Racial Disparities Already Undermine Elections—but the Threat to Democracy Is Growing

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' new precinct-level analysis of 2016, 2020, and 2024 voter turnout and ballot rejections in several battleground counties provides a deep dive into elections in swing states that have been pivotal in recent presidential contests: Allegheny (Pittsburgh) and Philadelphia counties in Pennsylvania; Columbus, 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 a landscape that shows who participated in the 2020 and 2024 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 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 2016 Electoral College victory in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin was a matter of fewer than 80,000 votes.

What's more, 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 experience voting differently. Research shows that many electoral rules-such as redistricting, voter access policies, and voter file maintenance processes-have a disproportionately negative effect on traditionally marginalized communities. Researchers have also found evidence that the quality of election administration is geographic-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.

The racial turnout gap, which measures the turnout rates across racial groups, is a common indicator of electoral inequality. Our analysis finds very high inequalities in the communities we studied. In each year, majority-White precincts had higher turnout. Moreover, while average turnout in majority-White precincts increased from 2016 to 2024-peaking in 2020-average turnout among majority-Black and -Hispanic precincts decreased from 2016 to 2024. In majority-Black precincts, turnout fell from 64% in 2016 to 50% in 2024. In majority-Hispanic precincts, average turnout dropped from 55% in 2016 to 53% in 2024. 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 inequalities in our elections. Each election, hundreds of thousands of ballots are rejected and not counted. 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. Majority-Black and majority-Hispanic precincts had significantly higher ballot rejection rates than majority-White precincts in 2016, 2020, and 2024. Not only that, but precincts with lower turnout rates were also the precincts that had higher rejections. As we saw with turnout, racial disparities in ballot rejections remain after controlling for state and/or county-level factors.

Some of the counties in our analysis provided reasons for rejection. In Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania-the county with the highest average rejection rate compared to other states for which we had rejection data for that year-0.77%of ballots (or 4,172 ballots) were rejected in the 2020 general election. The most common reason for rejection was that ballots were cast by people who were unregistered (nearly 70%). The second most common reason for rejection was that the voter already voted by other means (about 19%), followed by registration in a different county (about 10%).

Looking forward

During the first months of the second Trump presidency, 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. Most recently, President Trump has indicated that he plans 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 Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act (which would require every voter to provide documentary proof of citizenship to register to vote) has not yet passed Congress, once again 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 69 bills across 27 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. California Governor Newsom is leading a counter-effort to redraw congressional maps in the state via a special election this fall. President Trump has threatened to use the Department of Justice to legally challenge California's redistricting, though not Texas'. (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.

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 and Save Science, Save Lives campaign.
• 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 join our supporter webinar on October 8^th at 3pm ET.