Race and Representation in Battleground Counties
An analysis of racial disparities in voter turnout and ballot rejections in the 2020 presidential election
How to use this map
This map and analysis explores voter turnout in 2020 for 11 counties in seven battleground states — counties that will likely be pivotal in the outcome of the 2024 election. Information is presented at the voting precinct level and includes the racial demographics for each precinct.
You can move the map, zoom in and out, and click on any precinct for more details. The starting point for the map is , but you can jump directly to other featured counties by clicking on the following links:
Arizona: Michigan: North Carolina: (Charlotte),, Ohio: , Pennsylvania: ,
Voter turnout is defined as the percentage of registered voters who cast a ballot. Racial demographic data and categories are derived from the Census and the American Community Survey. Not every race and ethnicity are represented and population estimates include percentages for racial groups that are not mutually exclusive (e.g., Hispanic and multi-racial classifications may overlap), which can result in cumulative totals greater or less than 100 percent.
Racial disparities in turnout
Analysis of the data shows that 2020 turnout in the 11 featured counties was highest in majority-White precincts (with an average turnout of 78%) and considerably lower in majority-Black (59%) and majority-Hispanic (54%) precincts. The average voter turnout nationally in 2020 was 66%.
These racial disparities in voter turnout result in under-representation of the interests, needs, and preferences of Black and Hispanic communities, and over-representation of the interests of communities in majority-White precincts.
As a result, decisions made by elected officials are less likely to reflect the interests of these under-represented communities. This in turn leads to policies that are less likely to protect the health, safety, and well-being of these communities.
These differences in voter turnout can be attributed to a number of causes at the state, county, and local level. These include, but are not limited to, the following:
— Barriers to voting access, such as restrictive state voter ID laws and proof of citizenship requirements that disproportionately impact Black and Brown voters .
— Variability in the convenience of voting, including the relative ease or difficulty of getting to polling locations, the accessibility of polling locations for voters with disabilities, the length of time voters have to cast a ballot before or on Election Day, and the number of ways voters can cast a ballot.
— Differences in the resources devoted to election administration and communication to voters in individual precincts and counties.
— Differences in the extent and activity of local and grassroots voter mobilizing efforts and networks.
Ballot rejection rates
This map shows rejection rates in 2020 for provisional and/or absentee ballots in battleground counties in the five states where these data were available, along with the racial demographics for each precinct. The starting point for this map is , but you can jump directly to the other featured counties by clicking on the following links:
Michigan:
North Carolina: ,
Ohio:
Precincts in each county are divided into thirds and color coded based on their rejection rates — high, medium, and low — relative to other precincts in that county.
Provisional ballots are used on Election Day when there are questions about a voter's eligibility. Absentee ballots are ballots submitted by mail or ballot drop box.
Cumulative inequity
Analysis of the 2020 election data shows that voters living in low-turnout precincts were more likely to have their provisional or absentee ballots rejected. These precincts are also disproportionately majority-Black or majority-Hispanic, further increasing the impact of racial inequities in the voting system.
In particular, analysis shows that majority-Black and majority-Hispanic precincts were twice as likely to have a higher incidence of ballot rejections compared with majority-White precincts. This disparity exacerbates the under-representation of low-turnout precincts and makes it even less likely that the needs and interests of these communities are represented in the policymaking process.
Differences in ballot rejection rates can be attributed to a number of causes at the state, county, and local levels. These include, but are not limited to, the following:
— Variability in election resources at the precinct and county level, especially support for local election offices to contact voters whose ballots have been flagged for potential rejection.
— Ballot design flaws, which can lead to voters erroneously or incompletely filling out their ballot.
— Voter error in following ballot instructions, such as failing to include a signature on an absentee ballot.
— A lack of voter awareness of their current registration status, including whether they have been removed from registration lists due to a period of voting inactivity.
— Administrative and clerical errors and inconsistencies, especially excessive scrutiny of signatures — one of the primary reasons ballots are rejected even though research indicates that the majority of these ballots are from eligible voters.
2024 election implications
The counties included in this analysis are generally the most populous counties in battleground states that have been pivotal in determining the outcome of the Electoral College over the last few presidential elections.
These counties were also explicit targets in both 2016 and 2020 for voter suppression efforts and in 2020 were primary targets of false and unproven allegations of widespread voter fraud. Similar efforts are already underway in advance of the 2024 election — efforts that will likely ramp up in the weeks preceding and following Election Day.
Presenting this analysis and data in advance of the 2024 election serves several purposes:
- Establishes a comparative baseline for voter turnout and ballot rejection rates to enable better identification of any irregularities in the 2024 election and provide the foundation for future analytic work.
- Provides precinct-level 2020 voting data to help counter false claims of election fraud.
- Affirms that claims of widespread illegal voting in these battleground counties are false and lack merit and evidence. 2020 election data show that only a minuscule fraction (less than 1%) of all ballots cast were rejected for voter eligibility reasons and that validated ballots were cast by eligible voters.
- Identifies low-turnout precincts to help strategically target voter mobilization and education efforts to increase participation in our democracy.
- Highlights the critical need to provide — and continually improve — election data transparency for the 2024 election and beyond. Read our recommendations for improving election data transparency .
About this analysis
For details on the data and methodology used for these maps and accompanying analysis, download the technical appendix .
Download the complete data used for these maps and analysis.
For an in-depth discussion of the findings of this analysis, see author Michael Latner’s blog post, New Analysis of 2020 Election Data Sets the Stage for November Vote.
Featured image: Hill Street Studios/Getty Images