The pace of the drive to curb voting across the country is surging, despite the polarizing reaction to the sweeping election restrictions just enacted in Georgia.
The numbers so frequently cited with alarm by voting rights advocates in recent weeks — 253 bills proposed to make it tougher to participate in democracy in 43 states — were calculated by the Brennan Center for Justice. But the progressive think tank reported Thursday that those metrics have become woefully outdated:
In little more than a month, it calculated, the amount of restrictive legislation has soared 43 percent — to 361 bills now pending in 47 legislatures, almost all proposed by Republicans.
Many of the measures stand no chance of enactment, especially those proposed in Democratic-run capitals. And the number of measures proposed to enhance voting rights has also gone up in the past month, while Virginia, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts and Montana have all enacted laws to ease ballot access to various degrees.
But democracy reform advocates generally see the legislative activity as a cause for much more pessimism than optimism, especially because momentum for restrictive bills has been growing in Republican-run states that are electoral battlegrounds and have large shares of Black and Latino voters.
Just this week, bills to limit voting by mail, intensify voter ID requirements and otherwise complicate access to the ballot box have advanced in Texas, Arizona, Michigan, Tennessee and Kansas.
Their authors all say their motive is to boost election security and prevent cheating, even though an exhaustive search for evidence of fraud in 2020 turned up nothing of consequence after President Donald Trump claimed he'd been robbed of re-election.
Democrats say the effort is really about suppressing turnout in order to boost GOP prospects at the polls. They say the only silver lining is to underscore the urgency of creating comprehensive federal rules making it easy to register and vote nationwide.
That's the core goal of the party's good-governance package — dubbed the For the People Act, and labeled HR 1 and S 1 in the respective chambers — which has passed the House but faces a blockade in the Senate so long as the filibuster remains in full force.
Enactment would supersede most election rules in the states — including the bulk of the multifaceted package enacted last week in newly purple Georgia, much of a similarly sweeping law that went on the books last month in Iowa, the fresh voter ID laws in Arkansas and a new law making it easier to purge voter rolls in Utah.
If Congress deadlocks on its bill, the future of voting rights will be fought entirely in state capitals. Fearing that outcome, the UCLA Voting Rights Project this week released model legislation for progressive lawmakers to propose to bolster access to the ballot.
And iVote, a liberal advocacy group that's spent generously in recent campaign years, announced plans to raise and spend $10 million in 2022 to defeat state legislators behind restrictive legislation.
"Legislators in Georgia and across the country should know that if you use the power of your office to make it harder for people to vote, we'll make sure you no longer hold office," said the group's president, Ellen Kurz.
Although Biden last fall became the first Democratic presidential candidate to carry the state in seven elections, and Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock in January took both the state's Senate seats from the GOP, Republicans still have solid control of the General Assembly.
Many of Georgia's most prominent companies stayed on the sidelines as the voting curbs measure advanced. But under pressure from their customers, a coalition of powerful Black executives and civil rights groups — who have already filed three different federal lawsuits against the law — both Coca-Cola and Delta Air Lines on Wednesday denounced the new rules.
"The entire rationale for this bill was based on a lie: that there was widespread voter fraud in Georgia in the 2020 elections," said Delta CEO Ed Bastian. "This is simply not true. Unfortunately, that excuse is being used in states across the nation that are attempting to pass similar legislation to restrict voting rights."
President Biden on Wednesday said he would "strongly support" Major League Baseball moving its All-Star Game from Atlanta this summer to protest the new law. On Thursday GOP Gov. Brain Kemp called that idea "ridiculous."




















U.S. President Donald Trump boards Air Force One on August 14, 2026 at Joint Base Andrews, Maryland. Trump is traveling to Long Island to tour law enforcement facilities in Nassau County and rally support for local Republican candidates ahead of the upcoming midterm elections
Travel Far Enough, You Meet Yourself
Is it possible that our President has simply not traveled enough?
Born and raised in Queens and attending Fordham University in the Bronx, Donald Trump has no record of traveling outside New York until he was over 20, when he transferred to a college in the neighboring state of Pennsylvania. Were his formative years amiss, then, in his learning about other places and other people?
Is his view akin to the famous New Yorker cover by Saul Steinberg, an illustration of the United States with New York City as the epicenter of the country and the Hudson River the border of the known world? We can now at least add Washington, D.C., and Mar-a-Lago to the map of “the realm.”
Our President has now traveled some, but what we recommend is another kind of travel. Not a state-sponsored trip or a venture to scout locations for future Trump Towers. This would be a genuine travel experience, enriching and eye-opening, showcasing other cultures and ways of living.
It will extend far beyond viewing military parades, hobnobbing with such “understanding” world leaders as Kim Jong Un, or taking tea with the King.
WHERE, then, should the President go? As Elon Musk’s Starship spacecraft is not yet ready to take passengers to Mars, perhaps he could explore our own vast country?
Maybe he could travel to “flyover country,” the farming states, where his ying-yanging tariffs and trade restrictions have played havoc with rural economies. Or possibly to California, number one in homeless U. S. citizens, and while there, regale homeless veterans (approximately 32,500 nationwide) with tales of his brave exploits invading and bombing foreign countries.
Or he might tour the Great Lakes, and rename the other four?
WHEN should he go? This will be tough, as he is very busy building his ballroom and renaming bodies of water.
How about a trip in early November, around the midterm elections? Despite the long-discredited accusation of widespread voter fraud, it would be reassuring to know he might be so caught up divvying out ladles of soup in a soup kitchen somewhere that he wouldn’t remember to deploy the military for “election security.”
HOW will he travel? He should definitely not take his Qatari-donated, newly renovated 747, especially after last time, when he had to be smuggled off clandestinely in a catering truck. It’s unlikely any traveling companions, like the Secretary of State or of the Treasury, are going to fall for the ruse a second time. Besides, we may need those people. No more decoys!
Perhaps the President could fly commercially, although this likely would expose him to undue suffering. Without gold bathroom fixtures and maple wood floors, the trip will be no “Luxury Experience.” If only he still had his “Trump Shuttle,” bought with a massive loan he later defaulted on, saying then, “I’m smart. I got out at a good time.”
Considering the potential pitfalls, maybe it’s best the President travel incognito, disguised perhaps as an elderly woman wearing a lot of bronzer.
Wherever, whenever, however: our President needs a vacation.
Moreover, we need a vacation from him.
If the President refuses our travel suggestions, here’s another idea:
Let’s get him a pet! He has never owned a pet. As we know with our children, pets teach essential life lessons: compassion and empathy; they instill a sense of responsibility. There is a well-established connection between those who can care for a pet and those who can care for people.
So, which pet should we choose? A puppy? A kitten? A boa constrictor?
Imagine, the President may even decide he likes having a pet. After all, what is more obedient than a well-trained dog, besides possibly the Cabinet? And what is more docile than a sweet kitten, other than plausibly the Supreme Court?
The President may even become more mellow with a pet afoot and less likely to slap tariffs on our allies, or attempt to annex our neighbors, or bully our Congress. (Realizing, of course, a bully requires active participation from the bullied to maintain his status.)
Maybe we should do both: get the President a pet and devise a travel plan for him. (Do you think we could possibly convince him to leave his phone at home?)
Let’s go for it! After all:
Travel far enough, you meet yourself. (David Mitchell)
And for our President, that would likely be the most profound discovery of all.
Amy Lockard is an Iowa resident who regularly contributes to regional newspapers and periodicals. She is working on the second of a four-book fictional series based on Jane Austen’s “Pride and Prejudice."