By Jaziah Masters
Research Fellow, BJC Center for Faith, Justice and Reconciliation

In a democracy, power is vested in the people. The Preamble to the United States Constitution recognizes that the government’s legitimacy and point of highest appeal is to us, the people of the United States. Therefore, voting is at the foundation of American citizenship. It is no wonder why extending the right to vote has been so morally and politically charged throughout the history of this country, and we continue to see efforts cloaked in Christian nationalism that would undermine equality.

So often when it comes to voting today, many think of apathy. Obligation. Inconvenience. Many see voting as a mixed bag — an imperfect science that does not quite equate to the political or policy outcome we might desire.

But what is often lost in these conversations is a holistic understanding of the vote. In the previous edition of this magazine, we outlined the evolution of voting rights in the United States. Make no mistake, many people who worked to expand voting rights did so at high personal costs. They were fined, bloodied, persecuted, lynched, imprisoned and murdered. We will never know the names of many of these advocates. That means something.

Another aspect of voting often lost is the long history of undermining the people’s will. School children throughout this country read the Federalist Papers, a series of essays — penned by the likes of Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay — that supported the ratification of the Constitution. Federalist 10, written by Madison, is notable because it addresses a worrying feature of democracy: factions. Left unchecked, the government could be hijacked by those seeking to make decisions in their own best interests and not for the public good.

What I find most interesting about Federalist 10 is Madison’s dismissal of the idea of minority factions. Madison argues that only majority factions are of concern because popular sovereignty (i.e., the vote) would prevent minority factions from taking power. The concept was revolutionary at the time, but when I read about the evolution of voting rights in the United States, I am struck by how often minority factions can use violence and monetary influence to exert their power to quell popular change. Even more surprising is how often voting has been implicated in that injustice.

Constitutional amendments on voting
There are six amendments to the U.S. Constitution that impact voting rights to this day. Though each can now be celebrated as a step towards a more inclusive democracy, none came without a fight and demand for power.

The 15th Amendment granted African American men the right to vote in 1870, but minority factions throughout the South — in the form of white mob violence — ensured that these newly enfranchised Black men would face intimidation, violence and systemic barriers, making it harder to cast a ballot. Practices like “grandfather clauses” were employed throughout the southern United States. Those clauses required only descendants of the formerly enslaved to be subject to additional requirements to voting, such as literacy tests, poll taxes and other residency and property restrictions.

The 17th Amendment provided for the direct election of United States senators in 1913. U.S. senators have the sole power to confirm presidential appointments and ratify treaties. Originally, these legislators were selected by their respective state legislatures. However, this design was rife with corruption, and moneyed men seeking Senate seats could easily buy votes in their state legislatures. Several senators were investigated for this charge, and when the state legislatures could not agree, no one was sent. This happened to Indiana in the 1850s, and their Senate seat went unfilled for two years.

The 19th Amendment granted women the right to vote in 1920. Of course, women’s suffrage in the United States has a long and (un)surprisingly dark history. Suffragettes were routinely opposed, and their advocacy was disrupted by both male and female opponents. Even cartoonists and playwrights of the time made a mockery of the idea of women exercising the right to vote, speculating that our country’s “natural social order” would be upended.

In 1961, the 23rd Amendment granted the District of Columbia electors to the electoral college so that citizens living there could have a vote in presidential elections. However, we know that the more than 600,000 citizens (roughly the same population as the state of Vermont) in our nation’s capital do not have voting representation in Congress. License plates throughout the District of Columbia bear the phrase “Taxation Without Representation” to publicize that D.C. residents pay federal taxes without this representation.

The 24th Amendment ended poll taxes in federal elections in 1964. Although mostly (and accurately) associated with the South, several northern and western states — such as California, Maine, Massachusetts, Wisconsin and others — had enacted some form of payment as a prerequisite to registering to vote. Financial barriers to voting disproportionately impact and reduce the political influence of poor and working-class Americans.

Finally, the 26th Amendment lowered the voting age to 18 in 1971. During the Vietnam War, men as young as 18 were drafted into the U.S. military, requiring them to fight and possibly die without a legal say in the government’s decision to wage war. A youth movement under the slogan “Old enough to fight, old enough to vote” brought about this change to allow all service-aged individuals to vote.

Challenges today
The individuals and groups behind those efforts that led to constitutional change were fighting not just for their right to vote, but they were fighting for what it meant to be a citizen in this country. At the core of that is the ability to make changes to a government designed to represent we the people. Voting has power.

That is why I am so dismayed by efforts we see today to suppress voting rights that are inspired by Christian nationalism, which conflates what it means to be an American and what it means to be a Christian. Christian nationalism suggests, and increasingly promotes, that being a good American means being a good Christian, undercutting the pluralism we have in this country. “The ‘Christian’ in Christian nationalism is more about identity than religion and carries assumptions about nativism, white supremacy, authoritarianism, patriarchy and militarism,” explains BJC Executive Director Amanda Tyler. Studies prove that the most ardent proponents of Christian nationalism are fewer than those who reject or resist the political ideology. While small, that minority faction is dedicated to outsized power and privilege to the detriment of the majority.

This spring in my home state of Texas, the state Republican Party adopted its platform, which had troubling proposals showing the influence of Christian nationalism and a way to undermine voting representation. A point entitled “Religious Freedom and Government Schools” urges the Legislature and state board of education to “require instruction on the Bible, servant leadership, and Christian self-governance.” It is concerning to see Christian nationalism once again misuse “religious freedom” to advance an exclusionary agenda. The platform also calls for repealing the Voting Rights Act and demands a state constitutional amendment that would require statewide elected leaders to win the popular vote in a majority of Texas counties, not just the popular vote statewide.

As someone who grew up in the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex, these types of proposals on voting representation are alarming because they specifically target racial minorities and urban voters who are concentrated in relatively few counties. In 1964, the Supreme Court rectified the malapportionment of electoral districts in Reynolds v. Sims. Membership to the Texas Senate was fixed at 31 members, and before that decision, each county was limited to one senator. That meant Dallas and Harris counties — the two largest in the state — could only be represented by one legislator each. This intentional design allowed the state Senate to be heavily represented by rural voters, counterbalancing towns and cities which were better represented in the state House. But in Reynolds, Chief Justice Earl Warren correctly explained, “Legislators represent people, not trees or acres. Legislators are elected by voters, not farms or cities or economic interests.”

Examples are not just in Texas. In Louisiana, we see these types of measures combine into a truly wicked case study of Christian nationalism, race and voting rights. When Christian nationalism co-opts the language of religious liberty in government schools, we see measures like the state’s Ten Commandments mandate, signed in June. That is another effort to inject Christian nationalism into public schools and target impressionable children. In her letter to Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry, BJC General Counsel Holly Hollman asked him to veto the legislation, writing: “Nobody should be told by the government how to worship, what Scripture to read, or when to pray. Government-mandated displays of the Ten Commandments disrespect religious diversity and foster conflict in public schools. This legislation wrongly suggests that the government holds religious authority over school children.” Texas was unable to pass a similar law in its previous legislative session, but Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick has already vowed to join Louisiana in passing a similar bill during its next legislative session.

What is not lost on me is that many of the same legislators favoring the Ten Commandments mandate in Louisiana are also responsible for racially discriminating against Black voters in the previous legislative session. Louisiana was sued and found guilty of creating discriminatory congressional district maps in its past session that diluted the state’s Black vote. One third of Louisianans are Black. Yet, the Legislature packed voters from the state’s two majority-Black cities into a single congressional district. This act violated the Voting Rights Act; this year, Louisiana voters will rightfully have a second majority-Black district.

These examples illustrate the deep and insidious ways Christian nationalism is never far from — and in fact sometimes overlaps with — efforts to limit citizenship and target historically marginalized communities, whether racial or religious. These efforts are historically rooted, and voting rights — or the lack thereof — are very much implicated in Christian nationalism’s pursuit of power for a privileged few at the expense of the diverse many.

I am deeply troubled by this growing trend of flagrant disregard for the popular vote. I specifically see these efforts targeted at individuals and communities deemed as less deserving of citizenship. As religious liberty advocates, we have a duty to call out these efforts and hold individuals perpetuating these heinous acts accountable. Religious freedom is not possible without personal freedom, and our voting rights are interconnected. Dr. Sabrina E. Dent, my colleague who leads the BJC Center for Faith, Justice and Reconciliation, is spot on when she said, “We must reaffirm the right to vote as a right to dignity and acceptance in our democracy.”

What now?
At this point, you may be wondering what the way forward is. That question caused me to attend the Vanderbilt University Law School’s Voting Rights in the South symposium earlier this year. The event was hosted by the Vanderbilt Social Justice Reporter and the Thurgood Marshall Institute at the Legal Defense Fund. Over two days, we focused on the legacy of voting rights in the South, its current situation, and strategies for ensuring a full and unequivocal right to a fair vote for Black and brown residents. What resonated with me the most was the keynote address by Justice Anita Earls, who is an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of North Carolina. She explained that there are four measures of the concept of an equal right to vote:

1. Equal ability to cast a ballot and have it counted
2. Each vote must weigh the same and count equally to everyone else in the jurisdiction
3. Elected officials should have equal ability to serve
4. Voters should have equal power to hold their elected officials accountable

Justice Earls correctly identifies that a comprehensive approach to equal voting rights is multi-layered. That is why attacks on voting rights impact human dignity and justice. Certain communities — ones historically marginalized — continue to rely on constitutional amendments and federal legislation that guarantee their right to vote. Efforts to undermine voting rights target their political agency and their personal autonomy.

I agree with James Madison: We need more democracy, not less. The skills we learn doing civic engagement in the public square are valuable, and they can lead to real change. These are skills that teach us to appreciate differences, empathize, build coalitions and embrace pluralism. When Christian nationalism suggests that certain Americans are more worthy than others, it is cover for certain Americans enjoying greater citizenship than others. Because voting is foundational to American citizenship, it is often implicated in this rhetoric. More work is needed to achieve the holistic right to vote. History teaches us that safeguarding democracy and citizenship starts — not ends — by casting a ballot. Vote!

Jaziah Masters is a research fellow for the BJC Center for Faith, Justice and Reconciliation. Scroll down for some ways you can prepare to vote!

This article first appeared in the summer 2024 edition of Report from the Capital.  You can download it as a PDF or read a digital flip-through edition. 

Prepare to vote in 2024 (and beyond)

It’s never too early to make a voting plan! Whether you are a first-time or seasoned voter, here are some helpful tips and things to consider as you prepare to cast your next ballot: