Our political system relies on free and fair elections—but, unfortunately, not everyone is equally represented. As we look closely at the actual data, we can see clear evidence of disparities in who participates and whose voices are heard.
The Union of Concerned Scientists’ precinct-level analysis of ballot rejections and turnout across several counties in 2016, 2020, and 2024 provides a deep dive into elections in swing states that have been pivotal in recent presidential contests. The counties studied: Allegheny (Pittsburgh) and Philadelphia counties in Pennsylvania; Columbus (Whiteville), Durham (Durham), and Mecklenburg (Charlotte) counties in North Carolina; Cuyahoga (Cleveland) and Lorain counties in Ohio; Fulton County (Atlanta) in Georgia; Maricopa County (Phoenix) in Arizona; Milwaukee County in Wisconsin; and Wayne County (Detroit) in Michigan.
The data provide an illustration of who participated in these elections, and whose ballots were more likely to be counted—and, as a result, whose interests are represented.
Key findings
Communities in battleground counties are characterized by extreme inequalities in voter turnout. These disparities can prove extremely consequential in competitive presidential elections, like in 2020, when former President Biden’s Electoral College victory was the result of fewer than 45,000 votes in Arizona, Georgia, and Wisconsin. In 2016, President Trump’s Electoral College victory was a matter of fewer than 80,000 votes in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.
More importantly, these electoral inequalities are cumulative. Precincts with lower turnout rates—which are disproportionately majority-people of color—are more likely to have higher ballot rejection rates. In other words, tens of thousands of eligible voters didn’t vote in the 2016, 2020, and 2024 elections, and thousands of ballots were rejected and uncounted.
Racial turnout gap
Due to the decentralized and hyper-localized nature of election administration and law in the United States, voters in different states and counties have very different voting experiences. Research shows that many electoral rules—such as redistricting, voter access policies, and voter file maintenance processes—have a disproportionately negative effect on historically marginalized communities. Researchers have also found evidence that the quality of election administration varies by geography—low-income and communities that are majority people of color are more likely to have lower-quality polling places (meaning that they more often change location and are harder to locate and navigate) than their majority-White counterparts, and White people are more likely to live in counties with high or very high election administration performance, which is largely determined by county levels of wealth.
The racial turnout gap, which measures the turnout rates across racial groups, is a common indicator of electoral inequality. In our report, we examine two measures of voter turnout—the percentage of registered voters who voted and the estimated percentage of the Census Voting Age Population (CVAP) that voted—as both are commonly used in the study of voting and elections. Our analysis finds very high inequalities in the communities we studied. In each year, majority-White precincts had higher registered voter and CVAP turnout. Moreover, racial disparities in turnout remained even after controlling for state and/or county-level factors.
Cumulative voting inequalities
Evaluating turnout, while important, is insufficient to fully examine and understand inequalities in our elections. Each election, hundreds of thousands of ballots are rejected and not counted across the country. In 2020, for example, 86,537 mail ballots were rejected in the seven states included in our report. Ballots can be rejected for a variety of reasons, including arrival after a deadline, missing proof of identification, or non-matching signatures. Past research has found certain groups—less experienced voters, younger people, and people of color—are more likely to have their ballots rejected. Our report supports these general findings.
Ballot rejection rates were higher in precincts with a majority racial or ethnic group of color than in majority-White precincts in 2016 and 2024. Interesting, in 2020, there was less racial inequality across the three rejection categories, but majority-White and majority-Asian/Pacific Islander precincts were proportionally more represented among the precincts with lower rejections.
Precincts with the lowest rates of turnout were also most likely to be in the high-incidence category of ballot rejections for all three election years. That is, communities with lower rates of turnout also experience higher rates of ballot rejection. As a result, these communities’ political representation is diminished relative to those with high turnout and lower rates of rejection.
From 2016 to 2024, the percentage of majority-White precincts in the high-incidence category of ballot rejections remained fairly stable—slightly under 25 percent. In 2020, however, this number was around 30–35 percent. The percentage of majority-Black precincts in the high-incidence category was about 30 percent in 2016, increased to about 35 percent in 2020, and decreased back to 30 percent in 2024. The percentage of majority-Hispanic precincts in the high-incidence category decreased slightly from 2016 to 2024—from about 75 percent in 2016, to below 25 percent in 2020, and finally, to 70 percent in 2024.
Some of the counties in our analysis provided reasons for rejection. In Cuyahoga County, for example, 0.43 percent (or 3,087) mail and provisional ballots were rejected in the 2024 general election. The most common reason for rejection was that voters were unregistered (59.83 percent). The second most common reason for rejection was missing identification (14.29 percent), followed by voted in wrong precinct (8.23 percent).
Looking forward
In the second Trump administration, the administration and leaders in Congress have worked to dismantle previous progress on election fairness, strengthening existing barriers and establishing new obstacles to public participation. President Trump has announced a plan to sign an executive order prohibiting mail voting entirely, despite the fact that the executive branch of the federal government does not have the legal authority to do so and that mail voting is exceedingly popular and secure. Even if President Trump does not sign such an executive order, the president’s allies in state legislatures are already falling in line with the administration, pursuing legislation that would attack vote by mail and disenfranchise eligible voters (through methods such as postmark deadlines and making it more difficult for military voters to use mail voting).
While the deceptively-titled Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) America Act (which would require every voter to provide documentary proof of citizenship to register to vote) has not yet passed Congress, once again some states have followed President Trump’s lead and have instituted their own proof of citizenship voter registration policies. The Voting Rights Lab is currently tracking 47 bills across 22 states. Several of these new laws, including statutes in Iowa, Kansas, and Wyoming, require rapid removals that risk purging eligible voters from voter lists.
Historically, legislative district maps are redrawn every ten years, after the constitutionally-established Census estimates population changes, but this year, maps are being re-drawn for partisan advantage. Texas legislators started this process this year with new congressional maps that intentionally redrew districts to gain Republican seats. In California, voters approved a counter-effort to redraw congressional maps in the state during a special election last fall. The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the legality of the California map. (You can compare current and proposed maps in both Texas and California here.) Missouri Governor Mike Kehoe has signed a bill to redraw the state’s congressional maps, though these maps may be challenged at the ballot box this fall. The Trump administration has been pushing other states for new US House maps that would give his allies a leg up in the 2026 midterms.
Finally, I’ve also written about the DOJ’s demands for state voter roll data, going as far as to sue multiple states to compel them to hand over this data to the federal government. Trump administration officials claim they will use the data to conduct independent review of voter rolls and instruct states on which voters to remove, a responsibility is under the legal authority of states, not the federal government, and something that “would turn the American system of election administration upside down,” according to the Brennan Center.
This disturbing, but incomplete, list of recent actions at the state level and threats from the White House means that elections—and democracy—are under threat. The inequities we see in previous presidential elections will only get worse in a new, more restrictive era. Turnout, especially among traditionally marginalized communities, could decrease, while ballot rejections, especially among traditionally marginalized communities, could increase. President Trump and his allies are trying to set the conditions of elections in their favor, and whether they win or not, they’re advancing election mis- and disinformation that could be used to launch legal challenges to valid election results, like we saw in North Carolina in 2024.
History has showed us that progress isn’t a straight line. We must stay vigilant and work to protect our elections and voting rights. UCS is meeting with election officials and administrators to discuss our report’s findings and advocating for the adoption of practices to improve their voting processes.
Here’s what you can do:
- We’ve assembled science-based recommendations on election data transparency and equitable ballot design designed to restore trust in elections and ensure fair representation in elections. You can encourage your state to adopt them.
- Keep up to date with the newest developments in the Trump administration by following our blog series.
- Use our Town Hall Toolkit to attend local townhalls and voice your support of science and hold officials accountable.
- Join our Science Network to use your expertise to fight for science and science-backed decisions to protect our health, safety, environment, and democracy.
To learn more about the findings of this analysis, see my other blogpost “New Interactive Map Shows Racial Disparities in Turnout and Ballot Rejections in Recent Elections” and register for our supporter webinar on March 10th at 1pm ET.