In November of 2020, the nation turned its eyes on Georgia: the state went blue for the first time since 1992, with Joe Biden winning the state by 12,000 votes. In January 2021, Georgia was the site of two runoff Senate elections, which determined control of the chamber and gave Democrats a federal trifecta for the first time since 2008. Now, Georgia is once again making headlines for a controversial bill signed by Governor Brian Kemp that would curb voting access throughout the state.
As protests and national attention have placed pressure on legislators, the House and Senate considered multiple iterations of voting rights restrictions. The final version of the bill passed both houses of the legislature and was signed by the Governor earlier this month. Senate Bill 202 places several limitations on voting; the bill would restrict ballot drop boxes in the state, make it more difficult for voters to request absentee ballots, and limit early voting in runoff elections. One of the most controversial parts of the bill would prohibit giving out food and water at polling places. For absentee voting, the bill would require all absentee voters to provide identification when sending in an absentee request. The new law will have to withstand legal challenges in state or federal courts in a judicial system that Donald Trump heavily influenced.
In response to the criticisms of the law, the sponsors have justified these restrictive measures by pointing to concerns of election fraud. However, there is no evidence of voter fraud occurring in Georgia in 2020: state investigations and independent reviews both found that the election was conducted fairly, and multiple lawsuits seeking to overturn the results of the election failed. Despite this, lawmakers and officials in the state have cited concerns of fraud. Brad Carver, chair of a state election security committee and advocate for curbing absentee voting argued that “people need to feel like we have a fair, a transparent system where every legal vote counts;” State Senator Larry Walker III, one of the cosponsors of the measure stated that “it’s about security and election integrity and allowing the Georgia public to have confidence in the vote.”
The National Stage
While it is still not clear what the final version of these restrictions will look like—it is not even guaranteed to become law, as the chambers are still trying to pass a finalized version of the bill, and the legislature adjourns on April 2nd—it is likely that any change in Georgia’s voting systems will lead to a prolonged legal challenge. There have been dozens of lawsuits filed across the country around voting access at the state level. Over the last several years, some of these lawsuits have gained various levels of media attention. In North Dakota, Native American groups filed a lawsuit against the state’s voter ID requirements that would have made it more difficult for tribal members without a physical address to vote. After a voter ID requirement was passed in North Carolina in 2018, the state’s NAACP engaged in a drawn-out legal clash with the state. The salience and quantity of these challenges increased leading up to the 2020 election. Changes in voting laws due to the COVID-19 pandemic spurred these challenges and created legal controversy across the country, and as a result, numerous legal fights ensued. While fights for voting rights begin in state legislatures, like the ongoing debate in Georgia, some have primarily focused on legal challenges to actions taken by state executives. In California, the Secretary of State fought to remove misleadingly labeled ballot drop boxes, absentee voting expansion in Michigan was questioned by the state Supreme Court, Republican legislators in Texas sued the Republican Texas governor over expanded early voting. Professor Justin Levitt of Loyola Law School estimated that 260 lawsuits arose in 2020 out of voting changes due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
The results of these challenges have been mixed. The suit in North Dakota was settled out of court between representatives of the tribes and the state; the Michigan State Supreme Court ruled 6-1 in favor of expanding voting rights; and even though the Texas Supreme Court ruled in favor of the governor’s proposal to expand early voting, it also ruled in favor of limiting the amount of ballot drop boxes throughout the state. There has also been a discrepancy in when these challenges have been decided: a federal court upheld North Carolina’s voter ID law in December of 2020.
What This Means for Georgia
As this bill has been signed into law, the measure could be challenged by Fair Fight Action, the group founded by former gubernatorial candidate and political advocate Stacey Abrams. The group’s legal arm has been involved in multiple legal challenges in Georgia that began after Abrams’ loss in the 2018 gubernatorial primary. The most salient of these suits focus on voter registration purges, in which individuals who have not voted for a period of time are removed from voter rolls. While this case is still ongoing, it is possible the group could take on another challenge against the state—if not, many other voting organizations and advocacy groups such as the NAACP and the ACLU will be ready to challenge these laws.
Georgia is not the only state where a legal challenge is arising. Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds signed a bill early in March to limit both early voting and Election Day voting. Supporters of the Iowa bill also justified the law based on the fear of fraud. The League of United Latin American Citizens quickly filed a challenge to the law. The challenge will likely be heard in court, but it will be some time before the results of the challenge are known.
Several factors will impact the result of lawsuits in Georgia and Iowa. Some have argued that Democrats are at a disadvantage in many legal challenges due to the high number of judges Donald Trump appointed to the federal judiciary throughout his term. When these cases are appealed, they often end up being headed by a judge appointed by Trump: Trump appointed as many federal judges in four years as Barack Obama appointed in eight. The judges appointed by Trump were often younger and will have an impact on any challenge to election law for decades to come. The end result of these lawsuits is an incredibly varied patchwork of voting laws across state borders.
After the passage of the Voting Rights Act, the federal government had more of a say in states’ voting laws. The Voting Rights Act required certain states to submit changes in their voting policies to the federal government for approval. This provision was called preclearance. In the landmark 2013 case Shelby County v. Holder, the Supreme Court struck down the preclearance provision of the Voting Rights Act. Under preclearance, Georgia would have had to submit changes in their voting laws for federal approval. However, a federal change to voting rights is on the horizon: H.R. 1, an expansive federal voting rights bill that passed the House earlier this month. H.R. 1 would reinstate preclearance at the federal level, making it apply to all states. The bill also includes multiple provisions that may run counter to restrictions put in place by states such as Georgia and Iowa, such as requiring states to provide ballot drop boxes, mandating states hold a set period of early voting, and expanding absentee voting. However, it is unlikely that H.R. 1 will be able to pass with the legislative filibuster intact.
While the right to vote is fundamental in a representative democracy, it is anything but uniform. As voting laws change and evolve, legal challenges are inevitable—and as Georgia makes a big change in voting rights laws, one is bound to follow.