Skip to main content

Let Us Not Be Intimidated: Past and Present Applications of Section 11(B) of the Voting Rights Act

By March 1, 2022August 8th, 2022No Comments

Abstract: As John Lewis said, “[the] vote is precious. Almost sacred. It is the most powerful non-violent tool we have to create a more perfect union.” The Voting Rights Act (VRA), likewise, is a powerful tool. This Comment seeks to empower voters and embolden their advocates to better use that tool with an improved understanding of its little-known protection against voter intimidation, section 11(b).

Although the term “voter intimidation” may connote armed confrontations at polling places, some forms of intimidation are much more subtle and insidious—dissuading voters from heading to the polls on election day rather than confronting them outright when they arrive. For example, thousands of Black and Brown voters were targeted in 2020 with misleading robocalls stating that the government used vote-by-mail records to track down old warrants, that credit card companies used vote-by-mail records to collect outstanding debts, and that the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) used vote-by-mail records to track people for mandatory COVID-19 vaccinations.

This Comment argues that section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act has been underutilized since it was enacted in 1965. Section 11(b), which was intended to protect Black voters from racialized intimidation, provides a civil cause of action against state or private actors who “intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person for voting or attempting to vote.” There are few published decisions interpreting section 11(b), and executive enforcement of this provision is insufficient.

Because voters of color are typical targets of intimidating conduct, a more robust enforcement of section 11(b) is essential to promoting equitable access to civic participation. This Comment therefore begins with an exploration of racialized voter intimidation in the United States. It goes on to investigate why section 11(b) is underdeveloped, and finally, it proposes that litigants should be aware of special considerations if they choose to bring section 11(b) actions.


Other Articles from WLR Online

January 1, 2024 in ONLINE EDITION

A Loophole in the Fourth Amendment: The Government’s Unregulated Purchase of Intimate Health Data

Abstract: Companies use everyday applications and personal devices to collect deeply personal information about a user’s body and health. While this “intimate health data” includes seemingly innocuous information about fitness activities…
Read More
June 1, 2023 in ONLINE EDITION

When Patent Litigators Become Neurosurgeons

Abstract: Patent law is where the law meets the most cutting-edge and innovative technology of its time. Usually, subject matter experts, with the help of lawyers, are the ones applying…
Read More
June 1, 2023 in ONLINE EDITION

We Are Never Getting Back Together: A Statutory Framework for Reconciling Artist/Label Relationships

Abstract: Taylor Swift could tell you a thing or two about record label drama. Artists like Swift who want to break into the big leagues and top the charts must…
Read More
September 1, 2022 in BLOG POST, ONLINE EDITION

Could a Political Compromise Be Constitutional? Legal Hurdles for Possible Negotiations with Russia

The relationship between two post-soviet neighbors—Russia and Ukraine—has a complicated history. Following Russian military aggression in 2014 and the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the possibility of normalized relations…
Read More