Georgia Republicans are barreling ahead with election bills that voting rights advocates say are transparently anti-democratic and racist.
And while Georgia may be ground zero for voter suppression tactics, it's not the only state where Republicans are attempting to limit access to the ballot box. In the wake of the 2020 election, the Brennan Center for Justice has seen more than seven times the number of restrictive bills be introduced in legislatures this year compared to last year.
The Georgia Senate passed legislation Monday to roll back no-excuse absentee voting, which has been in place since 2005 and saw heightened use during last year's pandemic-era election. The bill — passed with a one-vote majority along party lines — would mandate that only those who are 65 or older, have a physical disability or are out of town would be eligible.
Majority Leader Mike Dugan, the bill's lead sponsor, said 2.8 million of the state's 7.7 million voters would meet at least one of the requirements. Those voters would also need to provide identification when requesting an absentee ballot.
Georgia is currently one of 34 states that has permanent no-excuse absentee voting. In the 2020 election, all but five states allowed every voter to cast a ballot by mail, at least temporarily due to the Covid-19 pandemic. One-fifth of the 5 million votes cast in the Peach State were by mail.
The Senate action comes on the heels of the state House passing its own restrictive measure aimed at limiting Sunday voting, requiring an ID to vote by mail and eliminating drop boxes.
The House bill also takes aim at absentee voting, although it doesn't roll back eligibility. Under the measure, which was passed along party lines last week, Georgians would need to provide an ID to vote by mail. It would also move ballot drop boxes inside early voting sites.
Another provision would limit early voting. Currently, counties must offer early voting on the second Saturday before Election Day and are given the discretion to set any additional early voting hours. But this legislation would give counties just one Sunday as an optional early voting day.
Cutting back early voting on Sundays is a "transparent effort to reduce the voting opportunity that Black Georgians overwhelmingly use," said Jonathan Diaz, voting expert at the Campaign Legal Center.
Black voters accounted for 37 percent of the in-person ballots cast in Georgia on Sundays during the 2020 election, according to the Brennan Center, largely due to the "Souls to the Polls" voter drives organized by Black churches.
Nsé Ufot, CEO of the New Georgia Project, called these bills "a turducken of voter suppression" and clear retaliation from Republicans after Joe Biden won the state and both Senate seats flipped blue.
"They were shocked by the new Georgia and how it manifested itself and how they showed up in elections," she said. "And this is backlash. It's mean. It's petty. It's racist. It's anti-democratic."
With Republicans holding the majority in both halves of the General Assembly, each chamber is likely to pass the other's bill and send them to GOP Gov. Brian Kemp. The governor has yet to indicate whether he supports this legislation, but he has been accused of peddling voter suppression efforts in the past, including when he served as the state's top election official while running for governor.
Restricting ballot access, state by state
In Georgia and elsewhere across the country, these election reform efforts are steeped in partisanship. In nearly every state, Republicans are pushing restrictive measures while Democrats are advocating for expanded access to the ballot box.
This political tug-of-war is more acute in battleground states where the 2020 election was decided by slim margins.
For instance, in Arizona, Republican senators passed a bill Monday to require an affidavit or another form of ID to vote by mail. And the Senate is gearing up for another bill that would cut down on the time Arizonans have to vote by mail. Last month, however, lawmakers did narrowly block one bill that would have purged 200,000 voters from the permanent vote-by-mail list.
Also this week, Iowa, a state Trump won by 8 percentage points, became the first to enact tougher voting rules this year. On Monday GOP Gov. Kim Reynolds signed into law provisions to reduce the early voting period by nine days and prevent the state from proactively sending out vote-by-mail applications. The measure also requires absentee ballots to be received before polls close on Election Day.
Voting experts agree that vote-by-mail access should not be the partisan issue it's become following the 2020 election.
"All of the data and all of the research shows that it's used by both parties, and it's often actually used more by Republicans, who are the ones now sponsoring a lot of this legislation. I think it's just the result of this disinformation campaign around the security of absentee voting," said Liz Avore, vice president of law and policy at the Voting Rights Lab.
Restoring trust
It's not uncommon to see legislation amending voting procedures following an election, but what is unusual this year is the overwhelming volume of bills to restrict voting access, said the CLC's Diaz.
"And they're not coming after some major scandal that would justify tightening up these rules. There was no major fraud investigation," Diaz said. "But you have legislators saying we have to restore trust in elections, when the reason that people have lost trust and confidence in elections is because some of these state legislators have been telling people that the elections are riddled with fraud."
Republicans' main argument for rolling back absentee voting access is that it will boost election integrity, despite no evidence of widespread voting fraud in the 2020 election. But voting experts say there are more reasonable reforms lawmakers can consider that won't make it harder for people to vote.
The politicization of the voting process, in particular vote by mail, has caused a lot of Americans to lose trust in the election system. One way to build back that trust is for states to implement ballot tracking systems, said Hannah Fried of All Voting is Local.
"That is the kind of transparency that gives people confidence that their vote is going to be counted," she said.
Reaching out to voters to educate them on the election process and combat the spread of misinformation is also key to restoring trust. And modernizing systems with automatic voter registration would boost security, experts say.
On the federal level, experts point to legislation like HR 1 and the John Lewis Voting Advancement Act, which would implement national voting standards, while still allowing states and localities to adjust procedures based on what works best for them.
"Those are the kinds of things that would make our election system more accessible and more transparent and more secure," Diaz said. "And you don't have to reach for a manufactured voter fraud reason to make those changes."




















image of U.S. President Donald Trump is displayed on a digital billboard in Times Square in New York on April 8, 2026.
Trump is stuck between two realities. Neither serves the American people
Normally, I worry that events may overtake a column. But not so with the Iran war.
I don’t worry about running afoul of a headline or Truth Social post from the president because what is said about the situation is no longer very relevant to the reality.
On April 8, Nick Catoggio, my Dispatch colleague, dubbed an earlier stoppage with Iran “Schrödinger’s ceasefire.” This was a reference to the famous thought experiment by the physicist Erwin Schrödinger, who was trying to explain the weirdness of “superpositionality” in quantum physics. A cat in a box is both dead and alive at the same time until you open the box. Schrödinger meant to illustrate the absurdity of the idea that particles aren’t any one thing, but a “cloud of probabilities.”
The Trump administration is stuck in a word cloud of probabilities of his own making. The war is over. The war is on. The war isn’t a war. We have a deal, but we don’t have a deal, but we’re about to have a deal. We destroyed Iran’s military. No, we left it intact. We want regime change. No we don’t. We already accomplished it. We “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program a year ago. We had to go to war in February to prevent nuclear war. The Strait of Hormuz is open, closed, or something in-between. No deal without “unconditional surrender.” Let’s make a deal!
This everything-all-at-once vibe can be disorienting, particularly since most Americans didn’t have a war with Iran on their bingo cards until the shooting had already started. President Trump didn’t prepare the country or consult with Congress beforehand because he thought it would all be a smashing success in a matter of weeks.
The miscalculation that started it all: killing Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and much of Iran’s senior leadership, on the first day of the war. To “the great proud people of Iran, I say tonight that the hour of your freedom is at hand,” Trump announced on Feb. 28. “When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take. This will be probably your only chance for generations.”
I support regime change in Iran and shed no tears for Khamenei or his goons. But when you start a war by killing the regime’s top leaders, it’s not unreasonable for the remaining ones to conclude that you really intend regime change.
Khamenei was a murderous fanatic, but he was a fairly cautious one. He liked to threaten closing the Strait of Hormuz or attacking our regional allies, but he was reluctant to actually do it, fearing it would invite a regime change war. The mullahs and IRGC goons believed, not unreasonably, that if they lost their grip on power, they’d be lynched by the Iranian people they’ve brutalized for decades.
By starting with a regime change war, Trump removed any reason for the regime not to go for broke. When you have nothing to lose — particularly when you are a millenarian religious fanatic — a Persian Alamo strategy makes a lot of sense.
So Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz and attacked its neighbors.
But it turns out this wasn’t the Alamo. In the contest of wills, Trump blinked. The Iranian regime’s tolerance for punishment proved — so far — to be greater than Trump’s and that of our gulf allies. Militarily we could finish the job, but that would require ground troops and much greater economic turmoil. In a conflict Trump launched unilaterally without the prior support of Congress, NATO or the American people, Trump doesn’t have the political capital for that.
But that’s only half the problem. Trump wants the war over, but he doesn’t want to pay — militarily, economically, politically — what that would cost. So he wants to make a deal that ends it. But there is no deal available that wouldn’t come at an equally undesirable cost. Any deal that looks like what President Obama struck with the Iranians would be too embarrassing to bear. But the Iranians are convinced that they can get just such a deal, and they’re willing to drag things out as long as it takes.
The result: Trump’s in a box of his own making. He thinks he can talk his way out by simply asserting a reality that doesn’t exist. When the financial markets get nervous, he announces a breakthrough that is, at best, a possibility. When the Iranians agree to a deal that looks similar to one Obama might negotiate, Trump goes back to his threats.
It can’t go on forever. But I’m sure it’ll last until long after this column is forgotten.
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.