Have We Really Eliminated Polling Place Bias Against the Poor and People of Color?

Today brings us this headline in the New York Times:

Election Day Voting in 2020 Took Longer in America’s Poorest Neighborhoods

This is true—but just barely. In fact, I was struck by how the data actually indicates that we could be making real progress. First off, here’s a Times chart that I replotted to remove the bias of cutting off the y axis:

From the lowest to highest incomes, there’s surprisingly little variation in the percentage of people who have to wait more than an hour to vote. It basically ranges from 14 percent to 16 percent, which is barely noticeable.

Here’s another chart. It’s a little hard to figure out, so bear with me:

The gray curve represents white neighborhoods. There’s a 10-minute wait in about 4.5 percent of them, a 30-minute wait in 0.8 percent, etc. The black curve represents non-white neighborhoods. There’s a 10-minute wait in about 3.5 percent of them, a 30-minute wait in 1 percent of them, etc. As you can see, the curves are quite similar, showing only a small difference between white and non-white neighborhoods. And if you go out to the extreme, at a wait time of two hours or more, they’re identical.

I’ve drawn dashed red lines where the curves cross the 50-minute mark, which is a long-but-not-extreme wait time. In “overwhelmingly white” neighborhoods, where the red line crosses the gray curve, 0.4 percent of voters had to wait 50 minutes. In “overwhelmingly nonwhite” neighborhoods, where the red line crosses the black curve, the number was 0.5 percent. Again, these are tiny numbers and tiny differences even though the chart only includes “overwhelmingly” segregated neighborhoods.

If the Times analysis is correct—and I have my doubts—the real story here is that we have nearly eliminated the long wait times for both poor and POC neighborhoods. Anecdotal evidence makes me doubt this, but I’d sure like to see someone follow up on this using different methodology. Have we really made this much progress in polling place discrimination?

WE CAME UP SHORT.

We just wrapped up a shorter-than-normal, urgent-as-ever fundraising drive and we came up about $45,000 short of our $300,000 goal.

That means we're going to have upwards of $350,000, maybe more, to raise in online donations between now and June 30, when our fiscal year ends and we have to get to break-even. And even though there's zero cushion to miss the mark, we won't be all that in your face about our fundraising again until June.

So we urgently need this specific ask, what you're reading right now, to start bringing in more donations than it ever has. The reality, for these next few months and next few years, is that we have to start finding ways to grow our online supporter base in a big way—and we're optimistic we can keep making real headway by being real with you about this.

Because the bottom line: Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we hope you might consider pitching in before moving on to whatever it is you're about to do next. We really need to see if we'll be able to raise more with this real estate on a daily basis than we have been, so we're hoping to see a promising start.

payment methods

WE CAME UP SHORT.

We just wrapped up a shorter-than-normal, urgent-as-ever fundraising drive and we came up about $45,000 short of our $300,000 goal.

That means we're going to have upwards of $350,000, maybe more, to raise in online donations between now and June 30, when our fiscal year ends and we have to get to break-even. And even though there's zero cushion to miss the mark, we won't be all that in your face about our fundraising again until June.

So we urgently need this specific ask, what you're reading right now, to start bringing in more donations than it ever has. The reality, for these next few months and next few years, is that we have to start finding ways to grow our online supporter base in a big way—and we're optimistic we can keep making real headway by being real with you about this.

Because the bottom line: Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we hope you might consider pitching in before moving on to whatever it is you're about to do next. We really need to see if we'll be able to raise more with this real estate on a daily basis than we have been, so we're hoping to see a promising start.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate