voters, as well as voters of color, face higher rates of ballot rejection. Our count shows that majority-Black and majority-Hispanic precincts consistently experience elevated ballot rejection rates compared to majority-White precincts, and these disparities continue when accounting for state-level factors.
In Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania—the jurisdiction with the highest average ballot rejection rates—0.77% (4,172 ballots) were rejected in the 2020 general election, largely due to voters being unregistered (approximately 70%) or voting by alternative means (around 19%).
Looking Forward
In light of the current political climate, the Trump administration and congressional leaders have been working to reverse recent progress toward voting rights and equity, tightening existing barriers and introducing new challenges to voter participation. Recently, President Trump suggested the issuance of an executive order to abolish mail voting altogether, a move unsupported by legal authority and widely regarded as a popular and secure voting method. Regardless of whether this order is implemented, the president’s allies in state legislatures are advancing bills targeting mail voting and making it increasingly difficult for eligible voters to participate.
While the proposed Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act has not passed, many states are already implementing proof-of-citizenship registration mandates, as advocated by the Trump administration, with 69 bills across 27 states currently being tracked. New laws in states like Iowa, Kansas, and Wyoming are fast-tracking voter purges of eligible individuals from registration lists, further imperiling equitable access to the electoral process.
Redistricting maps, traditionally drawn every decade after the Census, are also being manipulated for partisan gain. New congressional maps in Texas have been crafted to favor Republican candidates, while California’s Governor Newsom has initiated a counter-action to establish new Democratic-aligned maps through a special election. President Trump’s threats to challenge these partisan efforts echo a broader push to manipulate future elections.
This partial overview of recent state initiatives and ongoing threats from the administration indicates that our elections and democracy face substantial risks. The existing voting inequities are likely to worsen as restrictive measures take hold, potentially leading to lower turnout and heightened ballot rejection rates in marginalized communities. Although political outcomes may differ, misinformation surrounding the electoral process is being wielded as a tool to dispute valid election results, as seen in North Carolina in 2024.
Progress is rarely linear. We must remain vigilant to safeguard our elections and protect voting rights. The UCS is collaborating with election officials to discuss the findings of our report and advocate for the adoption of practices that enhance voting processes.
Here’s how you can contribute:
- Explore our science-based recommendations for election data transparency and equitable ballot design aimed at restoring trust and ensuring fair representation in elections. Encourage your state officials to adopt these practices.
- Stay informed about developments in the Trump administration through our blog series and the Save Science, Save Lives campaign.
- Utilize our Town Hall Toolkit to attend local meetings, express your support for science, and hold officials accountable.
- Join our Science Network to lend your expertise in advocating for science-based decision-making in public policy, protection, and democracy.
To further explore the findings of our analysis, please read my additional blog post titled “New Interactive Map Shows Racial Disparities in Turnout and Ballot Rejections in Recent Elections,” and join us for a supporter webinar on October 8th at 3 PM ET.
