Voting: it’s the integral base which democracy is based upon, yet for a country that prides itself as being the first modern democracy, we have historically done a horrible job at allowing people to vote. We’ve come a long way from 1776, when only white, property-owning men could vote. Now, any citizen over 18 can vote, regardless of race, gender, or wealth. Recently, however, there have been many efforts to take away the voting rights of people from all walks of life, including laws that specifically target minorities, former felons, and people who don’t vote often. In an election that may lead to horrific ramifications that would certainly arise if a certain candidate is elected, every vote matters.

Laws that require voters to have certain forms of identification sound good in theory; after all, who doesn’t want to prevent voter fraud? But a closer look at how these laws are structured tell the true story. In 2013, in the case of Shelby County v. Holder, the Supreme Court struck down a key part of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which was originally passed in the midst of the Civil Rights Movement in order to prevent southern states from discriminating against blacks by providing federal oversight of voting laws. These protections have been stripped away, leading to some dire consequences.

Since 2011, 13 states have enacted voter ID laws, bringing the total up to 33 states. And while not all of these laws prohibit voting—in Connecticut, if you don’t have an appropriate form of identification, you can still vote as long as you provide your name, date of birth, and address—some states are extremely strict with their laws and, furthermore, it is difficult in many of those states to even obtain voter ID. In Texas, a state notorious for its strict voter ID laws, blacks are 1.78 times less likely and Latinos are 2.42 times less likely to have acceptable ID than whites. However, in large regions of southern and western Texas that contain a high Latino population, there are few, if any ID-issuing offices, and on top of that, they are only open once or twice a week. Even worse, concealed-carry handgun licenses count as a proper form of voter identification, but state-issued university IDs do not.

Across the nation, about 11 percent of registered voters lack an acceptable form of identification, such as drivers licenses or passports. And when broken up into different demographics, minorities, the young, the elderly, and the poor are all disproportionately affected. And while obtaining a state-issued photo ID is technically free, there are many hidden costs that create major obstacles to voting. In order to receive an ID, you have to provide proper documentation, such as a birth certificate or passport. However, getting a copy of your birth certificate can cost anywhere from $15 to $30, and renewing a passport can cost up to $110. Married women have an addition hurdle to face, as women who have changed their surname may also have to provide a copy of the marriage license, which can cost between $5 to $40. And these are only the costs of the document themselves; there are additional costs associated with transportation to obtain these documents or to go to the ID-issuing offices. And while driving is easy for those of us fortunate enough to have our own vehicles, there are many voting-age citizens who don't have access to a vehicle. Just take a look at this chart of states with restrictive voter ID laws and the lack of ability to get to an ID-issuing office. Furthermore, there is valid evidence that show that voter ID laws hamper minorities voting. This UCSD study showed that voter turnout for minorities significantly dropped between 2008 and 2012 in states with strict voter ID laws.

But what’s the point of voter identification, anyway? Proponents claim that it prevents voter fraud, which can mean a number of things, from forgery, to vote buying, to changing and/or destroying ballots. However, voter ID laws don’t prevent these types of voter fraud; instead, they are only designed prevent voter impersonation, where someone else votes in your name. This has much lower consequences than other types of voting problems because it only affects one vote for every impersonation. There are many more pressing issues in the voting world that should be prioritized over voter impersonation that we’ve already seen affect the primaries, including the drastically reduced number of polling stations in places like Maricopa County, Arizona, which had 200 polling stations in 2012, but only 60 in 2016. The four hour long lines caused thousands of people to go home without voting, making it a serious problem. The case for voter IDs becomes moot in light of an investigation from 2000-2014 that found only 31 cases of possible voter impersonation, in a period of time where more than a billion ballots were cast. Voter ID laws are a thinly veiled effort that pretend to solve a nonexistent problem. Underneath the surface, they are a not-so-subtle attempt to disenfranchise minority voters by limiting the ability to obtain these forms of identification.

Luckily, there’s been some progress in the fight against voter ID laws and other restrictions that target minorities. The controversial voter ID law in North Carolina was completely struck down by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. The law not only required photo identification, but also prohibited registering to vote on Election Day and limited early voting, all of which disproportionately affected African American voters. In Wisconsin, a federal district court ruled that voter IDs must be easier to obtain and allow those without a voter ID to sign an affidavit instead, helping enfranchise the 9% of registered voters in Wisconsin without a voter ID. And in Ohio, another court reinstated the “Golden Week” for voting, a week where Ohioans could register to vote and cast their ballots early at the same time. Not coincidentally, in the 2012 election, nearly 20 percent of African Americans used early voting, while only about 9 percent of whites did, causing the GOP-led legislature to try to eliminate early voting in the hopes of discouraging blacks from voting.

The fight is far from over, however. There are 17 states that will be implementing voter ID laws for the first time in the 2016 election. Some courts have upheld restrictive voter ID laws in states such as Virginia. And there won't be any consistency without either a new and updated version of the Voting Rights Act, which certainly won't pass through a Republican Congress, or a ruling from the Supreme Court that would overturn the Shelby County decision. And in a Supreme Court that is currently gridlocked 4-4 on most partisan cases, and the Senate refusing to confirm President Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland, this election will decide the makeup of the Supreme Court for the next 40 years, and therefore, the fate of voter ID laws and the obstacles they preset to voting.

This is only part one of three in a series of articles on voter disenfranchisement. Come back next week for the second part on purges of voter registration!