As the 2018 midterm elections get closer, ensuring a fair and inclusive voting process should be on the minds of everyone. But even as we’re barraged with messages about how important it is to vote, claims of voter suppression are bubbling up in various states as residents grapple with what that could mean for representation in our government and democracy as a whole.

Ahead of the November 6 elections, here’s a brief look into voter suppression and some of the most criticized laws:

What is voter suppression?

Emory University professor Carol Anderson, author of One Person, No Vote: How Voter Suppression Is Destroying Our Democracy, describes voter suppression as “a series of different types of policy requirements that are designed to dissuade eligible voters from voting.”

Basically, voter suppression tactics prevent people from exercising their constitutional right to help choose our leaders and policies. Those responsible for putting these tactics in place often get away with it, critics allege, because it can be hard to prove that the resulting suppression is what was intended.

“There is perhaps some face validity to the arguments," American University professor Jan Leighley tells Teen Vogue. “Most people don’t walk around thinking about elections all day long,” she says. “Most people prefer to have nothing to do with politics. When the rules change, especially if they keep changing, that’s just not something that people are going to put a lot of time in sorting all the details out.”

Anderson says voter-suppression laws tend to disproportionately affect people of color, poor people, women, and students. All of these groups, she adds, have a high turnout for Democratic candidates.

What are some voter-suppression tactics?

Critics allege that laws regarding voter IDs, poll closures, and voter-roll purging are just a few of the tactics used to suppress votes.

Requiring voter IDs

ID requirements for registering to vote and casting a ballot vary throughout the country, but many critics believe certain voter ID laws disproportionately affect minority and low-income voters. The New York Times reported that “some [voter ID laws] require all voters to present a photo ID, while others require some sort of official documentation, like a bank statement or utility bill, with at least a name and current address. Both requirements can significantly depress turnout by young and low-income voters, who are more likely not to have a driver’s license or to be listed on an official bill.”

In North Dakota, a recent court ruling allowed a voter ID law that requires voters to present an ID that lists their residential address. The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe told the Associated Press that the law “prevents thousands of Native Americans in the state from voting” because many people living on reservations use P.O. boxes and list that on their identification instead of a residential address.

Though FiveThirtyEight reports “the most credible estimates [of voter ID laws] suggest the laws’ turnout effects haven’t been large enough to swing many elections,” critics say these laws can potentially have a major impact on close elections. In North Dakota, Heidi Heitkamp, who is up for reelection this year, won in 2012 by nearly 3,000 votes, or one percentage point, according to The New York Times. ABC News reported that Heitkamp won “thanks in part to Native American voters who cast their ballots under less restrictive voting laws.”

Purging voter rolls

Voting-roll purges can seem like a fair and rational practice, and in some instances, it is. “People who have died in your jurisdiction shouldn’t be continuing to hang on the rolls," Anderson explains. "People who have moved out of your jurisdiction shouldn’t be on those rolls. They should be now on their new district’s [rolls], of course.” She says the practice isn’t always about cleaning up the documents, though: “That’s not what they’re doing. They’re focusing on and targeting non-regular voters.”