Skip to main content
PRINT EDITION

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.

DOWNLOAD THE FULL ARTICLE

Other Articles from WLR Online

June 1, 2025 in Essay, ONLINE EDITION

Facial Recognition Technology and Wrongful Arrests in the Digital Policing Era

Abstract: This Essay examines the use of facial recognition technology (FRT) by law enforcement agencies, the implications of such use, and the disproportionate impact the use has on Black, Indigenous,…
Read More
March 1, 2025 in ONLINE EDITION

Involuntary: How a Lack of Analysis of Age Under the Fifth Amendment Highlights the Intersectionality of Age and Race

Abstract: In the wake of Miller v. Alabama and its progeny, there has been a wider acceptance that juvenile’s need more protections in our judicial system. This is a result of a…
Read More
January 1, 2025 in ONLINE EDITION

Redefining Intellectual Property Protection: NFL Plays in the Digital Age

Abstract: American copyright law is fluid. Its changes have mirrored evolutions in society, be they technological, cultural, or economic. At its core, copyright law exists to promote the progress of…
Read More
May 1, 2024 in ONLINE EDITION

Breaking Algorithmic Immunity: Why Section 230 Immunity May Not Extend to Recommendation Algorithms

Abstract: In the mid-1990s, internet experiences were underwhelming by today’s standards, despite the breakthrough technologies at their core. When a person logged on to the internet, they were met with…
Read More