Name: It’s Not Just Georgia: More Than A Dozen Other States Are Trying To Take Power Away From Local Election Officials
Brand: fivethirtyeight.com
SKU: fivethirtyeight-com-142
Availability: OnlineOnly

critic

It’s Not Just Georgia: More Than A Dozen Other States Are Trying To Take Power Away From Local Election Officials

preview

Georgia’s new election restrictions have garnered no shortage of criticism thanks to that directly impose additional burdens on voters, such as an ID requirement for absentee voting or a ban on distributing food or water to people waiting in line to vote. But equally importantly, the law opens up the possibility for elections to become more nakedly partisan.In essence, the law provides a mechanism to transfer power currently vested in to the majority-Republican State Election Board by giving the board the authority to suspend local election officials in up to four counties at a time and appoint a temporary replacement. County boards’ powers include the ability to decide challenges to voters’ eligibility and certify election results, meaning that a state-appointed election czar could theoretically invalidate a fair election by refusing to certify the results and throwing out thousands of supposedly questionable votes (the new law also allows people to challenge an unlimited number of votes). However, the State Election Board can only suspend local election officials after a hearing that must take place at least 30 days after the initial complaint, so in practice there after an election for partisan hardliners to coopt these powers and overturn an election.A more realistic concern that Democrats have, however, is that the proviso could be used to target heavily Democratic, heavily nonwhite jurisdictions such as , which includes much of metro Atlanta. A state appointee would have the power to in these counties and offer less early voting than locals are accustomed to, disproportionately curtailing voting access in bluer parts of the state. The removal clause could also be used to retaliate against local officials who go further to promote voting than state officials would like, as DeKalb County did in the 2020 general election when it . (Such mass unsolicited mailings of absentee-ballot applications are now prohibited by the law as well.)&nbsp;And importantly, attempts to diminish local control of elections are not limited to Georgia. As part of the , at least 13 other states have passed or are considering bills that would handcuff local election officials (in some cases, literally).Most of these bills are not as aggressive as Georgia’s, but they all undermine localities’ ability to self-rule. In this way, Illinois State University political scientist told FiveThirtyEight, they’re part of an increasing trend of states preempting local government in order to retain power for themselves: Conservative legislatures, in particular, have passed several laws in recent years , including sanctuary-city protections, anti-LGBT discrimination ordinances and minimum-wage increases (). These laws can often have what Riverstone-Newell calls a “chilling effect,” where the mere threat of having their power taken away makes local officials afraid to govern as they see fit.These laws often have racial undertones, too. For example, in Michigan, the state is allowed to appoint an “” to take over the administration of local governments that are in distress — which has been used in recent years to remove local control from (notably, emergency managers were of ). Similarly, because county election officials are chosen at the local level, laws that remove them in majority-minority counties specifically strip nonwhite citizens’ say over how their elections are conducted. And some, like the Texas bills that appear to be a reaction to ’ in 2020, criminalize actions that make it easier for people of color to vote. “The part that I think is so concerning is the retaliation,” said , director of the Voting Rights and Elections Program at the Brennan Center for Justice. “Look at who on the ground would actually be impeded [by these laws]. That suggests to me a real opposition to an expanded electorate.”So no, not all of these laws include an actual mechanism for overturning elections. But the mere act of usurping the powers of local election officials threatens democratic values in and of itself. “That undermines our idea of intergovernmental relations … where we recognize there’s a vital role for local government within the federal system,” said Riverstone-Newell. “It’s such a strange thing that we’d want to put local governments in that position where they can’t respond to local needs and desires.” Pérez agreed: “They are taking away opportunities that election administrators have to go above and beyond the bare minimum requirements … and to consider facts on the ground and local needs when serving their voters.”Nathaniel Rakich is a senior elections analyst at FiveThirtyEight.Filed underYou are now subscribed!Email AddressSign me up

Georgia’s new election restrictions have garnered no shortage of criticism thanks to that directly impose additional burdens on voters, such as an ID requirement for absentee voting or a ban on distributing food or water to people waiting in line to vote. But equally importantly, the law opens up the possibility for elections to become more nakedly partisan.In essence, the law provides a mechanism to transfer power currently vested in to the majority-Republican State Election Board by giving the board the authority to suspend local election officials in up to four counties at a time and...

It’s Not Just Georgia: More Than A Dozen Other States Are Trying To Take Power Away From Local Election Officials

No article scores yet.

CRITIC REVIEWS

PUBLIC REVIEWS