As we move into the 2024 election season it is important to prepare for the aftermath of the election. Regardless of the outcome, there is potential for civil unrest. Action Link (a LGBTQ organization that focuses on policy and advocacy work) has developed a plan in the event of civil unrest. Plan ahead as we move into November and know that social workers are here to help advocate for those in need. 
Preparing for Potential Civil Unrest During an Election Cycle
Stay Informed

• Monitor the news. Follow reliable news sources to track developments.
  
• Sign up for local alerts. Utilize any community alert systems and emergency apps such as FEMA, CodeRED, or city-specific services.
  
• Monitor social media. It is helpful to follow local law enforcement and community organizations for real-time updates, but be cautious about the potential for misinformation to be spread.
  

Create Your Safety Plan

• Identify safe zones. Know where the locations are for police stations, hospitals, and LGBTQ+ community centers in your area.
  
• Plan evacuation routes.  Prepare multiple routes to leave your home or city if necessary.
  
• Stay home if possible. Avoid crowds, protests, and large gatherings where tensions may escalate.
  
• Create a family and friends communication plan. Agree on how you will contact each other in an emergency and where to meet if separated.
  

Stock Up on Essentials

• Food and water. Store at least 72 hours' worth of non-perishable food and one gallon of water per person in your household per day.
  
• First aid kit. Include basic medical supplies and any personal medications.
  
• Get cash. Have cash on hand in case ATMs or digital payment services are disrupted.
  
• Fuel up. Keep your car’s gas tank full.
  
• Supplies. In case of power outages, have flashlights, batteries, portable chargers, and radios ready to go.
  

Ensure Your Home is Secure

• Doors and windows. Ensure your home is locked and consider reinforcing entry points if tensions are high.
  
• Outdoor lighting. Use motion-activated lights to deter trespassers.
  
• Neighborhood coordination. Stay in touch with trusted neighbors to monitor unusual activity.
  
• Emergency equipment. Fire extinguishers, basic tools, gas shut off tool, and protective gear (masks, goggles, gloves).
  

Self-Defense Awareness

• Non-lethal options. Consider pepper spray or personal alarms for protection.
  
• Training. Take basic self-defense classes to feel more prepared.
  
• Avoid violence. Engage in de-escalation strategies whenever possible to reduce confrontation.
  

Mental and Emotional Preparedness

• Manage stress. Practice self-care and mindfulness to remain calm.
  
• Friends and family reassurance: Prepare children and other dependents with simple explanations and instructions to reduce anxiety.
  
• Support network. Maintain connections with family, friends, or mental health resources to help cope with uncertainty.
  

Engage with Your Community

• Local organizations: Know what local civil groups or community programs offer support during unrest. Find your local LGBTQ+ community center here.
  
• Help neighbors in need. When it is safe, check on elderly or vulnerable neighbors and offer help.
  

Legal Awareness

• Know your rights. Be informed about the laws related to curfews, protests, and emergency declarations.
  
• Document encounters. If you witness unrest, record interactions if safe to do so.
  

Contingency Planning for Employment or Travel

• Remote work. If possible, arrange to work remotely if your workplace is near volatile areas.
  
• Cancel unnecessary travel: Avoid travel if possible, especially to areas prone to unrest.
  
• Supply chain issues. Be aware of possible disruptions in deliveries or public services.
  

For more information visit: ​https://www.lgbtactionlink.org/

In November there are two amendments on the Kentucky Ballot. Here is a little information on those amendments: 

• Constitutional Amendment 1: this amendment is intended to add another measure that will prevent non-citizens in the state of Kentucky from voting in local, state, and federal elections. Here is what the actual amendment is in short: “No person who is not a citizen of the United States shall be allowed to vote in this state.” Here is how this amendment will appear on the ballot:  
  

• Are you in favor of amending Sections 145 and 155 of the Constitution of Kentucky to prohibit persons who are not citizens of the United States from being allowed to vote in the Commonwealth of Kentucky, as stated below? 
  

• Every citizen of the United States of the age of eighteen years who has resided in the state one year, and in the county six months, and the precinct in which he or she offers to vote sixty days next preceding the election, shall be a voter in said precinct and not elsewhere. No person who is not a citizen of the United States shall be allowed to vote in this state. The following persons also shall not have the right to vote: 
  

• Persons convicted in any court of competent jurisdiction of treason, or felony, or bribery in an election, or of such high misdemeanor as the General Assembly may declare shall operate as an exclusion from the right of suffrage, but persons hereby excluded may be restored to their civil rights by executive pardon. 
  

• Persons who, at the time of the election, are in confinement under the judgment of a court for some penal offense. 
  

• Idiots and insane persons. 
  

• In simple terms this is a completely unnecessary act that aims to ban something that is already illegal in all 50 states. This aims to add to a document that is needlessly long, and, in several sections, the language is outdated and does not reflect the state’s current values. The original version limited voting rights only to white males aged 21 and over and while this amendment does not aim to take us back in time it aims to needlessly add to an already long document. According to the courier journal studies have shown that it is extremely rare for non-citizens and undocumented immigrants to vote in local, state, and federal elections. According to the Boone County, Ky Republican party page, there have been no reported cases of non-citizens voting in Kentucky elections. Even supporters of this proposed amendment are aware of the absence of this issue, yet still it is being pushed to a vote. Those who oppose this proposal see it simply as a tactic to energize the republican base during an election year. This proposal really does nothing to improve the state’s constitution and is a pointless ploy aimed at dividing the citizens of Kentucky.  
  

• Constitutional amendment 2: this amendment is aimed at allocating public funds for private schools so that private schools can operate the same manner as public schools. This proposed amendment aims to provide equal education opportunities for all students and families across the state of Kentucky by using public funds to preserve private schools. Here is what the proposed amendment will look like on the voter’s ballot:  
  

• To give parents choices in educational opportunities for their children, are you in favor of enabling the General Assembly to provide financial support for the education costs of students in kindergarten through 12th grade who are outside the system of common (public) schools by amending the Constitution of Kentucky as stated below? 
  

• This proposed amendment is aimed to provide public funding for private schools. Public schools are already low on funding in many areas of the state, and this would further reduce the limited access to the necessary resources they desperately need. One example that stands out to me is the Jefferson County School system (JCPS). For several consecutive years in a row now, the busing system has been severely under-staffed and in the first few weeks of school this year some districts were unable to get their students home before 6:00 pm. JCPS is one of the largest school systems in the state and they would suffer severe consequences with the passing of this amendment. Much of the public funds for schools around the state are allocated to providing free meals for kids with lower SES. Reducing the funds available for public schools limits access to several necessary resources for kids who have a challenging time accessing them. Supporters of this bill want to emphasize equal education opportunities for all students, but allocating public funds, which public schools rely on for their own students, to private schools will only worsen the conditions of many struggling public school systems across the state.  
  

 
References 
 
Horsley, McKenna. (2024) Amendment 1: ‘Proactive’ or a ploy to stir up anti-immigrant vote? 
https://kentuckylantern.com/2024/10/10/amendment-1-proactive-or-ploy-to-stir-up- anti-immigrant-vote-boost-the-other-amendment/ 
Adams, M. G. (2024). 2024 constitutional amendments. An Official Website of the Commonwealth of Kentucky. https://www.sos.ky.gov/elections/Pages/2024-Constitutional-Amendments.aspx 
Collins, Emma. (2024). Kentucky’s Proposed Amendment 2: Bad for Taxpayers, Bad for Kentucky. https://www.kentuckylawjournal.org/blog/kentuckys-proposed-amendment-2-bad-for-students-bad-for-taxpayers-bad-for-kentucky 
Pinski, H. (2024, October 9). Kentucky ballot measures. Courier Journal. https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/09/13/kentucky-ballot-measures/74231405007/ 
Vanderhoff, M. (2024, September 16). Get the facts: New ad campaign urges Kentucky voters to approve Amendment 1. WLKY. https://www.wlky.com/article/ad-campaign-kentucky-voters-approve-amendment-1/62177936 
 
 
 ​

As we approach the upcoming 2024 presidential election the significance of voting cannot be understated. In recent elections, specifically from 2008 to 2020, voter participation has noticeably fluctuated. Presidential election turnout rates dropped about four percent between the 2008 and 2012 elections. There was a much larger fluctuation found in the mid-term election turnout from 36.7 percent in 2014 to 49.7 percent in 2018 following the controversial election of Donald Trump according to the Journal of Social Work education. The inconsistency in voter turnout rates among eligible voters is considered problematic among experts as a strong democracy is hindered by low participation of voters. Voting allows individuals, families, organizations, and communities to voice concern or disapproval for certain policies. Voting also allows vulnerable populations to a chance to engage in the political process and can be a powerful tool for change for marginalized communities.  
Scores of empirical evidence have linked voting and health. One study conducted by the National Library of Public Medicine (NLPM) sought to examine the relationship between differences in voter participation and the impact on public health. According to this study by the National Library of Public Medicine, four interrelated areas were discovered in association with voting. The first is that there is a consistency in the association between voting and health, the second is differences in voter participation are associated with health conditions, the third is gaps in voter participation may be associated with electoral outcomes and the fourth is interventions in healthcare organizations can increase voter participation. The results of this study revealed that voting and health are associated, but more importantly people with much worse health are less likely to engage in the political process. Health is, and has been, significantly impacted by social factors and processes, commonly known as the social determinants of health. According to the National Library of Public Medicine the social determinants of health are shaped by the distribution of power and resources. Voting also significantly impacts the distribution of power and resources as larger voter participation translates into greater influence over determining who holds political power and can enact change in a given community.   
As social workers we often find ourselves at the intersection of advocacy and empathy in our commitment to justice. Arguably more than any other profession, social workers experience firsthand societal inequities, systemic oppression, and often witness policies fail marginalized communities. The clients social workers serve often lack a strong political voice and the distribution of power and resources works against these communities. Those who hold political power tend to reward those who engage in the voting process by putting forward support policies that respond to the demands of their respective communities. Policies enacted by elected officials typically shape the social determinants of health. With that in mind voter participation has also been strongly associated with socioeconomic status as well. Research has shown that those in lower income communities and those with a lower level of education are associated with lower rates of voter participation during elections. This connection also pertains to people with physical, intellectual, and psychological disabilities revealing they too consistently have lower rates of voter participation. According to the study conducted by NLPM, results unveil that lower voting rates were associated with poor self-rated health measured by health risk behaviors, mortality, chronic health conditions, and hospitalization. The findings also reveal that voting is positively associated with self-rated health regardless of Socio-economic status.  
The discourse around voting for social workers has been a controversial topic. There are some in the field who accept prevailing myths about voter mobilization while on the job being partisan considering it unethical, with some even going as far as to say it is illegal according to the Journal of Social Work Education. On the contrary, voting is an extension of a Social Workers professional ethics and encouraging clients to register can be a powerful tool for change, especially for vulnerable populations. At the most basic level, Social Workers should lead by example, and by not engaging in the political process is unethical and not conducive to fostering change and empowerment.  
References 
Abramovitz, M., Sherraden, M., Hill, K., Smith, T. R., Lewis, B., & Mizrahi, T. (2019). Voting is Social Work: Voices From the National Social Work Voter Mobilization Campaign. Journal of Social Work Education, 55(4), 626–644. https://doi.org/10.1080/10437797.2019.1656690 
Brown CL, Raza D, Pinto AD. Voting, health and interventions in healthcare settings: a scoping review. Public Health Rev. 2020 Jul 1;41:16. doi: 10.1186/s40985-020-00133-6. PMID: 32626605; PMCID: PMC7329475. ​