Skip to content

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Georgia primary went well, but jury is still out on election law's impact

Georgia primary voters

Atlanta voters cast their ballots in Georgia's 2022 primary election on May 24.

Megan Varner/Getty Images

Last year, Georgia enacted a controversial elections law that critics said would make it significantly harder for people to vote. And while that may still be true, last week’s primary went smoothly with record turnout among both Republicans and Democrats.

Even though the 2021 law created new requirements for voters casting ballots by mail and limited the availability of drop boxes, among other restrictions, no voting jurisdictions reported major problems or exceptionally long lines.

The Fulcrum asked elections integrity analyst David Levine of the Alliance for Security Democracy for his take on Georgia’s new voting rules, last week’s primary and what others can learn from the Peach State.

The Fulcrum: Last year, Georgia passed a sweeping election reform law that drew outrage from the left. Major companies criticized the law and Major League Baseball even moved the All-Star Game out of the state. What was so controversial?

Levine: Georgia ran a remarkable 2020 presidential election, but you wouldn’t know it from many of the provisions that were adopted in last year’s law, many of which seemed to be a problem in search of a solution, and others that seemingly threatened the integrity of vote counting. For example, after standing up to former President Donald Trump’s attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 election, the Georgia law removed the secretary of state from decision-making power on the state election board. That’s not fixing a problem – it’s exacting retribution.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

The new law also gives those in charge of the Georgia legislature the power to choose an election official who could vote on the state election board for a temporary takeover of up to four local election boards during the height of an election (i.e., during the voting period or vote counting). Improving the performance of underperforming local election offices is a laudable goal, but this provision provides few, if any, safeguards to ensure that it can’t be exploited for partisan ends.

Additionally, there are a raft of provisions in Georgia’s sweeping new law that unnecessarily restrict access to the ballot, particularly when one considers Georgia’s success administering the 2020 presidential election. For example, more than 1.3 million voters successfully voted by mail during the 2020 election, an election in which the presidential race was decided by 11,779 votes. In response to this success, Georgia took a number of evidence-free actions, including banning the sending of unsolicited mail ballot applications, limiting the time to request a mail ballot, and restricting the number and placement of mail ballot drop boxes. The new legislation also forces voters to reapply more often to vote by mail, which could add processing time and costs, and make it harder for election officials to plan with regards to absentee voting. In short, these provisions appear to have been justified largely in terms of improving “voter confidence,” rather than improving convenience and security. Election reforms are better when they’re responsive to the latter, not just the former.

A year later, with the primaries in the rearview mirror, do those criticisms hold up?

The jury is still out. I think SB 202 may well have created more problems than it solves, but whether those problems are subsequently exploited remains to be seen. I think it will probably take going through a number of elections to get a better sense of that.

There's been a lot of coverage of early voting in Georgia during the primary. How much of an impact did that have on how things went Tuesday?

I think it’s hard to overstate the impact of Georgia’s record-breaking early voting turnout. In sports, the best players and coaches often “take what the defense gives them.” The same can be said for voters in elections. While a number of provisions in SB 202 made voting by mail more cumbersome for the primary, early in-person voting remained just as easy, if not easier, in most of Georgia, and voters took advantage of that during the primary.

In the midst of ongoing efforts to baselessly question the legitimacy of the state’s electoral system, Georgia’s high early voting turnout was a strong indicator of voters’ confidence in the security and integrity of their state’s elections. Additionally, the high early-voting turnout stretched out the opportunity for Georgia election officials and their partners to identify and address any voting-related issues, so that they were less likely to pile up on Election Day. Taken together, these developments increased the likelihood for a smooth election day and a successfully administered election.

Was the primary conducted in a fair, safe and secure manner?

Yes. Thus far, no evidence has been brought forward to suggest otherwise.

What can other states learn from Georgia?

  1. Robust in-person early voting can make elections a whole lot easier. Not only does an in-person early voting regime like the one Georgia offers go a long way towards ensuring that voters can access the ballot, it also can make it easier to both administer and secure the elections. In the 2014 Presidential Commission on Election Administration report, election officials from both parties testified to the importance of early voting in alleviating the congestion and other potential problems of a single election day. And during the 2020 presidential election, former Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency Director Chris Krebs said that high turnout during early voting gave election officials more opportunities ahead of Election Day to identify and resolve any security-related issues that might arise. Finally, high early-voting turnout can be a signal to others that confidence in the integrity of the election is high, which can potentially help encourage additional turnout as well as counter efforts to undermine the legitimacy of the election.
    1. Embracing election denialism isn’t necessary for ascending to higher office. Georgia’s primary was a benchmark for the state of U.S. politics in 2022. Would voters choose candidates who upheld the integrity of elections or selected candidates who pushed the Big Lie? Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp and Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger won their Republican primaries despite rejecting Trump’s entreaties to reverse his 2020 election loss. Hopefully, their victories can help throw a wrench into the ongoing efforts to overturn the will of voters.

    Read More

    Donald Trump and J.D. Vance

    Vice presidential candidate J.D. Vance, standing next to former President Donald Trump at the Republican National Convention, said President Biden's campaign rhetoric "led directly to President Trump's attempted assassination."

    Robert Gauthier/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

    Assassination attempt will fuel political extremism

    Khalid is a physician, geostrategic analyst and freelance writer.

    President Joe Biden’s initial response to the attack on Donald Trump, calling it “sick” and reaching out to his stricken adversary to express support, was commendable. Statements from other prominent Democrats, including former President Barack Obama and Vice President Kamala Harris, as well as notable Republicans like former President George W. Bush and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, echoed this sentiment of unity and concern.

    In contrast, the response from some on the right — engaging in finger-pointing and blaming Democrats for their heated rhetoric — proved less productive. Vice presidential candidate J.D. Vance, for instance, asserted that Biden's campaign rhetoric "led directly to President Trump's attempted assassination," seemingly in reaction to recent comments from Biden suggesting, "It’s time to put Trump in a bullseye." This divisive rhetoric only exacerbates the political tension that already grips the nation. Instead of fostering unity, such accusations deepen the partisan divide.

    Keep ReadingShow less
    Hands coming together in a circle of people
    SDI Productions/Getty Images

    Building a future together based on a common cause

    Johnson is a United Methodist pastor, the author of "Holding Up Your Corner: Talking About Race in Your Community" and program director for the Bridge Alliance, which houses The Fulcrum.

    As the 2024 presidential campaigns speed toward November, we face a transformative moment for our nation. The challenges of recent years have starkly revealed the deep divisions that threaten our societal fabric. Yet, amidst the discord, we are presented with a pivotal choice: Will we yield to the allure of division, or will we summon the courage to transcend our differences and shape a future founded on common cause and mutual respect?

    Keep ReadingShow less
    People protesting laws against homelessness

    People protest outside the Supreme Court as the justices prepared to hear Grants Pass v. Johnson on April 22.

    Matt McClain/The Washington Post via Getty Images

    High court upholds law criminalizing homelessness, making things worse

    Herring is an assistant professor of sociology at UCLA, co-author of an amicus brief in Johnson v. Grants Pass and a member of the Scholars Strategy Network.

    In late June, the Supreme Court decided in the case of Johnson v. Grants Pass that the government can criminalize homelessness. In the court’s 6-3 decision, split along ideological lines, the conservative justices ruled that bans on sleeping in public when there are no shelter beds available do not violate the Constitution’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.

    This ruling will only make homelessness worse. It may also propel U.S. localities into a “race to the bottom” in passing increasingly punitive policies aimed at locking up or banishing the unhoused.

    Keep ReadingShow less
    silhouettes of people arguing in front of an America flag
    Pict Rider/Getty Images

    'One side will win': The danger of zero-sum framings

    Elwood is the author of “Defusing American Anger” and hosts thepodcast “People Who Read People.”

    Recently, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito was surreptitiously recorded at a private event saying, about our political divides, that “one side or the other is going to win.” Many people saw this as evidence of his political bias. In The Washington Post, Perry Bacon Jr. wrote that he disagreed with Alito’s politics but that the justice was “right about the divisions in our nation today.” The subtitle of Bacon’s piece was: “America is in the middle of a nonmilitary civil war, and one side will win.”

    It’s natural for people in conflict to see it in “us versus them” terms — as two opposing armies facing off against each other on the battlefield. That’s what conflict does to us: It makes us see things through war-colored glasses.

    Keep ReadingShow less