Voting and Voters

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Georgia’s Election Law, and Why Turnout Isn’t Easy to Turn Off

      by

      Making voting convenient doesn’t necessarily translate into more votes, research shows.There’s nothing unusual about exaggeration in politics. But when it comes to the debate over voting rights, something more than exaggeration is going on.There’s a real — and bipartisan — misunderstanding about whether making it easier or harder to vote, especially by mail, has a significant effect on turnout or electoral outcomes. The evidence suggests it does not.The fight over the new Georgia election law is only the latest example. That law, passed last week, has been condemned by Democrats as voter suppression, or even as tantamount to Jim Crow.Democrats are understandably concerned about a provision that empowers the Republican-controlled State Legislature to play a larger role in election administration. That provision has uncertain but potentially substantial effects, depending on what the Legislature might do in the future. And it’s possible the law is intended to do exactly what progressives fear: reshape the electorate to the advantage of Republicans, soon after an electoral defeat, by making it harder to vote.And yet the law’s voting provisions are unlikely to significantly affect turnout or Democratic chances. It could plausibly even increase turnout. In the final account, it will probably be hard to say whether it had any effect on turnout at all.The Georgia lawThe full text of the Georgia bill is here, but the bill’s major effects can be boiled down to a few points:The law makes absentee voting harder. People must have a qualifying form of identification to vote by mail. The law also makes it harder to request and return an absentee ballot, restricting the period when people can apply for one and limiting the number of drop boxes where voters can return such a ballot in person.On balance, it might make in-person voting easier, especially in the general election (though it contains provisions that cut in both directions).The law expands the number of required days of early voting, including on the weekend days that progressives covet (two Saturdays are now required instead of one). There’s also a provision that requires large precincts with long lines to add machines, add staff or split the precinct. Depending on how this is rolled out, it could be a big win for voters in Georgia’s urban areas, who have dealt with some of the longest lines in the country.Cutting in the other direction is the gratuitous and probably ineffectual limitation on handing out food and water to people standing in line to vote. Of more concrete but still limited importance is a rule that makes it harder for people to cast a provisional ballot if they show up at the wrong precinct. (It’s worth noting that many states don’t count these ballots at all, and there were only around 10,000 total provisional ballots in Georgia in the last election, including those cast in the right precinct).It shortens the runoff period. Runoffs would be held four weeks after an initial election, instead of the nine weeks that had been in place for federal elections in the last few years. A main consequence would be to shorten early runoff voting to one week, instead of three, plausibly affecting turnout in exactly the kind of close, low-turnout race where it could easily be decisive.It empowers the State Legislature to play a larger role in election administration. It removes the secretary of state as chair of the state board of elections and allows the Legislature to appoint a majority of the board’s members, including the chair. And it empowers the state board to take over county boards of elections, if the circumstances merit it.These might prove to be very important. But for the purposes of this article, we are not considering them “voter suppression” provisions. They do not inherently make it harder for people to vote by restricting whether or how they can vote.If we leave aside the administrative provisions and the question of intent, the core question on voter suppression is to what extent does reducing voting options — like early voting in the runoffs or mail voting in general — reduce turnout and Democratic chances?The limited import of convenience votingFor decades, reformers have assumed that the way to increase turnout is to make voting easier.Yet surprisingly, expanding voting options to make it more convenient hasn’t seemed to have a huge effect on turnout or electoral outcomes. That’s the finding of decades of political science research on advance, early and absentee voting. One prominent study even found that early voting decreases turnout, though that’s a bit of an outlier.There’s essentially no evidence that the vast expansion of no-excuse absentee mail voting, in which anyone can apply for a mail absentee ballot, had any discernible effect on turnout in 2020. That shouldn’t be a huge surprise: Even universal vote by mail, in which every registered voter is automatically sent a mail ballot (as opposed to every voter having an opportunity to apply for one), increases turnout by only about 2 percent with no discernible partisan advantage.Believe it or not, turnout increased just as much in the states that didn’t have no-excuse absentee voting as it did in the states that added it for the first time. Similarly, Joe Biden improved over Hillary Clinton’s performance by three percentage points in the states that added it, compared with 2.9 points in the states that did not.A more rigorous study by political scientists at Stanford found that no-excuse mail voting might have increased turnout by a whopping 0.02 percent in the 2020 election. The study used a novel approach: The researchers compared the turnout among 65-year-olds in Texas, who were eligible to vote by mail without an excuse, with 64-year-olds in Texas, who weren’t. The turnout among 64-year-olds was indistinguishable from that of 65-year-olds, even though the latter group voted by mail in large numbers.Like Georgia, Texas did not require an identification to vote by mail, but has a strict ID requirement for in-person voting.The partisan makeup of the electorate didn’t appear to change, either. The Democratic share of voters appeared to tick up by two-tenths of a percentage point — enough to decide a very close election. But it’s also so small that it could just be statistical noise, with no effect at all. Social science methods just don’t offer the level of precision necessary to nail down whether this, or any, change might move the needle by a tenth of a point.The Georgia law doesn’t come anywhere close to eliminating no-excuse absentee voting, unlike what the political scientists tested in Texas. As a result, one might expect the new law to have an even smaller effect. (You could make a counterintuitive argument that making absentee voting harder is worse for Democrats than eliminating it altogether, and that Democrats might be better off discouraging people from mail voting to avoid unnecessary ballot rejections of people who could have successfully voted in person.)The Georgia runoff elections, while hardly a scientific case study, nonetheless offer another useful example. There were fewer opportunities to vote in advance compared with the general election, because of the shorter election campaign and the holiday season. Based on the drop-off in early voting, many analysts wound up underestimating the final turnout by 20 percent or more. In the end, turnout exceeded expectations. The number of Election Day voters was higher than it was in the general election, as many people who might have voted early if it weren’t for Christmas or New Year’s Day now turned out on Election Day.Maybe runoff turnout would have been higher with the same early voting opportunities as in the general. But maybe not. And none of this had any discernible negative effect on the Democrats, who of course did better than they did in the general.Why doesn’t convenience matter?How is it possible that something like eliminating no-excuse absentee mail voting, a method beloved by millions of voters, wouldn’t materially affect turnout or election results?One simple answer is that convenience isn’t as important as often assumed. Almost everyone who cares enough to vote will brave the inconveniences of in-person voting to do so, whether that’s because the inconveniences aren’t really so great, or because they care enough to suffer them.This supposes a certain reasonable level of convenience, of course: Six-hour lines would change the calculation for many voters. And indeed, long lines do affect turnout. It also supposes a certain level of interest. Someone might think: There’s no way I’m waiting a half-hour in line to vote for dogcatcher. Similarly, the importance of a convenient voting option probably grows as the significance of a race decreases.The implication, though, is that nearly every person will manage to vote if sufficiently convenient options are available, even if the most preferred option doesn’t exist. That makes the Georgia election law’s effort to curb long lines potentially quite significant. Not only might it mitigate the already limited effect of restricting mail voting, but it might even outweigh it.Another reason is that convenience voting may not be as convenient for lower-turnout voters, who essentially decide overall turnout. Low-turnout voters probably aren’t thinking about how they’ll vote a month ahead of the election, when they’ll need to apply for an absentee ballot. Someone thinking about this is probably a high-turnout voter. Low-turnout voters might not even know until Election Day whom they’ll support. And that makes them less likely to take advantage of advance voting options like no-excuse early voting, which requires them to think about the election early and often: to submit an application, fill out a ballot and return it.As a result, convenience voting methods tend to reinforce the socioeconomic biases favoring high-turnout voters. The methods ensure that every high-interest voter has many opportunities to vote, without doing quite as much to draw less engaged voters to the polls.A final reason is that voting restrictions may backfire by angering and energizing Democratic voters. This law’s restrictions on handing out water in line, for instance, may do more to mobilize Democrats than to stop them from voting. One recent study even theorized that the Supreme Court’s decision to roll back elements of the Voting Rights Act didn’t reduce Black turnout because subsequent efforts to restrict voting were swiftly countered by efforts to mobilize Black voters.That doesn’t mean the Georgia law or other such laws are without consequence. Many make voting more difficult, enough to intimidate or discourage some voters. Many outright disenfranchise voters, even if only in small numbers. Perhaps the disenfranchisement of even a single voter merits outrage and opposition, especially if the law is passed on dubious or even fabricated grounds, and with Jim Crow mass disenfranchisement as a historical backdrop.But setting aside intent, it does mean that many such voting provisions, like that in Georgia, are unlikely to have a huge effect on turnout or Democratic chances.There are consequences to misunderstanding the stakes of changing voting laws. Minor changes in voting access can overshadow larger issues, including the kinds of potentially significant provisions in the Georgia law that empower the State Legislature. The democracy reform bill H.R. 1, for instance, would do quite a bit to expand voting access but relatively little to protect against partisan interference in election administration.The perception that voting laws have existential stakes for democracy or the political viability of the two parties has made bipartisan compromise extremely difficult. The virtue of bipartisanship is often and understandably dismissed as naïve, but voting laws are a rare case where bipartisanship has value of its own. Democracy, after all, depends on the consent of the loser. More

    • 125 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Trump’s Latino Support Was More Widespread Than Thought, Report Finds

      by

      While Latinos played a major role in Democratic victories last year, Donald Trump’s outreach to them proved successful in states around the country, not just in certain geographic areas.Even as Latino voters played a meaningful role in tipping the Senate and the presidency to the Democrats last year, former President Donald J. Trump succeeded in peeling away significant amounts of Latino support, and not just in conservative-leaning geographic areas, according to a post-mortem analysis of the election that was released on Friday.Conducted by the Democratically aligned research firm Equis Labs, the report found that certain demographics within the Latino electorate had proved increasingly willing to embrace Mr. Trump as the 2020 campaign went on, including conservative Latinas and those with a relatively low level of political engagement.Using data from Equis Labs’ polls in a number of swing states, as well as focus groups, the study found that within those groups, there was a shift toward Mr. Trump across the country, not solely in areas like Miami or the Rio Grande Valley of Texas, where the growth in Mr. Trump’s Latino support has been widely reported.“In 2020, a segment of Latino voters demonstrated that they are more ‘swing’ than commonly assumed,” the report stated.Ultimately, Mr. Trump outperformed his 2016 showing among Latino voters, earning the support of about one in three nationwide, even as Joseph R. Biden Jr. won those voters by a roughly two-to-one margin over all, according to exit polls.All told, close to 17 million Latino voters turned out in the general election, according to a separate analysis published in January by the U.C.L.A. Latino Policy & Politics Initiative. That represented an uptick of more than 30 percent from 2016 — and the highest level of Latino participation in history.With the coronavirus pandemic and the related economic downturn taking center stage on the campaign trail, Equis Labs found that many Latino voters — particularly conservatives — had focused more heavily on economic issues than they had four years earlier. This helped Mr. Trump by putting the spotlight on an issue that was seen as one of his strong suits and by drawing some attention away from his anti-immigrant language.In focus groups, Equis Labs’ interviewers noticed that Mr. Trump’s history as a businessman was seen as a positive attribute by many Latino voters, who viewed him as well positioned to guide the economy through the pandemic-driven recession. Partly as a result, the analysis found, many conservative Latino voters who had been hanging back at the start of the campaign came around to supporting him.Driving up turnout among low-propensity voters — something that Senator Bernie Sanders had sought to do during his campaign for the Democratic nomination — did not necessarily translate into gains for Democrats in the general election, the study found. People who were likely to vote generally grew more negative on Mr. Trump’s job performance over the course of 2020, but among those who reported being less likely to participate in the election, his job approval rose.This finding is likely to fuel hand-wringing among Democratic strategists who worried that Mr. Biden had not done enough to court skeptical Latino voters ahead of November.The movement toward Mr. Trump appeared mostly “to be among those with the lowest partisan formation,” the analysts wrote. “We know enough to say these look like true swing voters. Neither party should assume that a Hispanic voter who cast a ballot for Trump in 2020 is locked in as a Republican going forward. Nor can we assume this shift was exclusive to Trump and will revert back on its own.”Chuck Coughlin, a Republican pollster in Arizona, said he was unsurprised by the results of the Equis Labs report, given what he said had been a concerted effort by the Trump campaign to win Latino support.“You saw it in the rallies out here,” he said. “They did a rally down in Yuma. They did a rally at the Honeywell plant out here. All of those featured Hispanic small-business owners. They were working that crowd.”He said the Trump campaign’s messaging on economic and social issues had resonated for many Latino voters, particularly older ones. “They’re pro-business, they’re pro-gun, they don’t like higher taxes, they don’t trust the government,” he said. “It’s the same constituency that you see among Anglo Trump voters.”While the report didn’t closely analyze voters by their nations of origin, it did demonstrate that Mr. Trump’s relative success among Latino voters compared with four years earlier was not limited to areas with large populations of Cuban-Americans, Venezuelan-Americans and other demographics that have typically trended more conservative.Carmen Peláez, a playwright and filmmaker in Miami who helped lead the campaign group Cubanos con Biden, said that after the election, many observers had sought to ascribe Mr. Trump’s improvement among Florida Latinos to a shift among Cuban-Americans in the southern part of the state.The findings from Equis Labs validated her experience last year, she said, which showed that Latinos of all nationalities had been targeted online with advertisements and messages that scared them away from Democrats.“People love blaming the Cubans, but you can’t just blame the Cubans,” she said. “There is a cancer in our community, and it’s disinformation, and it’s hitting all of us.”Ms. Peláez said Democrats had habitually taken Latino voters for granted by mistakenly assuming that they knew those voters’ political habits and attitudes. Cuban-Americans, for example, are often painted with a broad brush as conservative.“It was assumed all Latinos would be pro-immigration or they were taken for granted because they were assumed to be a lost vote,” she said. “There’s never a lost vote if you are really willing to engage. But willing to engage means setting aside your own prejudices.” More

    • 75 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      What Georgia’s Voting Law Really Does

      by

      Go page by page through Georgia’s new voting law, and one takeaway stands above all others: The Republican legislature and governor have made a breathtaking assertion of partisan power in elections, making absentee voting harder and creating restrictions and complications in the wake of narrow losses to Democrats.The New York Times has examined and annotated the law, identifying 16 provisions that hamper the right to vote for some Georgians or strip power from state and local elections officials and give it to legislators.Republicans passed and signed the 98-page voting law last week following the first Democratic victories in presidential and Senate elections in Georgia in a generation. President Biden won the state by just 11,779 votes out of nearly five million cast. The new law will, in particular, curtail ballot access for voters in booming urban and suburban counties, home to many Democrats. Another provision makes it a crime to offer water to voters waiting in lines, which tend to be longer in densely populated communities.Below is The Times’s analysis of the law, including the specific provisions and some struck-through language from the state’s previous voting legislation.Here are the most significant changes to voting in the state, as written into the new law:Voters will now have less time to request absentee ballots.There are strict new ID requirements for absentee ballots.It’s now illegal for election officials to mail out absentee ballot applications to all voters.Drop boxes still exist … but barely.Mobile voting centers (think an R.V. where you can vote) are essentially banned.Early voting is expanded in a lot of small counties, but probably not in more populous ones.Offering food or water to voters waiting in line now risks misdemeanor charges.If you go to the wrong polling place, it will be (even) harder to vote.If election problems arise, a common occurrence, it is now more difficult to extend voting hours.With a mix of changes to vote-counting, high-turnout elections will probably mean a long wait for results.Election officials can no longer accept third-party funding (a measure that nods to right-wing conspiracy theories).With an eye toward voter fraud, the state attorney general will manage an election hotline.The Republican-controlled legislature has more control over the State Election Board.The secretary of state is removed as a voting member of the State Election Board.The G.O.P.-led legislature is empowered to suspend county election officials.Runoff elections will happen faster — and could become harder to manage.Voters will now have less time to request absentee ballots.Page 38: Not m̶o̶r̶e̶ earlier than 1̶8̶0̶ 78 days or less than 11 days prior to the date of the primary or election, or runoff of either, in which the elector desires to vote, any absentee elector may make, either by mail, by facsimile transmission, by electronic transmission, or in person in the registrar’s or absentee ballot clerk’s office, an application for an official ballot of the elector’s precinct to be voted at such primary, election, or runoff.Georgia has cut by more than half the period during which voters may request an absentee ballot, from nearly six months before an election to less than three.This will almost certainly reduce the number of people who seek absentee ballots and the number of people who vote. In the last presidential election, 1.3 million Georgians — about 26 percent of the state’s electorate — voted with absentee ballots. Of those who returned absentee ballots in 2020, 65 percent voted for Joseph R. Biden Jr. and 34 percent chose Donald J. Trump.The shorter window will also limit opportunities for get-out-the-vote efforts and could put greater strain on local election boards, which will have less time to process ballot requests.There are strict new ID requirements for absentee ballots.Page 38: In order to confirm the identity of the voter, such form shall require the elector to provide his or her name, date of birth, address as registered, address where the elector wishes the ballot to be mailed, and the number of his or her Georgia driver’s license or identification card issued … If such elector does not have a Georgia driver’s license or identification card … the elector shall affirm this fact in the manner prescribed in the application and the elector shall provide a copy of a form of identification … The form made available by the Secretary of State shall include a space to affix a photocopy or electronic image of such identification.Page 57: In order to verify that the absentee ballot was voted by the elector who requested the ballot, the elector shall print the number of his or her Georgia driver’s license number or identification card … in the space provided on the outer oath envelope. The elector shall also print his or her date of birth in the space provided in the outer oath envelope.If the elector does not have a Georgia driver’s license or state identification card … the elector shall so affirm in the space provided on the outer oath envelope and print the last four digits of his or her social security number in the space provided on the outer oath envelope.If the elector does not have a Georgia driver’s license, identification card … or a social security number, the elector shall so affirm in the space provided on the outer oath envelope and place a copy of one of the forms of identification in the outer envelopePreviously, Georgia law required voters to simply sign their absentee ballot applications. Now they will have to provide the number from a driver’s license or an equivalent state-issued identification. This is virtually certain to limit access to absentee voting.The law also creates pitfalls for voters: If they fail to follow all the new steps, like printing a date of birth or in some cases including partial Social Security numbers, their ballots could be tossed out. Mr. Trump’s lawyers and allies urged judges and Republican officials last year to invalidate some ballots that were out of compliance. Stringent voter-ID laws in other states have depressed voting mostly among people of color.It’s now illegal for election officials to mail out absentee ballot applications to all voters.Page 39: A blank application for an absentee ballot shall be made available online by the Secretary of State and each election superintendent and registrar, but neither the Secretary of State, election superintendent, board of registrars, other governmental entity, nor employee or agent thereof shall send absentee ballot applications directly to any elector except upon request of such elector or a relative authorized to request an absentee ballot for such elector.No person or entity other than a relative authorized to request an absentee ballot for such elector or a person signing as assisting an illiterate or physically disabled elector shall send any elector an absentee ballot application that is prefilled with the elector’s required information set forth in this subparagraph.When the coronavirus pandemic hit last year, Georgia’s secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, a Republican, mailed absentee ballot applications to every registered voter in the state ahead of its June primary election. This led to absentee voting by record numbers of Georgians.When Mr. Raffensperger didn’t mail applications again for the general election, several local government agencies did so, particularly in Georgia’s large urban counties — a move that the state has now made illegal. With the loss of automatically mailed applications, some voters will invariably not request ballots, since the applications also served as a reminder to people that they were eligible to vote.The new law also forbids third-party groups to prefill applications for voters, which made applying for an absentee ballot easier for many voters.Drop boxes still exist … but barely.Page 47: A board of registrars or absentee ballot clerk may establish additional drop boxes … but may only establish additional drop boxes totaling the lesser of either one drop box for every 100,000 active registered voters in the county or the number of advance voting locations in the county. Any additional drop boxes shall be evenly geographically distributed by population in the county.Drop boxes … shall be established at the office of the board of registrars or absentee ballot clerk or inside locations at which advance voting … is conducted in the applicable primary, election, or runoff and may be open during the hours of advance voting at that location. Such drop boxes shall be closed when advance voting is not being conducted at that location.For the 2020 election, there were 94 drop boxes across the four counties that make up the core of metropolitan Atlanta: Fulton, Cobb, DeKalb and Gwinnett. The new law limits the same four counties to a total of, at most, 23 drop boxes, based on the latest voter registration data. The number could be lower depending on how many early-voting sites the counties provide.There won’t just be fewer drop boxes. Instead of 24-hour access outdoors, the boxes must be placed indoors at government buildings and early-voting sites and will thus be unavailable for voters to drop off their ballots during evenings and other nonbusiness hours.The measure is likely to have the effect of pushing absentee voters to return ballots through the mail, which in 2020 did not prove as reliable as in the past because of cuts to the Postal Service.Mobile voting centers (think an R.V. where you can vote) are essentially banned.Page 31: The superintendent of a county or the governing authority of a municipality shall have discretion to procure and provide portable or movable polling facilities of adequate size for any precinct; provided, however, that buses and other readily movable facilities shall only be used in emergencies declared by the Governor … to supplement the capacity of the polling place where the emergency circumstance occurred.Last year, Fulton County, which includes most of Atlanta, had two recreational vehicles that traversed the county during the early voting periods, effectively bringing polling sites to people at churches, parks and public libraries. In the November election, more than 11,200 people voted at the two vehicles in Fulton County.Georgia has now outlawed this practice, unless the governor declares a state of emergency to allow it — something that Mr. Kemp, a Republican, is unlikely to do given that it could increase voter turnout in Atlanta.Early voting is expanded in a lot of small counties, but probably not in more populous ones.Page 59: There shall be a period of advance voting that shall commence: (A) On the fourth Monday immediately prior to each primary or election; and (̶B̶)̶ ̶O̶n̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶f̶o̶u̶r̶t̶h̶ ̶M̶o̶n̶d̶a̶y̶ ̶i̶m̶m̶e̶d̶i̶a̶t̶e̶l̶y̶ ̶p̶r̶i̶o̶r̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶a̶ ̶r̶u̶n̶o̶f̶f̶ ̶f̶r̶o̶m̶ ̶a̶ ̶g̶e̶n̶e̶r̶a̶l̶ ̶p̶r̶i̶m̶a̶r̶y̶;̶ ̶(̶C̶)̶ ̶O̶n̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶f̶o̶u̶r̶t̶h̶ ̶M̶o̶n̶d̶a̶y̶ ̶i̶m̶m̶e̶d̶i̶a̶t̶e̶l̶y̶ ̶p̶r̶i̶o̶r̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶a̶ ̶r̶u̶n̶o̶f̶f̶ ̶f̶r̶o̶m̶ ̶a̶ ̶g̶e̶n̶e̶r̶a̶l̶ ̶e̶l̶e̶c̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ ̶i̶n̶ ̶w̶h̶i̶c̶h̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶r̶e̶ ̶a̶r̶e̶ ̶c̶a̶n̶d̶i̶d̶a̶t̶e̶s̶ ̶f̶o̶r̶ ̶a̶ ̶f̶e̶d̶e̶r̶a̶l̶ ̶o̶f̶f̶i̶c̶e̶ ̶o̶n̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶b̶a̶l̶l̶o̶t̶ ̶i̶n̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶r̶u̶n̶o̶f̶f̶;̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶(̶D̶)̶(B) As soon as possible prior to a runoff from any o̶t̶h̶e̶r̶ general primary or election i̶n̶ ̶w̶h̶i̶c̶h̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶r̶e̶ ̶a̶r̶e̶ ̶o̶n̶l̶y̶ ̶s̶t̶a̶t̶e̶ ̶o̶r̶ ̶c̶o̶u̶n̶t̶y̶ ̶c̶a̶n̶d̶i̶d̶a̶t̶e̶s̶ ̶o̶n̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶b̶a̶l̶l̶o̶t̶ ̶i̶n̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶r̶u̶n̶o̶f̶f̶ but no later than the second Monday immediately prior to such runoff and shall end on the Friday immediately prior to each primary, election, or runoff.Voting shall be conducted d̶u̶r̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶n̶o̶r̶m̶a̶l̶ ̶b̶u̶s̶i̶n̶e̶s̶s̶ ̶h̶o̶u̶r̶s̶ beginning at 9 a.m. and ending at 5 p.m. on weekdays, other than observed state holidays, during such period and shall be conducted on the second S̶a̶t̶u̶r̶d̶a̶y̶ and third Saturdays during the hours of 9 a.m. through 5 p.m. and, if the registrar or absentee ballot clerk so chooses, the second Sunday, the third Sunday, or both the second and third Sundays prior to a primary or election during the hours o̶f̶ ̶9̶ ̶a̶.̶m̶.̶ ̶t̶h̶r̶o̶u̶g̶h̶ ̶4̶ ̶p̶.̶m̶.̶ determined by the registrar or absentee ballot clerk, but no longer than 7 a.m. through 7 p.m.Page 60: Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, c̶o̶u̶n̶t̶i̶e̶s̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶m̶u̶n̶i̶c̶i̶p̶a̶l̶i̶t̶i̶e̶s̶ the registrars may extend the hours for voting b̶e̶y̶o̶n̶d̶ ̶r̶e̶g̶u̶l̶a̶r̶ ̶b̶u̶s̶i̶n̶e̶s̶s̶ ̶h̶o̶u̶r̶s̶ to permit advance voting from 7 a.m. until 7 p.m. and may provide for additional voting locations … to suit the needs of the electors of the jurisdiction at their option; provided, however, that voting shall occur only on the days specified in this paragraph and counties and municipalities shall not be authorized to conduct advance voting on any other days.These new strict rules on early voting hours are likely to curtail voting access for Georgians who work daytime hours or have less flexible schedules and who may be unable to return an absentee ballot.The provision requires counties to hold early voting during weekday working hours — 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. — and says it may be held for longer but may not take place before 7 a.m. or after 7 p.m. on those days. The early voting period will begin four weeks before an election. The previous iteration of the law called only for early voting during “normal business hours” and left it up to counties to determine those hours.The provision also adds a second required Saturday of early voting (the previous law required only one), which will increase access to early voting in most of the state’s rural counties, where election administrators have often been short-staffed and have offered fewer hours of early voting. Most larger counties in the state already offered multiple weekend days of early voting.The law doesn’t require the availability of early voting on Sundays, which means that counties can choose whether to open for early voting on up to two Sundays before an election. While the previous law did not require Sunday voting either, it also did not impose any restrictions; the new law states that counties may offer only two Sundays of early voting.Counties that choose not to open on Sundays would be limiting ballot access for parishioners at Black churches that have often organized parishioners to vote after Sunday services.Offering food or water to voters waiting in line now risks misdemeanor charges.Page 73: No person shall solicit votes in any manner or by any means or method, nor shall any person distribute or display any campaign material, nor shall any person give, offer to give, or participate in the giving of any money or gifts, including, but not limited to, food and drink, to an elector, nor shall any person solicit signatures for any petition, nor shall any person, other than election officials discharging their duties, establish or set up any tables or booths on any day in which ballots are being cast: (1) Within 150 feet of the outer edge of any building within which a polling place is established; (2) Within any polling place; or (3) Within 25 feet of any voter standing in line to vote at any polling place. These restrictions shall not apply to conduct occurring in private offices or areas which cannot be seen or heard by such electors.This Code section shall not be construed to prohibit a poll officer from distributing materials, as required by law, which are necessary for the purpose of instructing electors or from distributing materials prepared by the Secretary of State which are designed solely for the purpose of encouraging voter participation in the election being conducted or from making available self-service water from an unattended receptacle to an elector waiting in line to vote.Perhaps no provision in the Georgia law has received more attention than this one, which effectively bars third-party groups or anyone else who is not an election worker from providing food and water to voters waiting in line. Republicans defended the provision, saying it is enforceable only within a 150-foot radius of polling places. Civil rights groups note that it also prevents assistance “within 25 feet of any voter standing in line to vote at any polling place.”Long lines for voting in Georgia are an unfortunate reality, and are often found in the poorer, densely populated communities that tend to vote Democratic. During the primary election last June, when temperatures hovered above 80 degrees with high humidity, multiple voting locations across the state had lines in which voters waited more than two hours.Numerous studies have shown that long lines deter people from voting. According to research by the Bipartisan Policy Center, an independent research group, over 560,000 voters did not cast ballots in 2016 “because of problems related to polling place management, including long lines.” In 2014, Stephen Pettigrew, then a Ph.D. candidate in Harvard’s department of government, conducted a study that found that more than 200,000 voters did not vote in the midterm elections that year because they had faced long lines during the 2012 election.The new law does make it clear that it is legal for voters to drink from a water fountain, if one exists along the line to vote and provided they get the water themselves.If you go to the wrong polling place, it will be (even) harder to vote.Page 74: If a person presents himself or herself at a polling place, absentee polling place, or registration office in his or her county of residence in this state for the purpose of casting a ballot in a primary or election stating a good faith belief that he or she has timely registered to vote in such county of residence in such primary or election and the person’s name does not appear on the list of registered electors, the person shall be entitled to cast a provisional ballot in his or her county of residence in this state as provided in this Code section.If the person presents himself or herself at a polling place in the county in which he or she is registered to vote, but not at the precinct at which he or she is registered to vote, the poll officials shall inform the person of the polling location for the precinct where such person is registered to vote.The poll officials shall also inform such person that any votes cast by a provisional ballot in the wrong precinct will not be counted unless it is cast after 5 p.m. and before the regular time for the closing of the polls on the day of the primary, election, or runoff and unless the person executes a sworn statement, witnessed by the poll official, stating that he or she is unable to vote at his or her correct polling place prior to the closing of the polls and giving the reason therefor.From 2012 to 2018, Georgia shuttered more than 214 voting precincts around the state, according to an investigation by The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Those changes, many of which followed the Supreme Court’s hollowing out of the federal Voting Rights Act in 2013, confused many voters, who upon showing up to the wrong precinct had to vote with provisional ballots.This provision removes even that remedy for voters who arrive at the wrong precinct before 5 p.m., requiring them to instead travel to the correct precinct or risk being disenfranchised.Casting a provisional ballot after showing up at the wrong precinct was by far the most common reason for voting provisionally in the 2020 election in Georgia; roughly 44 percent of provisional ballots in the state were from “out of precinct voters,” according to data from the secretary of state’s office. And in Fulton County, 66 percent of the accepted provisional ballots were from “out of precinct” voters.Of the 11,120 provisional ballots that were counted in the 2020 presidential election, Mr. Biden won 64 percent and Mr. Trump took 34 percent.If election problems arise, a common occurrence, it is now more difficult to extend voting hours.Page 72: Poll hours at a precinct may be extended only by order of a judge of the superior court of the county in which the precinct is located upon good cause shown by clear and convincing evidence that persons were unable to vote at that precinct during a specific period or periods of time. Poll hours shall not be extended longer than the total amount of time during which persons were unable to vote at such precinct. Any order extending poll hours at a precinct beyond 9 p.m. shall be by written order with specific findings of fact supporting such extension.This is a small change, but it could have a significant impact on whether voting hours can be extended in the event of a problem.Previously, a judge could order that a precinct stay open for as long as necessary based on a problem that had hindered voting (for example, if power went out for 30 minutes, the judge could add an hour of balloting at the end of the day). The new provision requires any relief period to match exactly the amount of time that people were unable to vote.Georgia is no stranger to Election Day mishaps and problems. Its primary last June was marred by hourslong lines caused by malfunctioning machines. Some precincts had no choice but to ask every voter to file a provisional ballot. Other precincts stayed open later into the night.Under the new law, if similar election problems were to occur, voters who had to leave would have less time to come back later.With a mix of changes to vote-counting, high-turnout elections will probably mean a long wait for results.Page 65: Beginning at 8 a.m. on the third Monday prior to A̶f̶t̶e̶r̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶o̶p̶e̶n̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶p̶o̶l̶l̶s̶ ̶o̶n̶ the day of the primary, election, or runoff, t̶h̶e̶ ̶r̶e̶g̶i̶s̶t̶r̶a̶r̶s̶ ̶o̶r̶ ̶a̶b̶s̶e̶n̶t̶e̶e̶ ̶b̶a̶l̶l̶o̶t̶ ̶c̶l̶e̶r̶k̶s̶ election superintendent shall be authorized to open the outer oath envelope o̶n̶ ̶w̶h̶i̶c̶h̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶p̶r̶i̶n̶t̶e̶d̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶o̶a̶t̶h̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶e̶l̶e̶c̶t̶o̶r̶ of absentee ballots that have been verified and accepted i̶n̶ ̶s̶u̶c̶h̶ ̶a̶ ̶m̶a̶n̶n̶e̶r̶ ̶a̶s̶ ̶n̶o̶t̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶d̶e̶s̶t̶r̶o̶y̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶o̶a̶t̶h̶ ̶p̶r̶i̶n̶t̶e̶d̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶r̶e̶o̶n̶;̶ ̶p̶r̶o̶v̶i̶d̶e̶d̶,̶ ̶h̶o̶w̶e̶v̶e̶r̶,̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶r̶e̶g̶i̶s̶t̶r̶a̶r̶s̶ ̶o̶r̶ ̶a̶b̶s̶e̶n̶t̶e̶e̶ ̶b̶a̶l̶l̶o̶t̶ ̶c̶l̶e̶r̶k̶ ̶s̶h̶a̶l̶l̶ ̶n̶o̶t̶ ̶b̶e̶ ̶a̶u̶t̶h̶o̶r̶i̶z̶e̶d̶ ̶t̶o̶remove the contents of such outer envelope,̶ ̶o̶r̶ ̶t̶o̶ open the inner envelope marked ‘Official Absentee Ballot,’ e̶x̶c̶e̶p̶t̶ ̶a̶s̶ ̶o̶t̶h̶e̶r̶w̶i̶s̶e̶ ̶p̶r̶o̶v̶i̶d̶e̶d̶ ̶i̶n̶ ̶t̶h̶i̶s̶ ̶C̶o̶d̶e̶ ̶s̶e̶c̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ and scan the absentee ballot using one or more ballot scanners.At least three persons who are registrars, deputy registrars, poll workers, or absentee ballot clerks must be present before commencing; and three persons who are registrars, deputy registrars, or absentee ballot clerks shall be present at all times while the o̶u̶t̶e̶r̶ absentee ballot envelopes are being opened and the absentee ballots are being scanned. A̶f̶t̶e̶r̶ ̶o̶p̶e̶n̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶o̶u̶t̶e̶r̶ ̶e̶n̶v̶e̶l̶o̶p̶e̶s̶,̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶b̶a̶l̶l̶o̶t̶s̶ ̶s̶h̶a̶l̶l̶ ̶b̶e̶ ̶s̶a̶f̶e̶l̶y̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶s̶e̶c̶u̶r̶e̶l̶y̶ ̶s̶t̶o̶r̶e̶d̶ ̶u̶n̶t̶i̶l̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶t̶i̶m̶e̶ ̶f̶o̶r̶ ̶t̶a̶b̶u̶l̶a̶t̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶s̶u̶c̶h̶ ̶b̶a̶l̶l̶o̶t̶s̶.̶However, no person shall tally, tabulate, estimate, or attempt to tally, tabulate, or estimate or cause the ballot scanner or any other equipment to produce any tally or tabulate, partial or otherwise, of the absentee ballots cast until the time for the closing of the polls on the day of the primary, election, or runoff except as provided in this Code section.One key factor in how widely Mr. Trump and his allies were able to spread falsehoods about the 2020 election was that it took more than two weeks for news outlets to declare that President Biden had won Georgia. With such a long delay, Republicans successfully sowed doubts about the election’s validity by baselessly arguing that fraud must have taken place.Georgia Republicans’ new voting law does allow the absentee ballot counting process to begin much earlier, with local clerks allowed to open and inspect absentee ballots three weeks before an election.Still, no ballots can be counted until the polls close, meaning the process of tabulating and reporting vote totals is likely to be lengthy for high-turnout contests. That could lead future candidates to follow Mr. Trump’s lead in trying to contest the results of a legitimate election.Election officials can no longer accept third-party funding (a measure that nods to right-wing conspiracy theories).Page 18: No superintendent shall take or accept any funding, grants, or gifts from any source other than from the governing authority of the county or municipality, the State of Georgia, or the federal government. The State Election Board shall study and report to the General Assembly a proposed method for accepting donations intended to facilitate the administration of elections and a method for an equitable distribution of such donations state wide by October 1, 2021.Last year, as election officials faced countless challenges trying to hold voting during a pandemic, funding for the November general election became tied up in the political debate over the second stimulus package.Many local election jurisdictions in Georgia and other states, particularly those in poorer urban areas, turned to outside philanthropic groups like the Center for Tech and Civic Life, a nonprofit organization funded by Mark Zuckerberg that helped counties pay for their elections in 2020. Now Georgia has eliminated that option.Conspiracy theories in right-wing circles have long focused on the specter of nefarious outsiders swaying election operations with donations; the theories often involve anti-Semitic falsehoods about George Soros, the billionaire liberal donor, who is also Jewish.With an eye toward voter fraud, the state attorney general will manage an election hotline.Page 8: The Attorney General shall have the authority to establish and maintain a telephone hotline for the use of electors of this state to file complaints and allegations of voter intimidation and illegal election activities. Such hotline shall, in addition to complaints and reports from identified persons, also accept anonymous tips regarding voter intimidation and election fraud.Complaints about possible voter intimidation and fraud had previously been run through a web of county election officials and the secretary of state before reaching the state attorney general, but this provision centralizes them and deputizes the attorney general to handle them.Placing that responsibility within the attorney general’s office may help remove partisan influence to actions that are taken in response to complaints, but voting rights groups say it could serve as an intimidation tactic. And attorneys general themselves could bring their own partisan influence.The Republican-controlled legislature has more control over the State Election Board.Page 8: There is created a state board to be known as the State Election Board, to be composed of t̶h̶e̶ ̶S̶e̶c̶r̶e̶t̶a̶r̶y̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶S̶t̶a̶t̶e̶ a chairperson elected by the General Assembly, an elector to be elected by a majority vote of the Senate of the General Assembly at its regular session held in each odd-numbered year, an elector to be elected by a majority vote of the House of Representatives of the General Assembly at its regular session held in each odd-numbered year, and a member of each political party to be nominated and appointed in the manner provided in this Code section. No person while a member of the General Assembly shall serve as a member of the board.This is one of a few provisions that strip power from the secretary of state and indirectly shift it to the legislature by creating a new chair of the State Election Board. Previously, the secretary of state had served in that role.The law dictates that the newly created chair be “nonpartisan,” but the position is appointed through the partisan legislature. Voting rights groups say this amounts to the legislature’s exerting more control over the State Election Board and election oversight in general.The provision does contain some partisan guardrails: In the two years immediately preceding a chair’s appointment, he or she cannot have been a candidate for public office or have made any political campaign contributions.But it also looks an awful lot like a revenge move: Republican lawmakers are taking power away from Mr. Raffensperger, who infuriated Mr. Trump and some G.O.P. leaders in the state by rebuffing the former president’s fraud claims.The secretary of state is removed as a voting member of the State Election Board.Page 11: The Secretary of State shall be t̶h̶e̶ ̶c̶h̶a̶i̶r̶p̶e̶r̶s̶o̶n̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶b̶o̶a̶r̶d̶ an ex officio nonvoting member of the board. Three voting members of the board shall constitute a quorum, and no vacancy on the board shall impair the right of the quorum to exercise all the powers and perform all the duties of the board. The board shall adopt a seal for its use and bylaws for its own government and procedure.This is a more direct attack on the powers of the secretary of state, effectively eliminating that person’s voice on the State Election Board.Viewed through the lens of the 2020 election, this could be seen as revenge for Georgia Republicans against the current secretary of state, Mr. Raffensperger, who would not capitulate to Mr. Trump’s demands to overturn the results under a false banner of fraud.The G.O.P.-led legislature is empowered to suspend county election officials.Page 11: The State Election Board may suspend county or municipal superintendents and appoint an individual to serve as the temporary superintendent in a jurisdiction. Such individual shall exercise all the powers and duties of a superintendent as provided by law, including the authority to make all personnel decisions related to any employees of the jurisdiction who assist with carrying out the duties of the superintendent, including, but not limited to, the director of elections, the election supervisor, and all poll officers. (g) At no time shall the State Election Board suspend more than four county or municipal superintendents pursuant to subsection (f) of this Code section.Another power play by Republican state lawmakers. Tensions have long simmered between state and county election officials in Georgia, particularly in Fulton County, the largest Democratic hub in the state, where officials say they have been targeted and deprived of support by Republicans at the state level. Election officials in Fulton County, for their part, have had their historical share of mistakes and mismanagement.Now the State Election Board, newly influenced by the partisan Legislature, will have the power to suspend county election officials. That part of the new law alarmed some Democratic legislators, who noted that it could particularly affect counties like Fulton, which contains 15 percent of those in the state who voted Democratic in the November election.The law does state that the bar for suspension is high: either a minimum of three clear violations of State Election Board rules, or “demonstrated nonfeasance, malfeasance, or gross negligence in the administration of the elections” in two consecutive elections.In the event of a suspension, the State Election Board would name a temporary replacement.Runoff elections will happen faster — and could become harder to manage.Page 87: In instances where no candidate receives a majority of the votes cast, a run-off primary, special primary runoff, run-off election, or special election runoff between the candidates receiving the two highest numbers of votes shall be held. Unless such date is postponed by a court order, such r̶u̶n̶-̶o̶f̶f̶ ̶p̶r̶i̶m̶a̶r̶y̶,̶ ̶s̶p̶e̶c̶i̶a̶l̶ ̶p̶r̶i̶m̶a̶r̶y̶ ̶r̶u̶n̶o̶f̶f̶,̶ ̶r̶u̶n̶-̶o̶f̶f̶ ̶e̶l̶e̶c̶t̶i̶o̶n̶,̶ ̶o̶r̶ ̶s̶p̶e̶c̶i̶a̶l̶ ̶e̶l̶e̶c̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ runoff shall be held a̶s̶ ̶p̶r̶o̶v̶i̶d̶e̶d̶ ̶i̶n̶ ̶t̶h̶i̶s̶ ̶s̶u̶b̶s̶e̶c̶t̶i̶o̶n̶.̶ ̶(̶2̶)̶ ̶I̶n̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶c̶a̶s̶e̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶a̶ ̶r̶u̶n̶o̶f̶f̶ ̶f̶r̶o̶m̶ ̶a̶ ̶g̶e̶n̶e̶r̶a̶l̶ ̶p̶r̶i̶m̶a̶r̶y̶ ̶o̶r̶ ̶a̶ ̶s̶p̶e̶c̶i̶a̶l̶ ̶p̶r̶i̶m̶a̶r̶y̶ ̶o̶r̶ ̶s̶p̶e̶c̶i̶a̶l̶ ̶e̶l̶e̶c̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ ̶h̶e̶l̶d̶ ̶i̶n̶ ̶c̶o̶n̶j̶u̶n̶c̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ ̶w̶i̶t̶h̶ ̶a̶ ̶g̶e̶n̶e̶r̶a̶l̶ ̶p̶r̶i̶m̶a̶r̶y̶,̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶r̶u̶n̶o̶f̶f̶ ̶s̶h̶a̶l̶l̶ ̶b̶e̶ ̶h̶e̶l̶d̶ ̶o̶n̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶T̶u̶e̶s̶d̶a̶y̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶n̶i̶n̶t̶h̶ ̶w̶e̶e̶k̶ ̶f̶o̶l̶l̶o̶w̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶s̶u̶c̶h̶ ̶g̶e̶n̶e̶r̶a̶l̶ ̶p̶r̶i̶m̶a̶r̶y̶.̶ ̶ ̶ ̶(̶3̶)̶ ̶I̶n̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶c̶a̶s̶e̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶a̶ ̶r̶u̶n̶o̶f̶f̶ ̶f̶r̶o̶m̶ ̶a̶ ̶g̶e̶n̶e̶r̶a̶l̶ ̶e̶l̶e̶c̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ ̶f̶o̶r̶ ̶a̶ ̶f̶e̶d̶e̶r̶a̶l̶ ̶o̶f̶f̶i̶c̶e̶ ̶o̶r̶ ̶a̶ ̶r̶u̶n̶o̶f̶f̶ ̶f̶r̶o̶m̶ ̶a̶ ̶s̶p̶e̶c̶i̶a̶l̶ ̶p̶r̶i̶m̶a̶r̶y̶ ̶o̶r̶ ̶s̶p̶e̶c̶i̶a̶l̶ ̶e̶l̶e̶c̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ ̶f̶o̶r̶ ̶a̶ ̶f̶e̶d̶e̶r̶a̶l̶ ̶o̶f̶f̶i̶c̶e̶ ̶h̶e̶l̶d̶ ̶i̶n̶ ̶c̶o̶n̶j̶u̶n̶c̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ ̶w̶i̶t̶h̶ ̶a̶ ̶g̶e̶n̶e̶r̶a̶l̶ ̶e̶l̶e̶c̶t̶i̶o̶n̶,̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶r̶u̶n̶o̶f̶f̶ ̶s̶h̶a̶l̶l̶ ̶b̶e̶ ̶h̶e̶l̶d̶ ̶o̶n̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶T̶u̶e̶s̶d̶a̶y̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶n̶i̶n̶t̶h̶ ̶w̶e̶e̶k̶ ̶f̶o̶l̶l̶o̶w̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶s̶u̶c̶h̶ ̶g̶e̶n̶e̶r̶a̶l̶ ̶e̶l̶e̶c̶t̶i̶o̶n̶.̶ ̶ ̶ ̶(̶4̶)̶ ̶I̶n̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶c̶a̶s̶e̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶a̶ ̶r̶u̶n̶o̶f̶f̶ ̶f̶r̶o̶m̶ ̶a̶ ̶g̶e̶n̶e̶r̶a̶l̶ ̶e̶l̶e̶c̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ ̶f̶o̶r̶ ̶a̶n̶ ̶o̶f̶f̶i̶c̶e̶ ̶o̶t̶h̶e̶r̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶n̶ ̶a̶ ̶f̶e̶d̶e̶r̶a̶l̶ ̶o̶f̶f̶i̶c̶e̶ ̶o̶r̶ ̶a̶ ̶r̶u̶n̶o̶f̶f̶ ̶f̶r̶o̶m̶ ̶a̶ ̶s̶p̶e̶c̶i̶a̶l̶ ̶p̶r̶i̶m̶a̶r̶y̶ ̶o̶r̶ ̶s̶p̶e̶c̶i̶a̶l̶ ̶e̶l̶e̶c̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ ̶f̶o̶r̶ ̶a̶n̶ ̶o̶f̶f̶i̶c̶e̶ ̶o̶t̶h̶e̶r̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶n̶ ̶a̶ ̶f̶e̶d̶e̶r̶a̶l̶ ̶o̶f̶f̶i̶c̶e̶ ̶h̶e̶l̶d̶ ̶i̶n̶ ̶c̶o̶n̶j̶u̶n̶c̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ ̶w̶i̶t̶h̶ ̶a̶ ̶g̶e̶n̶e̶r̶a̶l̶ ̶e̶l̶e̶c̶t̶i̶o̶n̶,̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶r̶u̶n̶o̶f̶f̶ ̶s̶h̶a̶l̶l̶ ̶b̶e̶ ̶h̶e̶l̶d̶ on the twenty-eighth day after the day of holding the preceding general or special primary or general or special election.Georgia has had its fair share of runoff elections recently; both of its newly seated Democratic senators, Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock, prevailed in such contests. The shortening of the runoff election window, which Republicans say was meant to help election administrators, could also end up overburdening them, forcing a quick turnaround to hold a runoff election even as officials are still working to certify and ratify the initial general election vote.Shortening the runoff time will also affect both early voting and military and overseas voters. While the bill states that early voting for a runoff should begin “as early as possible,” it does not specifically require weekend voting.Additionally, federal election law states that ballots for military and overseas voters must be mailed out 45 days before an election, so those voters will now receive ranked-choice general-election ballots rather than second, separate ballots for the runoff.

      blockquote:not(.dummyclass) {
      background-color: lightyellow;
      padding: 20px 0;
      border-left: none;
      box-shadow: 1px 1px 4px rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.1);
      margin-top: 25px;
      margin-bottom: 25px;
      }
      blockquote:not(.dummyclass) > p:not(.dummyclass) {
      font-family: “nyt-franklin”;
      padding-left: 20px;
      }
      html[amp] amp-iframe[src=’https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/admin/100000006458342.embedded.html’] { display:none}

      .nytapp-hybrid-article blockquote p {
      font-family: “nyt-franklin” !important;
      padding-left: 20px !important;
      }
      .css-19qgada *:after {
      display: none !important;
      } More

    • 113 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      It’s Not Too Early to Start Courting Latino Voters

      by

      Democrats will need their votes to keep control of the Senate and House after the midterms.Latino voters helped deliver the presidency to Joe Biden in 2020 by securing key victories in Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. But Latino voters also moved an average of 9 percentage points from Democrats to Republicans in the 2020 elections compared with 2016.In places like Miami-Dade County in Florida and the Rio Grande Valley in Texas, that swing spiked to over 20 points. What’s more, seven of the 14 House seats that switched from Democratic to Republican control were in majority-minority districts, many of which had large Latino populations.As we now look ahead to the midterms, it’s likely that many close races will run through states and districts with large Latino populations. Democrats would do well to address their Latino vote problem if they want to keep control of the Senate and House.To understand why Democrats lost congressional races that they should have handily won, my organization Solidarity Strategies took a deeper look at key areas of concern from the general election. We focused on Miami-Dade County and five Texas border counties where Latinos make up a majority of the population.In Florida, Mr. Biden’s campaign, congressional candidates and Democratic super PACs set a state record for campaign spending. In the final 30 days before the general election, combined they spent over $14 million on Spanish-language radio and TV in Miami, according to Federal Election Commission reports. But by then, well over half of Latino voters in Miami had cast their ballots.By contrast, the Trump campaign maintained a consistent line of communication with, and outreach to, the Latino community that went beyond TV advertising starting two years before the 2020 election. Its Spanish-language strategy included in-person canvassing, mail, digital advertising, newspaper ads and a network of influencers who spread disinformation and echoed Donald Trump’s talking points on digital media. The misinformation they peddled was not rebutted by the Democrats until it was too late in the election cycle to make a difference.Many of the same patterns played out in Texas. In the last 60 days before the elections, Democratic candidates and super PACs spent nearly $2 million on advertising in the two Spanish-language media markets in the Rio Grande Valley. While Republicans spent a mere $33,000 in those markets during the same period, they went on to outperform Democrats in these densely Latino counties. This was no stroke of luck, but rather the result of a massive voter mobilization effort a decade in the making.Since the 2000s, organizations like the Libre Initiative, a Latino conservative advocacy group within the Koch political network, have been working tirelessly to promote conservatism in Hispanic communities. Through them, the G.O.P. has built support while providing resources to the Latino community. For example, the Libre Initiative offers English courses, economic empowerment sessions and pathways to citizenship to immigrants throughout the South and Southwest. It also helps them study for driver’s license exams, citizenship tests and the G.E.D.Come election year, Republicans coordinated an aggressive social media campaign, accompanied by canvassing programs, and hosted car parades with well over 500 cars in Texas. They didn’t need to empty their wallets in the final weeks before the elections because they had maintained a constant drumbeat of communication in the area for months.Grass-roots organizations like Lucha did the same for Democrats in states like Arizona. It is among the network of organizations that have put in the work to turn the rising number of Latinos in the state into a force for change. For over a decade, they have campaigned, marched, protested and knocked on doors to organize voters on issues like immigration. They also helped deliver the Latino vote to Mr. Biden in the general election.This brings us to the next problem: Latinos in the Rio Grande Valley are working middle class and rely heavily on jobs in oil and gas plants, border security and other government agencies. The narrative that Democratic candidates spun about immigration reform and eliminating fossil fuels fell flat with these voters.There was no lack of money raised and spent on congressional races nationally. In fact, Democratic candidates, party committees and super PACs out raised and out spent Republicans in almost every race Democrats lost to Republicans in 2020. Yet it is evident that their outreach in these communities was not thoughtful. A cluster of Spanish-language TV ads late in the game will not turn out voters.Super PACs raised and spent over $1 billion on independent expenditures by October 15, 2020. According to Federal Election Commission reports, over 99 percent of that money went through firms that are majority-white owned, and less than 2 percent of it went to Latino-led super PACs. There were few if any people in the room who could point out flaws in the messaging or imagery used in the ads these firms produced.We need to prioritize Latino voters as we do white swing voters, and use every tool at our disposal to initiate and nurture a thoughtful conversation. Democrats then have got to get their message in front of Latinos before they cast ballots, not after. They must work to build trust now, so they can ask for their votes later.The political consulting and campaigning industry has historically been run by white establishment consultants who don’t come from our community. That needs to change. Hiring diverse staff members and consultants to run campaigns, make budgetary decisions, develop regional messaging and flag messaging errors and inconsistencies would be a critical step forward. The Democratic Party and its super PACs should be restructured to include more Latinos in leadership and decision-making positions.If you don’t invest in Latino voters early, don’t be surprised when they don’t show up for you.Chuck Rocha (@ChuckRocha) is the founder of Solidarity Strategies and the president of Nuestro PAC.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

    • 125 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Texas Senate Advances Bill That Would Make Voting More Difficult

      by

      Lawmakers in Texas, a state that already claims the most onerous voting laws in the nation, on Thursday took a major step toward making it even tougher to cast a ballot, the latest in a bevy of Republican-backed efforts to restrict voting ahead of the 2022 midterm elections.The State Senate approved an overhaul of election law that would roll back many steps taken by counties last year to facilitate voting during the pandemic and impose new curbs in their place, including statewide limits on polling-place hours, a new formula for locating polling places and a ban on drop boxes that were widely used nationwide last year to assist mail-in voters.The proposal also would ban anyone except the voter who filled out a ballot from dropping it in a mailbox or delivering it to an election official. It adds new paperwork requirements for voters who need help because of language problems or disabilities. And it would give so-called poll watchers — untrained monitors, usually chosen by candidates or party officials, who are stationed inside polling places — the right to videotape voters if they deem them suspicious.The Texas measure comes on the heels of efforts in Iowa and Georgia, where lawmakers significantly tightened voting rules last month. The Georgia measure has been criticized by executives of several major companies with headquarters in the state. In Arizona, two Republican-backed bills that would erect roadblocks to voting by mail — the method used by eight in 10 voters — are approaching final votes in the State Legislature.American Airlines, which is based in Fort Worth, said in a statement on Thursday that it was “strongly opposed” to the bill that passed the Texas Senate “and others like it.” A similar bill moved through the Texas House’s elections committee on Thursday. Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, a Republican, made tougher voting laws a priority for the current legislative session after party leaders and some legislators embraced the baseless claim that a wave of fraudulent votes was responsible for President Biden’s election last fall. (Though President Donald J. Trump won Texas, drawing 52 percent of the vote.)Despite no evidence of significant election fraud in Texas last year, supporters of the bills in both chambers say those and other measures are necessary to make the state’s elections more secure.“This bill is designed to address areas throughout the process where bad actors can take advantage, so Texans can feel confident that their elections are fair, honest and open,” State Senator Bryan Hughes, a Republican from Mineola, about 100 miles east of Dallas, said during Senate debate on the measure.But David Becker, an expert on election administration who directs the Center for Election Innovation and Research in Washington, said the legislation ultimately would make voting less secure by encouraging voters who would normally vote by mail or in person during early voting periods to vote on Election Day. What little fraud exists can often be spotted by analyzing the ballots cast before Election Day, he said, while fraud or cyberattacks are harder to detect and address in the crush of a big Election Day turnout.Another provision would delay a statewide requirement to use auditable paper ballots until 2026, a move that would almost certainly make Texas the last state in the nation to carry out that basic security measure.Critics of the Senate bill said most of its provisions were less about making voting secure than about making it harder, particularly for urban voters and minority voters, two groups that tend to vote for Democrats.They called the clause allowing partisan monitors to videotape voters an invitation to intimidation, and noted that the voters most likely to be recorded — those with language problems who need assistance filling out a ballot — were disproportionately people of color.Similarly, they said, clauses limiting voting hours to 6 a.m. to. 9 p.m., banning drive-through voting and changing the formula for allotting polling places in counties with more than one million residents would apply largely to counties with big cities like Houston, which expanded its voting hours and allowed for drive-through balloting in November.The Senate bill was widely opposed by the state’s local election officials, including those in many of the biggest urban areas.Stephanie Gómez, the associate director of the advocacy group Common Cause Texas, said in a video conference with reporters that the two bills were “weaponizing legislation to codify widespread voter intimidation.”“If you want to know which state is going to be the next Georgia,” she said, “it’s Texas.” More

    • 75 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      A Conversation With Senator Raphael Warnock

      by

      Listen and follow The DailyApple Podcasts | Spotify | StitcherRepublican-led legislatures are racing to restrict voting rights, in a broad political effort that began in the state of Georgia. To many Democrats, it’s no coincidence that Georgia — once a Republican stronghold — has just elected its first Black senator: Raphael Warnock. Today, we speak to the senator about his path from pastorship to politics, the fight over voting rights and his faith that the old political order is fading away.On today’s episodeAstead W. Herndon, a national political reporter for The New York Times.Mr. Warnock was previously a pastor at Ebenezer Baptist Church, where the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. once preached.Getty ImagesBackground readingGeorgia Republicans passed a sweeping law to restrict voting access in the state, making it the first major battleground to overhaul its election system since the turmoil of the 2020 presidential contest.Last year, Mr. Warnock ran for office in a state where people in predominantly Black neighborhoods waited in disproportionately long lines. Several Black leaders have said Georgia’s new law clearly puts a target on Black and brown voters.There are a lot of ways to listen to The Daily. Here’s how.Transcripts of each episode are available by the next workday. You can find them at the top of the page.Astead W. Herndon contributed reporting.The Daily is made by Theo Balcomb, Lisa Tobin, Rachel Quester, Lynsea Garrison, Annie Brown, Clare Toeniskoetter, Paige Cowett, Michael Simon Johnson, Brad Fisher, Larissa Anderson, Wendy Dorr, Chris Wood, Jessica Cheung, Stella Tan, Alexandra Leigh Young, Lisa Chow, Eric Krupke, Marc Georges, Luke Vander Ploeg, Sindhu Gnanasambandan, M.J. Davis Lin, Austin Mitchell, Neena Pathak, Dan Powell, Dave Shaw, Sydney Harper, Daniel Guillemette, Hans Buetow, Robert Jimison, Mike Benoist, Bianca Giaever, Liz O. Baylen, Asthaa Chaturvedi, Rachelle Bonja, Alix Spiegel, Diana Nguyen, Marion Lozano and Soraya Shockley.Our theme music is by Jim Brunberg and Ben Landsverk of Wonderly. Special thanks to Sam Dolnick, Mikayla Bouchard, Lauren Jackson, Julia Simon, Mahima Chablani, Nora Keller, Sofia Milan, Desiree Ibekwe, Laura Kim, Erica Futterman and Shreeya Sinha. More

    • 138 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Why the Georgia G.O.P.’s Voting Rollbacks Will Hit Black People Hard

      by

      The state’s new Republican-crafted law is set to restrict voting access in ways that Democrats and voting rights groups say will have an outsize impact on Black voters.After record turnout flipped Georgia blue for the first time in decades, Republicans who control the state Legislature moved swiftly to put in place a raft of new restrictions on voting access, passing a new bill that was signed into law on Thursday.The law will alter foundational elements of voting in Georgia, which supported President Biden in November and a pair of Democratic senators in January — narrow victories attributable in part to the turnout of Black voters and the array of voting options in the state.Taken together, the new barriers will have an outsize impact on Black voters, who make up roughly one-third of the state’s population and vote overwhelmingly Democratic.The Republican legislation will undermine pillars of voting access by limiting drop boxes for mail ballots, introducing more rigid voter identification requirements for absentee balloting and making it a crime to provide food or water to people waiting in line to vote. Long lines to vote are common in Black neighborhoods in Georgia’s cities, particularly Atlanta, where much of the state’s Democratic electorate lives.The new law also expands the Legislature’s power over elections, which has raised worries that it could interfere with the vote in predominantly Democratic, heavily Black counties like Fulton and Gwinnett.Black voters were a major force in Democratic success in recent elections, with roughly 88 percent voting for Mr. Biden and more than 90 percent voting for Senators Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff in the January runoff elections, according to exit polls.Democrats say that Republicans are effectively returning to one of the ugliest tactics in the state’s history — oppressive laws aimed at disenfranchising voters.“Rather than grappling with whether their ideology is causing them to fail, they are instead relying on what has worked in the past,” Stacey Abrams, the voting rights activist, said as the bill made its way through the Legislature, referring to what she said were laws designed to suppress votes. “Instead of winning new voters, you rig the system against their participation, and you steal the right to vote.”The Georgia law comes as former President Donald J. Trump has continued to publicly promote the lie that the election was stolen from him, which has swayed millions of Republican voters. It also puts further pressure on Republican state legislatures across the country to continue drafting new legislation aimed at restricting voting rights under the banner of “election integrity” as a way of appeasing the former president and his loyal base.People waited in line to vote early at a community center in Suwanee, Ga., in October.Nicole Craine for The New York TimesNew restrictions on voting have already passed in Iowa, and multiple other states are lining up similar efforts, while the Supreme Court signaled this month that it was ready to make it harder to challenge all sorts of limits on voting around the nation.Should the high court make changes to Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which allows after-the-fact challenges to voting restrictions that may disproportionately affect members of minority groups, Democrats and voting rights groups could be left without one of their most essential tools to challenge new laws.For decades, Georgia has been at the center of the voting rights battle, with Democrats and advocacy groups fighting back against repeated efforts to disenfranchise Black voters in the state.As recently as 2018, Georgians faced hourslong lines to vote in many predominantly Black neighborhoods, and thousands of Black voters were purged from the voting rolls before the election. Now Republicans have again changed the state’s voting laws ahead of critical Senate and governor’s races in 2022.Democrats, shut out of power in the Statehouse despite holding both United States Senate seats, were relatively powerless in the legislative process to stop the voting bill, though they do now have avenues through the courts to challenge the law.The initial iterations of the bill contained measures that voting rights groups said would have even more directly targeted Black voters, like a proposal to restrict early voting on the weekends that would limit the longstanding civic tradition of “Souls to the Polls,” in which Black voters cast ballots on Sunday after church services.Stacey Abrams, the voting rights activist and 2018 Democratic nominee for governor, may challenge Gov. Brian Kemp again in 2022.Nicole Craine for The New York TimesIn an interview earlier this month, Ms. Abrams, the former Democratic minority leader in the Georgia House of Representatives, called Republicans’ effort “a sign of fear” over their failure to win support from young and minority voters, two of the fastest-growing sectors of the state’s electorate.She added that the measure was also potentially self-defeating for the G.O.P. in that large percentages of rural white voters, a traditionally Republican-leaning bloc, could also be impeded by laws that make it harder for citizens to cast absentee ballots and vote by mail.Republicans have defended the new measures, saying they are focused on election security. In remarks on Thursday after signing the new law, Gov. Brian Kemp said that after the 2020 election, “we quickly began working with the House and Senate on further reforms to make it easier to vote and harder to cheat.” He added, “The bill I signed into law does just that.”Isabella Grullón Paz contributed reporting. More