Pathways to Participation: Ensuring Voting Access for HBCUs

Historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs) represent key points of access to higher education for many Black students, due to historical exclusion and ongoing systemic barriers to Black student access and success. At present, there are 106 HBCUs across the United States. Although HBCUs make up only three percent of the country’s colleges and universities, they enroll ten percent of all African American students and produce almost twenty percent of all African American graduates. i,ii

Most HBCUs are located in the southern United States, where Jim Crow laws enforced segregation in education until the landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision in 1954.iii This report targets the five states with the highest number of HBCUs: Alabama (14), North Carolina (11), Georgia (10), Texas (9), and South Carolina (8). According to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), the majority of college students are between eighteen and twenty-four years old. iv Furthermore, NCES data shows that 66,119 students were enrolled across these five institutions in the fall of 2022, representing a substantial number of eligible voters. v

These five target states have been the focal points of voter suppression efforts. For example, in Alabama, legislation requires all mail voters to submit a copy of a qualifying photo ID and mandates that only the voter can return their mail-in ballot (AL S. 301, 2019). A Texas law banned drive-through voting, 24-hour early voting, and the distribution of mail ballot applications; increased informational requirements for voting by mail; and allowed for correcting defective mail ballot envelopes under certain conditions (TX S. 1, 2nd Special Session, 2021). South Carolina legislation requires partial Social Security numbers on mail ballot applications, imposed new restrictions on ballot returns, and narrowed the qualifying excuses to vote by mail (SC S. 108, 2022). Until 2022, the state did not have a formal early voting system. While the introduction of a two week early voting period is a step in the right direction, the duration is still insufficient to accommodate the needs of all voters,

AL NC GA

TX SC

particularly those with inflexible work schedules, limited transportation options, or other barriers to accessing polling places. vi,vii Georgia’s Senate Bill 202 (GA S. 202, 2021) presents significant barriers to voting, particularly for historically disenfranchised groups. This legislation, passed in 2021, includes provisions such as reduced early voting periods, restrictions on absentee ballot drop boxes, and stricter voter ID requirements, all of which make absentee voting more difficult, especially for those juggling work and academic obligations. Notably, Georgia, North Carolina, and Texas are among fifteen states that have laws specifying who can return ballots on behalf of voters, typically restricting this to household members, caregivers, and family members. viii

The time to act is now. We must strengthen voter education, improve access to absentee voting, and provide support to ensure HBCU students can reach the polls and fully participate in the democratic process. Analyzing the proximity of voting locations to HBCUs offers key insights into the accessibility of polling places for students, identifying obstacles and potential solutions to boost voter engagement. These findings underscore the importance of enhancing transportation options, encouraging walking and biking, providing targeted assistance for longer distances, and advocating for policy changes. Addressing these factors is crucial to empower HBCU students to actively engage in the electoral process, helping to build a more engaged electorate.

Polling Insights for the Five Target States

Polling insights from the five target states with the most HBCUs reveal important aspects of voter accessibility and campus infrastructure , offering a glimpse into how well these institutions support democratic participation.

DISTRIBUTION OF HBCU s

• The five states with the highest number of HBCUs are Alabama, North Carolina, Georgia, Texas, and South Carolina (Figure 1). Together, these states are home to fifty-two HBCUs.

• These HBCUs are geographically distributed across thirty-seven counties.

FIGURE 1 — GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF HBCUs WITHIN THE 5 TARGET STATES.

POLLING PLACES

• There are forty-two polling stations available across the fifty-two HBCUs in these five states (Table 1). This distribution is critical for understanding voter accessibility and ensuring convenient election participation across these regions.

• Among these fifty-two HBCUs, seventeen (32.69%) have polling stations on campus, while thirtyfive (67.31%) do not.

ACCESSIBILITY TO POLLING LOCATIONS

• 14.29% of polling locations are within a 0.5-mile driving distance, offering convenient access for voters to nearby polling stations.

• 42.86% of polling locations are between a 0.5-mile to 1-mile driving distance, making them easily reachable with a short commute.

• 25.71% of polling locations fall within a 1-mile to 2-mile driving distance, requiring a slightly longer commute but still accessible for voters.

• 11.43% of polling locations are within a 2-mile to 4-mile driving distance, indicating a moderate distance that may require additional planning for voter transportation.

• The furthest polling locations, representing 5.71%, require drives above 4 miles, suggesting less frequent access due to longer driving distances, potentially impacting voter turnout.

COMMUTE PATTERNS FROM CAMPUS TO POLLING STATIONS

• Across all five states, driving times tend to be slightly higher in the afternoon (2 PM) compared to the morning (9 AM). Even with a slight increase in driving times, travel durations remain relatively consistent throughout the day.

TABLE 1 — POLLING STATIONS AVAILABLE ACROSS THE FIFTY-TWO HBCUs.

WALKABILITY TO POLLING STATIONS

• Distances are considered walkable if they are ≤ 1 mile, which typically takes around twenty minutes to walk.

• Across the five states, 34.62% of HBCUs are classified as walkable. This relatively low percentage suggests that walkability is not yet a dominant feature and could be an area for potential development.

• Georgia leads with 60% of universities classified as walkable, while Alabama has none.

WALK SCORE IMPACT

• Walkability ratings such as “Walker’s Paradise,” “Very Walkable,” and “Somewhat Walkable” (combined 30.77%) are crucial for assessing convenience and accessibility for students, potentially influencing campus life and daily commutes.

• A significant portion, 36.54%, is classified as ‘Car-Dependent,’ highlighting reliance on cars for daily errands and commutes, which impacts accessibility to polling stations for students, faculty, and staff at HBCUs.

BIKEABILITY

• Distances are considered bikeable if they are ≤ 3 miles, which generally takes about fifteen minutes to bike.

• A combined 63.46% of HBCUs are bikeable, indicating a generally favorable attitude towards biking. This suggests that many campuses may promote biking through infrastructure or campus culture.

• For bikeable universities, Texas and North Carolina have the highest percentages (77.78% and 72.73% respectively).

BIKE SCORES IMPACT

• While no areas are rated as “Biker’s Paradise,” the percentages for “Very Bikeable” (9.62%), “Bikeable” (15.38%), and “Somewhat Bikeable” (42.31%) suggest varying levels of bike accessibility around polling stations, affecting transportation choices and ease of access during elections.

TRANSIT

• Represents available transit options, regardless of their scope or frequency.

• A combined 1.92% of the HBCUs are transit-accessible, highlighting a significant gap in public transport options. This points to a critical area for development, especially in providing accessible and sustainable transportation solutions for students relying on public transit.

• Only Alabama has a university classified under transit, making up 7.14% of its total universities.

Key Facts and Statistics by State

ALABAMA

Alabama has fourteen HBCUs, with six having polling stations on campus (42.86%) and eight without (57.14%). There are twelve polling stations geographically distributed across nine counties. None of the universities have polling stations within walking distance to polling stations, 42.86%, of the colleges are close enough to bike to, and only 7.14%, have some form of public transit that connects to polling stations.

NORTH CAROLINA

North Carolina has eleven HBCUs, with three having polling stations on campus (27.27%) and eight without (72.73%). There are ten polling stations geographically distributed across nine counties. Over half of the universities (54.55%) are within walking distance of a polling station, 72.73% of the polling stations are close enough to bike to, but none have public transit accessibility.

GEORGIA

Georgia has ten HBCUs, with three having polling stations on campus (30%) and seven without (70%). There are five polling stations geographically distributed across five counties. Most universities are within walking distance (60%) of a polling station, 70% are close enough to bike to, but none of the colleges have public transit access.

TEXAS

Texas has nine HBCUs, with two having polling stations on campus (22.22%) and seven without (77.78%). There are nine polling stations geographically distributed across nine counties. About a third of the universities (33.33%) are within walking distance to a polling station, nearly 78% are close enough to bike to, and there is no public transit available.

SOUTH CAROLINA

South Carolina has eight HBCUs, with three having polling stations on campus (37.5%) and five without (62.5%). There are six polling stations geographically distributed across five counties. About 37.5% of the universities are within walking distance to polling stations, 63% are close enough to bike to, and none have public transit options.

Voter Connectivity Across the Five Target States

Easy access to polling stations is essential for promoting voter participation among HBCU students. The maps (Figure 2) visually represent universities with and without polling places across the five target states: Alabama, North Carolina, Georgia, Texas, and South Carolina.

FIGURE 2 — GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF HBCUs WITH AND WITHOUT POLLING STATIONS ACROSS TARGET STATES.

Note: HBCUs with a polling station on-site were excluded from the analysis

Polling station on campus

No polling station on campus

The maps use different symbols and numbers to connect to (Table 2) on the following page, which outlines the accessibility of polling stations by foot, bike, and transit for various HBCUs in these states. This comprehensive approach highlights the differences in accessibility and helps identify areas where improvements can be made to facilitate easier student voting access.

1 Alabama A&M University Barber-Scotia College* Albany State University Huston-Tillotson University* Allen University*

2 Alabama State University Bennett College* Clark Atlanta University Jarvis Christian College* Benedict College 3 Bishop State Community College Elizabeth City State University Fort Valley State University* Paul Quinn College* Claflin University*

4 Gadsden State Community College* Fayetteville State University* Interdenominational Theological Center*

College*

5 J.F Drake State Technical College* Johnson C. Smith University* Morehouse College* Southwestern Christian College* Denmark Technical College*

6 Lawson State Community College* Livingstone College* Morehouse School of Medicine* St. Philips College* Morris College

7 Miles College North Carolina A&T State University Morris Brown College* Texas College* South Carolina State University

8 Oakwood University North Carolina Central University Paine College Texas Southern University Voorhees College*

9 Selma University* Saint Augustine’s University* Savannah State University* Wiley College*

Universities with an asterisk (*) indicate the absence of a polling station on campus and were included in the analysis.

Universities without an asterisk (*) indicate the presence of a polling station on campus and were not included in the analysis.

Walking Icons ( ) next to HBCUs with polling places within walkable distances ≤ 1 mile (approximately 20 minutes walking time).

Bike Icons ( ) next to HBCUs with polling places within bikeable distances ≤ 3 miles (approximately 15 minutes of biking time).

Transit Icons ( ) to highlight any transit options, even if limited.

Drive Time Comparisons

The decision to schedule voting transportation for HBCUs at 9 am and 2 pm is based on several strategic considerations. First, these early and mid-day time slots ensure that transportation services are available when most needed, optimizing resource efficiency and preventing overuse later in the day. Operating during daylight hours also provides safer and more accessible conditions for student safety and convenience. Additionally, scheduling transportation outside peak traffic hours reduces travel time, ensuring students reach polling stations promptly. This timing also aligns with less crowded polling periods, as most workers tend to vote after 4 pm, enabling students to vote more quickly and minimizing time away from their academic responsibilities.

FIGURE 3 — DRIVE TIME TO POLLING STATIONS ACROSS FIVE TARGET STATES.

Alabama has the highest total and average drive times to polling stations at 9 AM and 2 PM, suggesting that HBCUs in the state are likely more spread out or situated in areas with heavier traffic, leading to longer commute times. North Carolina’s driving times are moderate, indicating a balanced distribution of HBCUs and relatively manageable traffic conditions. In contrast, Georgia consistently has the shortest total and average drive times, reflecting that HBCUs in Georgia might be closer together or located in less congested areas, resulting in quicker commutes. Texas shows a notable increase in total and average drive times from morning to afternoon, which may indicate growing congestion as the day progresses or a more significant impact of geographical spread on travel times in the afternoon. South Carolina displays unique stability in traffic patterns, with identical total and average drive times for 9 AM and 2 PM, suggesting consistent traffic flow or well-distributed educational facilities throughout the day, as highlighted in (Figure 3).

Driving Distance Metrics

Ensuring accessible polling places is crucial for facilitating voter participation. The distance between students from HBCUs in Alabama, North Carolina, Georgia, Texas, and South Carolina and their nearest polling locations is illustrated in the driving miles analysis (Figure 4). The distances are divided into five categories. The first category comprises students who reside within a 0.5-mile radius of their polling location. The second category comprises students who reside between a distance of 0.5 miles to 1 mile of their polling location, while students who reside between 1 to 2 miles of their polling location comprise the third category. The fourth category comprises individuals who reside between 2 and 4 miles from their polling location, while the fifth and final categories comprises those who reside over 4 miles from their polling location. Each category helps determine the level of access these students have to polling places and its impact on voter participation.

4 —

CLOSE PROXIMITY (0.5 MILES AND BELOW)

Georgia stands out with 57% of its HBCUs within 0.5 miles of a polling station, while North Carolina has only 13%. This high percentage indicates exceptional accessibility, likely contributing to ease of voting for many students by minimizing travel time and reducing transportation barriers.

SHORT DRIVING DISTANCE (ABOVE 0.5 MILES TO 1 MILE)

North Carolina (62%), Georgia (43%), Texas (57%), and South Carolina (60%) have a considerable proportion of HBCUs within 0.5 to 1 mile of a polling station. These distances are generally manageable and suggest that a substantial number of HBCU student voters have fairly convenient access. This range may still be accessible for walking or biking, depending on local infrastructure and terrain.

MODERATE DISTANCE (ABOVE 1 MILE TO 2 MILES)

Alabama (50%) and Texas (43%) have notable percentages of HBCUS in the 1-to-2-mile range of a polling station. In these states, voters will likely require a short drive to reach their polling locations. This distance could present challenges for individuals without personal vehicles or those relying on limited public transportation options.

EXTENDED DISTANCE (ABOVE 2 MILES TO 4 MILES)

In Alabama, 25% of HBCUs fall within two to four miles of a polling station, with 13% in North Carolina and 20% in South Carolina. These distances necessitate a more significant travel commitment, potentially posing a barrier for voters who lack reliable transportation or live in sparse public transit areas.

LONG DISTANCE (ABOVE 4 MILES)

Alabama has 25% of its HBCUS over four miles away from a polling station. This greater distance can be a substantial barrier, particularly affecting those in rural communities, individuals with limited mobility, or those without access to personal transportation. This situation underscores the need for enhanced transportation solutions or strategically locating polling places on campus to ensure equitable access.

Distance Distribution by Travel Mode to Polling Stations Across Five Target States

Ensuring that polling places are accessible by various modes of travel is crucial for promoting voter turnout among HBCU students. As illustrated (Figure 5), the distance distribution by travel mode to polling stations at HBCUs in the five target states—Alabama, North Carolina, Georgia, Texas, and South Carolina— has significant implications for student voters from these institutions. By using a color scale to represent the number of polling places within different distance ranges, the chart provides a clear visual representation of accessibility. Dark red indicates more polling places, while light yellow signifies fewer. For student voters, this means that in states where the chart shows dark red bars within the 0–1-mile range, many polling places close to their campuses make it easier for them to vote. Conversely, light yellow bars indicate fewer nearby polling places, which could pose challenges for students who may have to travel further to cast their votes. This visual tool helps identify which states offer better accessibility to polling places for HBCU students, potentially influencing voter turnout. States with more accessible polling places (indicated by darker colors) are likely to see higher student voter participation, while those with fewer accessible locations may need to implement measures to improve accessibility and encourage student voting. Overall, the chart underscores the importance of ensuring that polling places are conveniently located to facilitate higher voter turnout among HBCU students and enhance their participation in the democratic process.

FIGURE 5 — TRAVEL DISTANCE TO POLLING STATIONS ACROSS FIVE TARGET STATES BY TRAVEL MODE.

Number of polling locations

1. ACCESSIBILITY BY MODE OF TRAVEL:

Walking and Biking: In Georgia, 92.31% of polling places are within a 0–1-mile walking and biking distance, promoting accessibility by foot or bike. South Carolina offers good accessibility for walkers, with 71.43% of polling places within a 0–1-mile radius, while 57.14% are accessible for bikers. North Carolina provides moderate pedestrian access, with 70% of polling places within a 0–1-mile radius and 50% for cyclists. In Texas, 55.56% of polling places are within a 0–1-mile radius, supporting walking, while 44.44% are accessible by bike. Conversely, Alabama has only 25% of polling places within a 0–1-mile radius, limiting options for walking and biking.

Driving: In Georgia, 84.62% of polling places are within a 0-1 mile driving distance, ensuring convenient access for drivers. South Carolina has 57.14% of polling places within a 0-1 mile driving distance, ensuring accessible locations for drivers. In Texas, 55.56% of polling places are within a 0-1 mile driving distance, facilitating easy access by car. North Carolina provides decent motorist access, with 50% of polling places within a 0–1-mile driving distance. In contrast, Alabama has only 16.67% of polling places within a 0–1-mile radius for drivers, indicating limited accessibility by car.

2. LIMITED POLLING PLACES AT GREATER DISTANCES:

In Alabama, a significant portion of polling places (50% for walking, biking, and driving) are within 1-3 miles, posing manageable distances for drivers but potentially challenging for those on foot or bike. North Carolina’s polling places are evenly spread between 1-3 miles, accommodating diverse transportation needs, with 50% accessible for driving and biking and 30% for walking. Texas shows a relatively even distribution, with 44.44% accessible for driving and walking, while biking is slightly higher at 55.56%, ensuring accessibility across modes of travel. South Carolina follows suit, with 42.86% accessible by driving and biking and 28.57% by walking within 1-3 miles, providing varied options for voters. Georgia presents fewer polling places (7.69%) within 1-3 miles for walking and biking, potentially posing challenges for voters at greater distances, though 15.38% are accessible for driving.

3. LONGER DISTANCES:

Fewer polling places, 8.33% for walking and biking and 16.67% for driving within 3-5 miles, and 16.67% for driving, walking, and biking beyond 5 miles in only Alabama, poses challenges for non-driving voters. This distribution highlights disparities in accessibility based on mode of transportation, potentially affecting voter turnout among those reliant on walking or biking.

4. POTENTIAL BARRIERS:

Accessibility challenges vary by mode of travel across states. For walking and biking, limited availability of polling places beyond one mile may hinder voters with mobility limitations or lacking transportation, potentially impacting voter participation. Similarly, for driving, polling places beyond five miles could present significant barriers for voters without access to reliable transportation, deterring voter turnout in areas with greater distances to travel, as seen in Alabama. These disparities underscore the importance of considering accessibility factors when planning polling locations to ensure equitable access for all voters.

Walking, Biking, Driving, and Transit Viability

The accessibility of polling places for students at HBCUs can significantly influence their ability to participate in elections. Assessing the viability of walking, biking, driving, and using public transit to reach polling stations provides a comprehensive understanding of these students’ transportation challenges and opportunities. Ensuring easy access to polling places through various modes of transportation is crucial to encouraging student voter turnout and facilitating civic engagement.

1. WALKING VIABILITY

Georgia has the most HBCUs within walking distance of polling places, typically under one mile, making it convenient for students to vote without needing transportation. North Carolina, Texas, and South Carolina HBCUs have a moderate distance from polling places. In Alabama, the availability of polling places within walking distance of HBCUs is relatively limited, with only three polling places within a 1-mile walking distance, which could affect the ease with which students can vote.

2. BIKING VIABILITY

Biking is a practical option for students at several Georgia HBCUs, provided students have access to bikes, with almost all polling places within a 1-mile radius encouraging students to bike and use this healthy and sustainable transportation method. Similarly, for HBCUs in North Carolina, Texas, South Carolina, and Alabama, biking to polling places is somewhat feasible, encouraging students to bike to polling locations. This spread suggests that biking can be a good alternative for students who can financially afford a bike.

3. DRIVING VIABILITY

Driving is a viable option for many students with cars at Georgia HBCUs. With eleven polling places within a 1-mile driving distance and two within a 1-3-mile range, students with vehicle access can conveniently reach polling stations. North Carolina, Texas, and South Carolina have varied accessibility levels, stressing the importance of vehicle access in reaching polling places. Driving is the most viable transportation option for students at Alabama HBCUs, given the broader range of distances to polling places. This distribution highlights the importance of having access to a vehicle for voting.

4. TRANSIT VIABILITY

Public transit options are limited across all HBCUs in all five states, potentially impacting voters reliant on public transportation. This lack of public transportation can make it challenging for students who do not have access to personal vehicles to reach polling places, potentially hindering their ability to vote. This limitation can affect students who rely on public transit to travel to voting locations.

Implications of the Findings

The findings of this study highlight significant disparities in polling place accessibility for HBCU students in Alabama, North Carolina, Georgia, Texas, and South Carolina. These disparities, stemming from historical and ongoing voter suppression efforts, necessitate immediate and targeted action to ensure equitable access to voting for Black students. These implications are crucial for understanding the challenges and potential solutions for improving voter access and participation among this demographic. Here are some key implications:

1. NEED FOR IMPROVED TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE:

• Transit Availability: The limited availability of public transit options for many HBCUs indicates a significant gap in transportation infrastructure. This lack of access could discourage students from voting, especially those who do not have personal vehicles. Addressing this gap could involve collaboration with local transit authorities to improve public transport routes and increase the frequency of service and schedules around election days or provide dedicated shuttles on election days.

• Cost and Time of Transit: Long travel times can be prohibitive when public transit is available. For example, the forty-eight minute transit time observed from J.F Drake State Technical College to the polling station in Alabama underscores the need for more affordable and efficient transit solutions.

2.

PROMOTION OF WALKING AND BIKING:

• Short Distances Feasibility: Many HBCUs have polling places within a reasonable walking or biking distance, particularly in Georgia. Improving walkability and bikeability through infrastructure enhancements, such as better sidewalks, bike lanes, and secure parking, can facilitate easier access to polling places.

• Health and Environmental Benefits: Promoting walking and biking through the development of safe pedestrian paths and bike lanes improves voter access, offers health benefits, and reduces environmental impact. Campus-wide initiatives should highlight these benefits to encourage sustainable transportation methods.

3. TARGETED SUPPORT FOR LONGER DISTANCES:

• Shuttle Services: For HBCUs with polling places further away, such as Gadsden State Community College, J.F Drake State Technical College, and Talladega College, implementing shuttle services on election days could significantly improve accessibility. These shuttles can be timed to coincide with peak voting hours, reducing the time and hassle of reaching polling places.

• Strategic Partnerships: Partnerships with local transportation authorities and community organizations can help provide resources and funding for these shuttle services. Additionally, partnerships with rideshare companies like Uber and Lyft could offer discounted or free rides for students to and from polling locations on election days. There is a pressing need for improved transportation options to significantly reduce student travel barriers, especially in Alabama, where polling places are often over four miles away from campuses.

4. POLICY AND ADVOCACY:

• Advocating for On-Campus and Closer Polling Places: The presence of on-campus polling stations at only seventeen out of fifty-two HBCUs across Alabama, North Carolina, Georgia, Texas and South Carolina indicates a need for policy changes. Working with local election boards and policymakers to advocate for more on-campus polling stations can greatly enhance accessibility, particularly in Alabama, where no universities are currently walkable to polling stations.

• Voter Education Campaigns: Comprehensive voter education campaigns that include information about transportation options, the importance of voting, and key deadlines is crucial in ensuring students are prepared and motivated to vote. Social media, campus events, and collaborations with student organizations can enhance these efforts. Additionally, information on absentee voting options and the steps necessary to vote by mail, especially given the restrictive mail voting laws in states like Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, and Texas, is crucial for ensuring equitable access to the electoral process and protecting voting rights.

Conclusion

Ensuring voting accessibility for HBCU students is paramount for enabling all eligible voters to participate in the democratic process without encountering undue barriers. With over 66,000 students enrolled in these institutions, it is clear that a significant number of eligible voters are at stake.

Specific attention is needed in states like Alabama, where transportation challenges are more pronounced. Alabama’s high average drive times and limited walkability necessitate immediate action to improve access to polling stations. Implementing shorter drive times and strategic partnerships can increase voter turnout, as students can schedule time to vote between work, class, and other academic and non-academic commitments. Accessible voting promotes civic engagement, encouraging lifelong voting habits and broader participation in civic activities, amplifying the voices of historically marginalized communities in elections, and influencing more equitable policy decisions. Addressing transportation and accessibility challenges holistically— through improved transit, enhanced walkability and bikeability, targeted shuttle services, and effective policy advocacy—is key to empowering HBCU students, improving voter turnout, and nurturing a more inclusive and representative democratic process.

DATA SOURCES

2024 Election Day Locations - Waller County, Texas. (n.d). 2024 Joint Primary Election, Election Day Locations. https://www.co.waller.tx.us/ upload/page/0169/2024%20ELECTION%20DAY%20LOCATIONS%20corr.pdf

37 states polling stations (2020). https://publicintegrity.org/politics/elections/ballotboxbarriers/new-data-tracks-polling-place-locationsfor-37-states/

Augusta-Richmond County. (n.d.). Polling Locations. https://www.augustaga.gov/1117/Polling-Place-Information Board of Elections Chatham County, GA. (n.d.). Polling Locations - Effective May 21, 2024. https://elections.chathamcountyga.gov/ Constitutional Amendment and Joint Election. (n.d). Election Day Polling Locations. https://www.dallascountyvotes.org/wp-content/ uploads/WEB-Election-Day-Polling-Locations-8.pdf

Dougherty County Georgia. (n.d.). Updated Precinct Locations. https://d1g7aa7t2fopee.cloudfront.net/files/8lqmzyonz-1703633068761cb210f1c-8064-481a-8249-cbd874f8d0a4_1.jpg

Etowah County Alabama. (n.d.). Voting Precincts. https://etowahcounty.org/elections/ Fulton County, Georgia - Open Data. (n.d.). Voting polls. https://gisdata.fultoncountyga.gov/datasets/fulcogis::voting-polls-2/about Fulton County, Georgia - Open Data. (n.d.). Voting Precincts. https://gisdata.fultoncountyga.gov/datasets/fulcogis::voting-precincts/about Harris County Clerk’s Office Elections Department. (n.d). Vote Centers. https://www.harrisvotes.com/Vote-Centers

Harrison County Elections – Maps. (n.d). County Election Precinct Locations. https://harrisoncountytexas.org/elec-maps/ Jefferson County, Alabama. (n.d.). Voting Precincts. https://jeffcoprobatecourt.com/elections/voting-precincts/ Kaufman County Texas. (n.d). Election Day Vote Centers. https://www.kaufmancounty.net/DocumentCenter/View/6605/ED-LOCATIONSPRIMARY-RUNOFF-2024

KSAT.COM. (2024). Here’s how, where to vote early in Bexar County for the March primary elections. https://www.ksat.com/vote2024/2024/01/29/heres-how-where-to-vote-early-in-bexar-county-for-the-march-primary-elections/ Madison County Alabama. (n.d.). Polling Locations and Maps. https://www.madisoncountyvotes.com/voter-resources/polling-locations/ Mobile County. (n.d.). 2024 Voting Precincts & Maps. https://benchmark.probate.mobilecountyal.gov/uploads/Polls/ Montgomery County Election Center. (n.d.). Polling Locations. https://www.montgomeryvotesal.gov/elections-information/polling-locations My Wood Conty Texas (Election/Voter registration). (n.d). Polling Locations. https://elections.mywoodcounty.com/election-information/ polling-locations/

NC OneMap / State of North Carolina. (2024). Voting Precincts. https://www.nconemap.gov/datasets/nconemap::voting-precincts/about

North Carolina State Board of Elections (NCSBE). (2024). Polling Place Data. https://www.ncsbe.gov/results-data/polling-place-data Peach County. (n.d.). Peach County Precincts. https://www.peachcounty.net/election-dates.cfm

Savannah Area GIS. (n.d.). Voting precincts. https://hub.arcgis.com/datasets/SAGIS::voting-precincts/about Smith County Texas. (2024). Smith County Voting Centers Joint Primary Election 2024. https://www.smith-county.com/home/ showpublisheddocument/18574/638460910702870000

South Carolina Polling Locations. (n.d.). Precinct and Polling Places. https://vrems.scvotes.sc.gov/Statistics/PrecinctAndPollingLocations

Talladega County. (n.d.). County Polling Sites. https://www.talladegacountyal.org/departments/voter_registration/county_polling_sites.php

Travis County Election Day Vote Centers. (n.d). Vote Center. https://services.austintexas.gov/edims/document.cfm?id=367912

Tuscaloosa County Alabama. (n.d.). Polling Locations. https://www.tuscco.com/polling-locations/

U.S. Department of Labor. (n.d.). Minority Education Initiatives. Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs. https://www.dol.gov/ agencies/ofccp/compliance-assistance/outreach/hbcu-initiative/about

ii Bridges, B. (n.d.). African Americans and College Education by the Numbers. https://uncf.org/the-latest/african-americans-and-collegeeducation-by-the-numbers

iii National Archives. (2024). Brown v. Board of Education (1954). https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/brown-v-board-ofeducation#:~:text=On%20May%2017%2C%201954%2C%20U.S.,amendment%20and%20was%20therefore%20unconstitutional.

iv National Center for Education Statistics. (2024). College Enrollment Rates. Condition of Education. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cpb

v National Center for Education Statistics. (2023). Fall enrollment, degrees conferred, and expenditures in degree-granting historically Black colleges and universities, by institution: 2021, 2022, and academic year 2021-22. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d23/tables/ dt23_313.10.asp

vi Ballotpedia. (2024). Ballot harvesting (ballot collection) laws by state. https://ballotpedia.org/Ballot_harvesting_(ballot_collection)_ laws_by_state

vii Christina A. Cassidy and Ayanna Alexander. (2023). Supreme Court tossed out heart of Voting Rights Act a decade ago, prompting wave of new voting rules. The Associated Press. https://apnews.com/article/voting-rights-act-supreme-court-black-voters-6f840911e3 60c44fd2e4947cc743baa2

viii Senate Bill 202. (2021). Georgia General Assembly. https://www.legis.ga.gov/api/legislation/document/20212022/201498