By Jocelyn Frye, Shaina Goodman, Areeba Haider
Throughout the history of the United States, the integrity, resilience, and durability of democracy has frequently been put to the test. The ebb and flow of progress has been deeply connected to our ability to confront and overcome racial, gender, and other biases used to shape and define the scope of electoral and political power for different groups of people, including women. Much of the work undertaken over decades to strengthen our democracy has been focused on removing barriers to participation, countering narratives and stereotypes about the different roles people can play, and reimagining how power is distributed and wielded. Women’s progress in the U.S. has often mirrored – and sometimes determined – the pace of these efforts and democracy’s success overall. Landmark cases, laws, and other measures have helped move women closer to the founding promise of democracy by addressing structural inequities that often excluded them from opportunities and devalued their contributions or roles, from removing barriers to certain jobs or careers, to allowing women to serve in leadership as policymakers, supporting women’s civic participation, securing women’s right to vote, and more. The Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade (1973) was a part of that legacy, by recognizing the right to access an abortion as squarely within a privacy right secured by the U.S. Constitution, thus giving women more autonomy and constitutional protection to make certain health decisions. Roe helped ground a critical aspect of women’s individual freedom – namely their bodily autonomy – in the Constitution, and counter narratives that had been used to limit women’s rights and control for centuries. Now, 50 years later, a conservative majority on the current Supreme Court majority has taken a giant step backwards, simultaneously eviscerating critical gains for women while weakening key legal protections that has helped achieve more fairness in how our democracy functions.
In June of 2022, in the case Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the Supreme Court overturned Roe and with it decades of precedent and protections.Liptak, A. (2022, June 24). In 6-3 Ruling, Supreme Court Ends Nearly 50 Years of Abortion Rights. New York Times. Retrieved 13 October 2023, from https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/24/us/roe-wade-overturned-supreme-court.html The Dobbs decision was years in the making, finally fulfilling the long-time ambitions of extremist politicians and anti-abortion activists, including those hand-picked to serve on the Supreme Court, and ignoring the direct, immediate, and long lasting harm that the decision would cause across the country.Dobbs v. Jackson, 597 U.S. (2022)Kolbert, K., & Kay, J. (2021, July 16). Inside the Decades-Long Conservative Strategy to Weaken Roe v. Wade. Literary Hub. Retrieved 13 October 2023, from https://lithub.com/inside-the-decades-long-conservative-strategy-to-weaken-roe-v-wade/ The majority opinion, authored by Justice Samuel Alito, nonchalantly minimized the far-reaching effects of the decision, claiming that the ruling merely returned the issue of abortion to states where women could use their electoral and political power to influence the legislative process. But the consequences of Dobbs are not nearly as straightforward as Justice Alito asserted. In a political landscape that moves the question of abortion access to the states, the reality of how our democracy functions – who has power, who gets elected, who makes decisions, whose voices are heard – comes into sharper focus. Core pillars of our democracy such as the right to vote and respect for individual freedom are not equally sturdy or accessible for everyone. Eliminating a key mechanism such as Roe used within our constitutional framework to extend more individual freedom, power, and control to women, in particular, means that they now will have fewer levers to counter entrenched power dynamics that have always shaped and often limited women’s participation in the democratic system.
In previous research, the National Partnership sought to examine how power differences within state legislatures play out in practice, using as a measure the percentage of women legislators by race and gender and examining abortion access across the states. We found overall that states with a higher percentage of women legislators were more likely to adopt policies that provide abortion protections than states with a lower percentage of women legislators. States where women of color made up 10 percent or less of the legislature were also more likely to have restrictive abortion policies than other states. While the research does not establish a precise causal link, it does show that more often than not states with more women legislators are more likely to adopt policies that give women and those giving birth greater autonomy and control over their health decisions.
Given this research, we wanted to take a closer look at potential barriers to shaping the composition of state legislatures, such as efforts to elect more women generally and women of color specifically as state leaders. State legislators and other state actors wield significant power to expand or curtail voting rights for their constituents which, in turn, can affect who is successful in seeking higher office. Thus, it is essential to examine structural biases in our electoral and voting systems that may disadvantage women’s participation, either as voters or candidates or both. Pushing back on such biases is critical to create an inclusive democracy and secure reproductive autonomy for all. Our research finds that the states with the most restrictive abortion access policies are also the states with the greatest barriers to voting. This brief explores the intersection of state abortion policy and restrictive voting policies, showing how structured inequities are cemented into how our democracy functions to disadvantage women and people of color.
The State of Abortion Access Today
The unrelenting quest to eviscerate access to abortion unleashed by the Dobbs right-wing majority has wreaked havoc. Twenty-one states have implemented abortion bans or significant restrictions since Dobbs, with several more states having bans that have been suspended by the courts in the past year.New York Times. Tracking Abortion Bans Across the Country. Retrieved 13 October 2023, from https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/us/abortion-laws-roe-v-wade.html That is more than 36 million women of reproductive age living in states where their ability to plan if and when to have a child has been limited by the government; analysis by the National Partnership finds that Black and Native American women are most likely to live in those states, as are disabled women and women who are economically insecure.Gallagher Robbins, K., Goodman, S., & Klein, J. (2023, June). State Abortion Bans Harm More Than 15 Million Women of Color. Retrieved 13 October 2023 from National Partnership for Women & Families website: https://nationalpartnership.org/report/state-abortion-bans-harm-woc/ Dozens of clinics that offered abortion services have closed since Roe v. Wade was overturned.McCann, A., & Walker, A. (2023, June 22). One Year, 61 Clinics: How Dobbs Changed the Abortion Landscape. New York Times. Retrieved 13 October 2023, from https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/06/22/us/abortion-clinics-dobbs-roe-wade.html Thousands of women have been forced to experience pregnancies against their will,Human Rights Watch. (2023, April). Human Rights Crisis: Abortion in the United States After Dobbs. Retrieved 13 October 2023, from https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/04/18/human-rights-crisis-abortion-united-states-after-dobbs and thousands more have had to travel across state lines, navigating countless hurdles to access care they want or need.Walker, A., & McCann, A. (2023, September 7). Abortions Rose in Most States This Year, New Data Shows. New York Times. Retrieved 13 October 2023, from https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/09/07/us/abortion-data-bans-laws.html
Even before Roe was overturned, access to abortion varied across state lines, and in the wake of Dobbs, those state variations have only become more stark.Maddow-Zimet, I., & Kost, K. (2022, July). Even Before Roe Was Overturned, Nearly One in 10 People Obtaining an Abortion Traveled Across State Lines for Care. Retrieved 13 October 2023 from Guttmacher Institute website: https://www.guttmacher.org/article/2022/07/even-roe-was-overturned-nearly-one-10-people-obtaining-abortion-traveled-across For example, in Texas, abortion is almost completely outlawedMéndez, M. (2023, October 11). How new regulations impact abortion and birth control access in Texas. The Texas Tribune. Retrieved 13 October 2023, from https://www.texastribune.org/2023/10/11/texas-abortion-law-birth-control-what-you-need-to-know/ as a result of targeted action by anti-abortion members of the Texas state legislature, including Texas Senate Bill 8Holley, P., & Solomon, D. (2021, October 7). Your questions about Texas’s New Abortion Law, Answered. Texas Monthly. Retrieved 13 October 2023, from https://www.texasmonthly.com/news-politics/texas-abortion-law-explained/ which bans abortions in early pregnancy and House Bill 1280Aguilar, J. (2022, June 24). Texas ‘trigger law’ to ban abortion will soon go into effect. Here’s how it works. Houston Public Media. Retrieved 13 October 2023, from https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/news/texas/2022/06/24/427684/texas-trigger-law-to-ban-abortion-will-soon-go-into-effect-heres-how-it-works/ which included language to automatically ban abortion 30 days after certain scenarios, including the overturning of Roe v. Wade (also known as a “trigger” ban). Just next door, New Mexico is more protective of abortion accessCenter for Reproductive Rights. (n.d.). After Roe Fell: Abortion Laws By State New Mexico. Retrieved 13 October 2023, from https://reproductiverights.org/maps/state/new-mexico/ – those in the state seeking abortions will find no restrictions based on gestational age,Guttmacher Institute. (n.d.). Interactive Map: US Abortion Policies and Access After Roe. Retrieved 5 May 2024, from https://states.guttmacher.org/policies/new-mexico/abortion-policies and public agencies are prohibited from enforcing any policy that may interfere with a person’s ability to access reproductive health care.Center for Reproductive Rights. (n.d.). After Roe Fell: Abortion Laws By State New Mexico. Retrieved 13 October 2023, from https://reproductiverights.org/maps/state/new-mexico/ Estimated travel time to an abortion facility was significantly greater in September 2022, after the Dobbs decision, than in 2021; and even prior to the Dobbs ruling, research found that “abortion deserts” existed across the country.Rader, B., Upahdyay UD., Sehgal NKR., Brownstein, JS., Hswen, Y. (2022, November). Estimated Travel Time and Spatial Access to Abortion Facilities in the US Before and After the Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Decision. JAMA, 328(20), 2041-2047. Constituents in Congressional districts with higher proportions of Black and Hispanic women faced longer driving times to abortion clinics then those in other districts, compounding barriers to abortion access even within state lines.Estep, S. (2024, April). Abortion Access Mapped by Congressional District. Retrieved 3 May 2024, from https://www.americanprogress.org/article/abortion-access-mapped-by-congressional-district/ These extreme variations mean that people seeking abortions must navigate an often intentionally confusing puzzle of legalities, restrictions, misinformation, and financial and logistical hurdles to get the care they need and want during an already stressful time in their lives.
The consequences of abortion bans and restrictions are tremendous. Women who have sought out abortions but are denied care are more likely to experience chronic pain and poor health and are more likely to report life threatening pregnancy complications.ANSIRH: Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health. (n.d.). The harms of Denying a Woman a Wanted Abortion: Findings from the Turnaway Study. Retrieved 13 October 2023, from https://www.ansirh.org/sites/default/files/publications/files/the_harms_of_denying_a_woman_a_wanted_abortion_4-16-2020.pdf Stripping away a person’s bodily autonomy and reproductive freedom by denying abortion care also increases the risk of future mental health struggles.University of California San Francisco. (2022, June 30). UCSF Turnaway Study Shows Impact of Abortion Access on Well-Being [Blog post]. Retrieved 13 October 2023 from https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2022/06/423161/ucsf-turnaway-study-shows-impact-abortion-access Other research has also shown that women who were unable to access abortion care were more likely to experience an increase in household poverty and reported persistent challenges in affording basic living expenses such as food and housing.ANSIRH: Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health. (n.d.). The Harms of Denying a Woman a Wanted Abortion: Findings from the Turnaway Study. Retrieved 13 October, 2023, from https://www.ansirh.org/sites/default/files/publications/files/the_harms_of_denying_a_woman_a_wanted_abortion_4-16-2020.pdf Despite such life-altering implications, the Dobbs majority largely ignored and dismissed these concerns, asserting that they were questions for states to examine.
Access to Voting Across States and Abortion Restrictions and Protections
Voting is a fundamental avenue for residents to participate in American democracy. Voters can influence abortion policy in their states in many ways, including by voting for state legislators who reflect their policy preferences and initiating and voting on abortion-related ballot initiatives (and other forms of direct democracy) when possible. However, voters across the country do not have equal access to the ballot box; rules and regulations around voting and the electoral process differ across state and local jurisdictions, and a centuries-old history of voter suppression targeting voters of color, women, and other historically marginalized communities continues to impact people’s ability to vote today.
Previous National Partnership research explored the connection between the composition of state legislatures and access to abortion, finding that states with the lowest percentages of women legislators and greatest gaps between the share of women of color representatives and their share in the general population are also most likely to restrict abortion access. State legislators also play a pivotal role in determining the voting environments of their constituents, which influences who gets elected to office.
In 2023, state lawmakers considered at least 356 bills that would restrict access to voting and at least 14 states enacted voting restrictions, including photo ID requirements, new restrictions on mail-in and absentee ballots, purging voter rolls, and election interference laws that create criminal penalties for election workers.The Brennan Center for Justice. (2024, January 18). Voting Laws Roundup: 2023 in Review. Retrieved 9 May 2024, from https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/voting-laws-roundup-2023-review
Using the Cost of Voting Index, a non-partisan measure created by researchers and academics to synthesize a complex range of voting laws across states and rank states according to the relative ease with which their residents can vote, we find that states ranked as most difficult to vote have a greater likelihood of having enacted abortion restrictions.Schraufnagel, S., Pomante, Michael II., Li, Q. (2022, September). Cost of Voting in the American States: 2022. Election Law Journal: Rules, Politics, and Policy, 21(3), 223-228
- Of the 25 states where it is most difficult to vote, only three – Michigan, Connecticut, and Montana – are categorized as “protective” of abortion access.
- The five states ranked easiest to vote in are also categorized as “protective” or “most protective” of abortion access.
- States in the bottom half of the Cost of Voting Index rankings are three times more likely to be categorized as “restrictive,” “very restrictive,” or “most restrictive” than other states.
The Cost of Voting is just one measure that allows us to review a ranking of states using a diverse range of policies that impact people’s abilities to vote, including voter ID laws, policies around absentee voting, voter registration and pre-registration policies, and barriers such as no early voting or no time-off from work to participate in elections.
Legacies of historic voter suppression targeting women and voters of color impact present electoral realities
The disparities in voting access between states are not a simple coincidence, nor are they without consequence. The United States, whether by law or by practice, has never fully lived up to the ideals of a representative, inclusive, multi-racial democracy. Laws and policies have been used and misused to impede the democratic process, excluding people of color, women, and other historically marginalized communities. The racism, sexism, and ableism that created and sustained structural barriers for voters in the past continue to shape the electoral landscape of the present, undermining people’s political and electoral power by design.
Examples of tactics to undermine and manipulate voting can be found throughout American history. In 1857, the Supreme Court ruled that Black people, free or enslaved, were not categorized as American citizens and thus were not afforded any of the benefits reserved for citizens, including the freedom to vote. When that decision was nullified by the passage of the 14th and 15th amendments, the Supreme Court continued to rule in ways that enshrined white supremacy and perpetuated racial segregation. During the brief Reconstruction era, the Enforcement Acts passed between 1870 and 1871 criminalized voter suppression, and Black Americans held elected office on multiple levels of government. That progress, however, did not last. For the century following Reconstruction, a brutal, violent system of disenfranchisement and suppression persisted; poll taxes, literacy tests, and the risk of violence or death made voting in Southern states practically impossible for eligible Black voters. Many of those states with a brutal Jim Crow legacy continue to be the most difficult states for residents to vote in today, including by purging voters of color from election rolls under the guise of “fraud prevention” and adding new voter ID restrictions that have been found to disproportionately impact voters of color. Research has found a variety of factors driving restrictive voting laws, including the growing political power of voters of color and racial resentment.Morris, K. (2022, August). Patterns in the Introduction and Passage of Restrictive Voting Bills are Best Explained by Race. Retrieved 9 May 2024, from the Brennan Center for Justice website: https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/patterns-introduction-and-passage-restrictive-voting-bills-are-best
For women specifically, though suffrage is commonly assumed to have been granted in 1920, after decades of protest, Black women and other women of color did not achieve the ability to vote until much later because of restrictive policies connected to their racial identity.Bleiweis, R., Phadke, S., & Frye, J. (2020, August). 100 Years After the 19th Amendment, the Fight for Women’s Suffrage Continues. Retrieved 9 May 2024, from the Center for American Progress website: https://www.americanprogress.org/article/100-years-19th-amendment-fight-womens-suffrage-continues/ American-born Native women were not granted citizenship or the basic right to vote until 1924, and that right wasn’t extended to Native Americans in every state until 1948.Krol, D. (2022, November 3). Native People Won the Right to Vote in 1948, but the Road to the Ballot Box is Still Bumpy. Pulitzer Center. Retrieved 9 May 2024, from https://pulitzercenter.org/stories/native-people-won-right-vote-1948-road-ballot-box-still-bumpy Federal policy denied citizenship and voting rights to immigrants of Asian descent until 1952.Minnis, T., & Moua, M. (2015, August). 50 Years of the Voting Rights Act: An Asian American Perspective. Retrieved 9 May 2024, from the Asian Americans Advancing Justice website: https://www.advancingjustice-aajc.org/report/50-years-voting-rights-act-asian-american-perspective And for many women and communities of color, especially Black women, the reality of equal voting rights only began to be realized with the passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965.Crayton, K. (2023, July). The Voting Rights Act Explained. Retrieved 9 May 2024 from the Brennan Center for Justice website: https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/voting-rights-act-explained
Despite this clear history of uneven political and electoral power, the Supreme Court itself has undermined and gutted key voting provisions in recent years. Notably, the Court’s 2013 decision in Shelby v. Holder released jurisdictions with a history of racist voter suppression from a requirement to clear any new election rules with the Department of Justice, opening the doors for regions with a history of discrimination to implement new, discriminatory laws without oversight. Requiring federal approval before changes are made to state and local election laws in certain jurisdictions – known as “preclearance” – was a vital part of the Voting Rights Act since its original passage in 1965 to prevent discriminatory practices; rather than forcing voters to challenge discriminatory laws through time-consuming lawsuits and litigation, preclearance put the burden of proving that a proposed law is not discriminatory on state and local governments. Preclearance is estimated to have produced a gradual and sustained increase in voter turnout for over 40 years since the passage of the Voting Rights Act, increasing turnout by 4-8 percentage points in covered jurisdictions. Those gains are attributed to an increase in turnout from minority voters, making clear the cumulative impacts of a law that helped stop new discriminatory practices from taking hold.Ang, D. (2019, July). Do 40-Year-Old Facts Still Matter? Long-Run Effects of Federal Oversight under the Voting Rights Act. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 11(3), 1-53.
Despite this, the Supreme Court ended preclearance in 2013, claiming that the formula used to determine which jurisdictions were subject to approvals was outdated and unconstitutional and inviting Congress to adopt a new coverage formula. In the absence of preclearance, states and localities have passed voting restrictions that were previously rejected by the Department of Justice or have been challenged in federal courts, including restrictive voter ID requirements in Alabama and Texas.Ang, D. (2019, July). Do 40-Year-Old Facts Still Matter? Long-Run Effects of Federal Oversight under the Voting Rights Act. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 11(3), 1-53. Since the Shelby County ruling, states have adopted almost 100 laws restricting the vote and one-third of these laws would have been subject to preclearance under the Voting Rights Act.Singh, J. & Carter, S. (2023, June). States Have Added Nearly 100 Restrictive Laws Since SCOTUS Gutted the Voting Rights Act 10 Years Ago. Retrieved 21 May 2023 from the Brennan Center for Justice website: https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/states-have-added-nearly-100-restrictive-laws-scotus-gutted-voting-rights Research shows that the racial turnout gap, which measures the difference in turnout between white and nonwhite voters, is growing almost twice as quickly in counties that were subject to preclearance than in other counties with similar demographics.Morris, K., & Grange, C. (2024, March). Growing Racial Disparities in Voter Turnout, 2008-2022. Retrieved 9 May 2024, from the Brennan Center for Justice website: https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/growing-racial-disparities-voter-turnout-2008-2022 The states subject to preclearance as a whole who have also banned or are likely to ban abortion – Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Texas – are home to almost 14 million women of reproductive age who have now had their right to bodily autonomy and fair voting practices impeded by Supreme Court decisions.Gallagher Robbins, K., Goodman, S., & Klein, J. (2023, June). State Abortion Bans Harm More Than 15 Million Women of Color. Retrieved 9 May 2024, from the National Partnership for Women & Families website: https://nationalpartnership.org/report/state-abortion-bans-harm-woc/
Women, and in particular women of color, experience compounded barriers to exerting electoral and political power. While research is limited on how specific voting restrictions perpetuate gender imbalances, survey data finds that many of the barriers people report when voting in elections are the same inflexibilities that make it difficult for women to participate in the electoral process as candidates. That includes a lack of childcare and limited polling hours that conflict with work or family schedules.Mazar, A., Tomaino, G., Carmon, Z., & Wood, W. (2022, August). Americans Discount the Effect of Friction on Voter Turnout. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), 119(34), 1-6. 9 Women in particular have also been found to have more difficulty obtaining photo ID with which to vote, in part because the vast majority of women change their legal names upon marriage or divorce.Davidson, R. (2014, January). How Voter ID Laws Disproportionately Impact women – and What We’re Doing About It. Retrieved 9 May 2024 from League of Women Voters website: https://www.lwv.org/blog/how-voter-id-laws-disproportionately-impact-women-and-what-were-doing-about-it And to the extent that women, women of color, and Black women in particular, turn out to vote at relatively high rates, a wide array of factors complicates the connection between turnout rates and policy outcomes.Ezie, C. (2021, June). Not Your Mule?: Disrupting the Political Powerlessness of Black Women Voters. University of Colorado Law Review, 92(659), 661-712. Both voter suppression and abortion restrictions target and disproportionately impact the same communities. The same people who are most likely to face voter restrictions are also most likely to be subjected abortion restrictions, limiting their ability to reject those policies.
State Ballot Initiatives and Referendums
Since the Dobbs decision, some voters have had the opportunity to vote on abortion access through direct democracy measures like ballot initiatives for constitutional amendments, but these opportunities are not equal across states.
When placed on the ballot, these initiatives have proven broadly popular. Voters in California, Kansas, Kentucky, Vermont, Ohio, and Michigan have either decisively voted against initiatives that would claim there is no right to abortion in state constitutions or affirmatively voted to ensure that the right to abortion is enshrined in their state’s constitution. Many states are following suit in the 2024 election cycle, with abortion-related ballot measures slated for the polls in as many as 13 states, including Arkansas, Florida, Iowa, and South Dakota.Felix, M., Sobel, L., & Salganicoff, A. (2024, February). Addressing Abortion Access through State Ballot Initiatives. Retrieved 9 February 2024 from KFF website from: https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/issue-brief/addressing-abortion-access-through-state-ballot-initiatives/ In a complicated, and often contentious, battle for abortion rights across states, passing ballot initiatives may be able to protect abortion access not just from the whims of state legislators, but from restrictive rulings from the state courts as well.
In the states that do allow for citizen-led initiatives or referendums, processes differ – and often place a large burden of approval for organizers petitioning to have their issues included on the ballot. For example, in Missouri, a state with a near-total ban on abortion, abortion rights advocates were stymied and delayed by the state Attorney General and Secretary of State, forcing them to begin collecting signatures for their petition almost a year after the original proposal was submitted. As of this writing, advocates had until early May to collect around 171,000 signatures across the state, a difficult task they managed on a compressed timeline.Rosenbaum, J. (2024, February 28). Missouri Advocates Gather Signatures for Abortion Legalization, but GOP Hurdle Looms. NPR. Retrieved 9 May 2024, from https://www.npr.org/2024/02/28/1234278254/missouri-advocates-gather-signatures-for-abortion-legalization-but-gop-hurdle-lo
Research also finds that state lawmakers are increasingly intervening to thwart the will of voters, altering citizen-led initiatives even after they are passed by voters at the polls. This trend predates the overturn of Roe v. Wade. From 2010 to 2015, legislators altered almost 21% of ballot initiatives across issues; from 2016-2018, the rate of legislative alterations increased to almost 36%.Ballotpedia. (2024, April 1). Legislative Alterations of Ballot Initiatives. Retrieved 9 May 2024, from https://ballotpedia.org/Legislative_alterations_of_ballot_initiatives Examples of alterations can include changing technical or regulatory details of the policy, amending legislation in session, or repealing citizen-led initiatives entirely. There is already evidence of state legislatures hostile to abortion rights working to undermine the will of the people and the efficiency of ballot measures. For example, in Mississippi, the state Senate refused to pass a law reinstating the ballot initiative process, which had been deemed invalid by the state Supreme Court in 2021.Associated Press. (2024, March 18). Effort to Revive Mississippi Ballot Initiative Process is Squelched in State Senate. Retrieved 9 May 2024, from https://apnews.com/article/mississippi-ballot-initiative-3a09a75dcf692f13c249253c7b109076 And even then, the legislation would have prohibited initiatives that altered abortion laws, a clear attempt to further undermine citizens’ abilities to make their voices heard in a state already amongst the most restrictive in both abortion access and voting rights. Similarly, Louisiana state legislators rejected a proposal that could have let citizens vote directly on enshrining the right to reproductive services such as abortion, pregnancy health care, fertility treatment, and contraception in the state constitution.O’Donoghue, J. (2024, March 25). Louisiana Legislature Won’t Let Voters Reconsider Abortion Ban. Louisiana Illuminator. Retrieved 9 May 2024, from https://lailluminator.com/2024/03/25/louisiana-legislature-wont-let-voters-reconsider-abortion-ban/
In Ohio, state legislators attempted to block the passage of a ballot initiative to enshrine abortion rights in the state constitution by calling for a special election to increase the threshold for successful passage of constitutional amendments, raising it from a simple majority of 50%+1 to 60% needed to pass. Voters, however, recognized that effort for the power grab that it was and rejected the measure. A few months later, in the general election, Ohio voters passed an initiative to cement abortion rights in the state constitution; conservative Ohio state legislators pledged to prevent implementation despite the will of voters.Fernando, C. (2024, January 29). Republican Legislatures in Some States are Trying to Keep Abortion off the Ballot. AP News. Retrieved 9 May 2024, from https://apnews.com/article/abortion-ballot-initiatives-voters-democracy-2024-602ebb8a74d7ae45163d79c065a23ef0
Thirty-one states and D.C – representing 63% of the voting-eligible population – do not have a direct citizen initiative process at all, meaning that those voters don’t have the ability to put an issue on the ballot regardless of citizen interest.Movement Advancement Project. (2024, April 22). Direct Citizen Initiative States. Retrieved 9 May 2024, from https://www.lgbtmap.org/democracy-maps/direct_citizen_initiative_states Those states include 60% of the states that are currently restrictive of abortion access, denying yet another avenue for voters to influence abortion policies in their state.
While direct democracy initiatives like citizen-led ballot constitutional amendments or legislative referendums can be an important political strategy to stave off the worst of abortion restrictions in certain states, the process is not viable to protect abortion rights across the country. In states where voters can vote directly on abortion, legislators, state officials, and organizing groups in opposition can still find ways to undermine and block the will of the people – and in most states, a ballot measure is not even an option.
Beyond Voting: Relegating Abortion to the Ballot is Unsustainable
Despite barriers to voting, a wave of elections that allowed voters to speak out directly on abortion access confirmed what has long been true – Americans support abortion access, even when their state legislators and lawmakers do not.Ollstein, A., Messerly, M., & Piper, J. The Supreme Court Dismantled Roe. States are Restoring it One by One. Politico. Retrieved 9 May 2024, from https://www.politico.com/news/2023/11/09/abortion-rights-elections-red-states-00126225 However, these votes are not enough, nor do they ensure that women’s bodily autonomy is assured across all states. Threats to abortion access and reproductive rights continue to arise in avenues that are not directly influenced by voters. In the summer of 2024, the Supreme Court will decide on two major abortion cases that could harm people’s abilities to receive abortions in every state, including those where residents have voted to expand access. Conservative groups and lawmakers are also making increasing references to the outdated, rarely-enforced Comstock Law as an avenue to ban the mailing of abortion medications; this legislation was passed in 1873, long before women were able to vote in every state.Felix, M., Sobel, L., & Salganicoff, A. (2024, April 15). The Comstock Act: Implications for Abortion Care Nationwide. KFF. Retrieved 9 May 2024, from https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/issue-brief/the-comstock-act-implications-for-abortion-care-nationwide/ Disinformation and confusion on abortion laws across states create chaos for people who can become pregnant regardless of whether it is election season – and decisions about bodily autonomy do not wait for an election either. Already in 2024, state supreme courts have greenlighted severe abortion restrictions in Arizona and Florida, changing the landscape of abortion access without voter input – and though Floridians will see an abortion-related ballot measure in the 2024 election, the measure is not enough to protect abortion access from the legislature and state courts permanently.Szabo, L. (2024, April 19). Abortion Bans in Arizona and Florida Will Face Voters in November. Scientific American. Retrieved 9 May 2024, from https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/abortion-bans-in-arizona-and-florida-will-face-voters-in-november/
Conclusion
Voter suppression and abortion restrictions are two prongs of the same conservative strategy to consolidate political power in the hands of extremists – it would be a grave mistake to consider them as independent policy decisions. Our analysis finds that those states that have enacted the most restrictive voting policies and made it most difficult for voters to participate in the democratic process are also more likely to have enacted abortion restrictions and impose limits to bodily autonomy. The fight for a federal, comprehensive protection of abortion must continue in tandem with the fight for federal voting rights legislation to ensure a working democracy for all.
Methodology
This analysis uses state abortion policies and categorizations from the Guttmacher Institute’s detailed tracking and analysis of a wide range of bans, restrictions, and protective/supportive policies. The Guttmacher Institute updates this data periodically as abortion policies across states change often; our analysis is up to date as of May 6, 2024.
This analysis also uses the Cost Of Voting Index (COVI) to assess state rankings access to voting. The rankings are up to date as of 2022 and do not include the District of Columbia.
More information is available at:
- Guttmacher Institute. (n.d.). Interactive Map: US Abortion Policies and Access After Roe. Retrieved 6 May 2024, from https://states.guttmacher.org/policies/
- Schraufnagel, S., Pomante, Michael II., Li, Q. (2022, September). Cost of Voting in the American States: 2022. Election Law Journal: Rules, Politics, and Policy, 21(3), 223-228; https://costofvotingindex.com/
