By: Yasmine Ganemtore, FEC Communications Intern
Voting is a basic right in our democracy, but what you may not know is where you vote is often shaped by state law and the decisions of local officials. Along with voter ID laws or registration deadlines, the physical location of polling places plays a major role in how accessible voting really is. These locations are not random. They are often chosen based on statutory requirements, as well as infrastructure limitations, and logistical considerations. These choices about polling place locations can help or hurt voter participation.
For many voters, especially college students, low-income families, and people living in rural areas, access to a polling place can make the difference between voting and not voting. If someone does not have a car, lives far from their assigned polling place, or lacks access to public transportation, casting a ballot in person can become a real challenge. In 2013, the Watauga County Board of Elections in North Carolina attempted to eliminate an on-campus polling place at Appalachian State University by consolidating precincts into a single off-campus location more than a mile from campus, along a road without sidewalks or public transportation. That plan was eventually withdrawn, but in 2016, the Board of Elections again tried to move the polling location from the student union to a flood-prone event hall with poor ventilation and no backup power. That plan was also rejected by the university chancellor. As documented in the FEC’s Democracy’s Future report, this example shows how decisions about polling place locations can be used to suppress the vote, particularly among students and young people.
Most states have detailed requirements for polling places. These requirements may include the number of polling places depending on population, accessibility for people with disabilities, sufficient parking, and the capacity to handle large numbers of voters and election equipment. These standards are important for fairness and safety, but they can also eliminate many otherwise suitable locations. In some areas, especially rural ones, there may be few or no buildings that meet every rule.
Cost is another major factor. Local governments are responsible for funding and staffing polling places. Running multiple locations can be expensive and require a large number of trained workers. To manage these challenges, some counties decide to reduce the number of polling places. While this decision may help save money, it can force people to travel longer distances to vote and make the process much harder for those without reliable transportation.
A 2024 article from The Guardian reported on voting challenges faced by Native American communities in Apache County, Arizona. On Election Day, some polling places opened late or ran out of printed ballots. Others were understaffed. Many voters had already traveled long distances, often through difficult terrain. After waiting in line for hours, some left without voting at all. These issues were not caused by voter ID laws or registration rules but by poor planning and a lack of support for polling locations in remote areas. Once again, access to the ballot, particularly for marginalized voters, was hindered.
One example of community resistance to this kind of disenfranchisement happened in Randolph County, Georgia, in 2018. According to a report by NPR, officials in the county proposed closing seven of its nine polling places before the midterm elections. The plan would have required many residents, most of whom were Black and low-income, to travel long distances to vote. Public transportation in the area was limited, and many people did not have access to a car. The proposal faced strong opposition from community members and civil rights groups and was eventually dropped.
This pushback shows the power of civic engagement. When communities organize and raise their voices, local officials can be held accountable and forced to reconsider harmful decisions. In Randolph County, public pressure preserved access to the ballot and served as a reminder that democracy depends not just on policies, but on the people who defend them.
These examples show how voting access is shaped by more than just legal rights. The structure of elections, including where polling places are placed and how they are supported, affects who can participate. These barriers are especially relevant to students. College campuses often contain large populations of eligible voters, but many do not have polling places nearby. In some cases, campus buildings do not meet the technical requirements. In others, local governments simply do not prioritize campus access when assigning polling sites.
Improving this situation will take a combination of policy changes and public engagement. Community members can begin by learning how polling places are selected in their area. Attending city or county meetings, contacting local election officials, and requesting more accessible sites can help bring the issue into public view. One especially important way to make a difference is by signing up to be a poll worker. When polling places are sufficiently staffed, they’re more likely to run smoothly—and less likely to be shut down. Colleges and student organizations can also contribute by partnering with election offices to open on-campus voting sites or offer transportation to off-campus locations.
Another important step is expanding early voting. When voters have more time to cast their ballots, they face fewer challenges from long lines, busy schedules, or single-day travel issues. Early voting can also give election officials more time to plan for the logistical needs of remote or underserved locations. While some research suggests that early voting alone may not significantly increase turnout among marginalized groups, especially without other reforms in place, it still plays a valuable role in reducing congestion and easing access for many voters. Like other improvements, it works best when paired with outreach and support that centers the needs of those most often left behind.
Transportation access is another key part of the conversation. Some cities have begun offering free public transit on Election Day to help people get to the polls. Companies such as Uber and Lyft have provided free or discounted rides to polling places in past elections. These efforts are not permanent solutions, but they help reduce one of the most common barriers for voters without a car.
Ultimately, voting access is not just about whether people are allowed to vote. It is about whether they can physically get to a place where voting happens. If a polling site is too far away, or if transportation is unavailable, or if a building is ruled out due to overly strict requirements, many voters will be left out. These problems tend to impact low-income communities, rural areas, and students the most.
To create a more inclusive democracy, we all need to pay attention to how elections are organized on the ground. Decisions by local officials, site requirements, and resource decisions all play a role. These small details determine whether voting is an accessible process or a difficult obstacle.
The right to vote is only meaningful if it can be exercised. Making that possible means focusing on the structure and systems that support voting, not just the laws that define it.
