Voting Map
Union density and voter restrictions
| State | Voter restrictions | Union density 15–19 avg | Voter Restrictions Ind |
|---|---|---|---|
| New York | No | 24.7% | 0 |
| Hawaii | No | 23.0% | 0 |
| Alaska | No | 19.9% | 0 |
| Washington | No | 19.5% | 0 |
| Connecticut | No | 17.3% | 0 |
| Rhode Island | Yes, (1) | 17.3% | 1 |
| New Jersey | No | 16.8% | 0 |
| California | No | 16.7% | 0 |
| Michigan | No | 15.8% | 0 |
| Oregon | No | 15.6% | 0 |
| Nevada | No | 15.5% | 0 |
| Illinois | Yes, (1) | 15.3% | 1 |
| Minnesota | No | 15.2% | 0 |
| Maine | No | 13.9% | 0 |
| Ohio | Yes, (2) | 13.7% | 2 |
| Massachusetts | No | 13.6% | 0 |
| Montana | Yes, (1) | 13.5% | 1 |
| Pennsylvania | No | 13.3% | 0 |
| Vermont | No | 12.6% | 0 |
| Maryland | No | 12.2% | 0 |
| West Virginia | Yes, (1) | 12.1% | 1 |
| Kentucky | No | 11.8% | 0 |
| New Hampshire | Yes, (2) | 11.7% | 2 |
| Washington D.C. | No | 11.2% | 0 |
| Delaware | No | 11.2% | 0 |
| Missouri | Yes, (1) | 10.7% | 1 |
| Colorado | No | 10.6% | 0 |
| Indiana | Yes, (3) | 10.3% | 3 |
| Kansas | Yes, (2) | 10.3% | 2 |
| Alabama | Yes, (2) | 9.6% | 2 |
| Iowa | Yes, (5) | 9.6% | 5 |
| Wisconsin | Yes, (3) | 9.0% | 3 |
| Nebraska | Yes, (1) | 8.8% | 1 |
| New Mexico | No | 8.3% | 0 |
| Wyoming | No | 7.7% | 0 |
| Mississippi | Yes, (1) | 7.5% | 1 |
| Oklahoma | No | 7.3% | 0 |
| Florida | Yes, (3) | 7.3% | 3 |
| North Dakota | Yes, (1) | 6.9% | 1 |
| South Dakota | Yes, (1) | 6.8% | 1 |
| Idaho | No | 6.3% | 0 |
| Tennessee | Yes, (4) | 6.2% | 4 |
| Arizona | Yes, (4) | 6.1% | 4 |
| Virginia | Yes, (2) | 5.9% | 2 |
| Louisiana | No | 5.8% | 0 |
| Arkansas | Yes, (1) | 5.8% | 1 |
| Utah | No | 5.6% | 0 |
| Texas | Yes, (3) | 5.5% | 3 |
| Georgia | Yes, (3) | 5.1% | 3 |
| North Carolina | Yes, (2) | 3.9% | 2 |
| South Carolina | Yes, (1) | 3.2% | 1 |
Note: This analysis looks at restrictions passed by states from 2011-2019. We include as examples of voting restrictions laws which: require voter ID or proof of citizenship, limit absentee and mail-in collection, limit registration, and limit participation by those previously incarcerated.
Source: EPI analysis of Current Population Survey (CPS) Outgoing Rotation Group (ORG) microdata and Bipartisan Policy Center 2021
This chart appears in:
- Anti-CRT blog
- The racist campaign against ‘critical race theory’ threatens democracy and economic transformation
- Unions are not only good for workers, they’re good for communities and for democracy: High unionization levels are associated with positive outcomes across multiple indicators of economic, personal, and democratic well-being
Previous chart: « Union density and Medicaid expansion by state
Next chart: Union density and voter restrictions »