“One thing that all Texans can agree [on]… is that we must have trust and confidence in our elections. The bill that I’m about to sign helps to achieve that goal,” said Governor Greg Abbot before signing the Texas SB 7 – a bill that, according to its official document, aims to strengthen “election integrity and security” in the state of Texas. But Texas wasn’t the only Republican-led state to enact new sweeping voting legislation. Georgia, for example, passed SB 202, and similarly, the state of Iowa passed Senate File 413. And like Texas, both of their laws cried out election integrity. 

This trend of “election integrity” comes in the wake of the historic 2020 Presidential election, which saw a record turnout of citizens exercising their civic duty of voting, and ended in former Vice President Joe Biden being elected as the 46th President of the United States of America. But as Biden closes his first year in office, many Americans, including their representatives at all levels of government, are unwilling to believe it. They hold onto (with former President Trump’s help) the disproven fiction of 2020 Presidential election fraud. 

Beyond believing in Biden’s 2020 election victory, many Americans, especially politicians, fail to understand the danger these new voting laws across the country pose on our democracy. They believe that limiting drop boxes, cutting down early day voting, and criminalizing the action of offering food to voters waiting in line to vote have zero effect on the functionality of our democracy. But they are wrong, as the voting laws passed in the wake of the 2020 election endanger our democracy. In their cry for election integrity, they are running a voting rights crusade. 

Georgia Senate Bill 202 states that: 

“Not more earlier than 78 days or less than 11 days prior to the date of the primary or election, or runoff of 930 either, in which the elector desires to vote any absentee elector may make, either by 931 mail, by facsimile transmission, by electronic transmission, or in person in the 932 registrar’s or absentee ballot clerk’s office, an application for an official ballot of the 933 elector’s precinct to be voted at such primary, election, or runoff.”

In other words, Georgia lowered the time Georgian citizens have to request an absentee ballot from the original 180 days. But while politicians such as Iowa State Senator Roby Smith believe that lowering absentee ballot requests “will limit voter remorse, the length of time campaigning in this state and allow more time for informed voting,” they couldn’t be further from reality. According to New York Times journalists Nick Corasaniti and Reid Epstein, with respect to Georgia’s SB 202 bill, lowering absentee ballot days “will…reduce the number of people who seek absentee ballots and the number of people who vote.” And in a state where “1.3 million [people] – about 26% of the state’s electorate – voted with absentee ballots,” and of “those who returned absentee ballots in 2020, 65% [of them] voted for Joseph R. Biden Jr.,” it is scary to think that many of them in the future won’t have a voice in our democracy. And all of this is because the 2020 Presidential election apparently was fraudulent, when it’s crystal clear that these Republican-led states are simply trying to grab power without working for it. So much for the party of hard work. 

Other than potentially stripping hundreds of thousands of Georgians’ right to a ballot, SB 202 also invites the challenge of “limit[ing] opportunities for get-out-the-vote efforts and puts greater strain on local election boards, which will have less time to process ballot requests.” Again, this is like Mr. Smith’s view, who believes that lowering absentee ballot request days will create a more informed voting process. But really, it will simply overwhelm the people who run elections due to the sheer number of ballots that need processing, with little time left to work. Simply put, giving people more days to request their absentee ballots seemingly? facilitates more informed voting. The Georgia legislature cares not about election integrity, but stopping voters who disproportionately vote against them from voting, especially people of color. 

Many have dubbed these bills as “Jim Crow 2.0,” and for good reason. For example, supporters of Texas SB 7’s ban on drive-through voting (Texas Republicans) argue that it only came due to the pandemic’s unique circumstances. But even if our future elections don’t occur in a global pandemic, the need for 24 hour voting will continue to help working, young and/or ill voters access the polls. In Harris County, Texas, where more than half of drive-through voters were Black, Hispanic, or Asian, drive-through voting extends the franchise to marginalized people. So it’s easy to see how this bill is Jim Crow 2.0. in an era where the people of the union need their government to tackle the challenges of our time more deliberately. From the climate emergency to confronting economic inequality and systemic racism, we need people voting, especially low-income people of color, as they more often experience the pain and struggle with the aforementioned issues already. 

In Iowa, many of the most recent election’s votes came via absentee ballots, and the government decided to lower early voting days from 29 days to just 20 in the Senate File 413 law. Its supporters believe that it will limit voter remorse, but as Democratic Senator Janet Peterson stated, “reducing the absentee voting period and limiting who can collect ballots makes voting more difficult for people with disabilities, or with complicated schedules” to vote. Put differently, it suppresses votes. But beyond limiting early voting days, Iowa Senate File 413 also goes to “allow counties to establish one ballot drop box at the auditor’s office, under video surveillance.” Ballot drop boxes are the most basic form of voting. Decreasing their availability just reduces the amount of people who can vote. Accessibility is key, and it must be provided to any extent possible. Without drop boxes, some will have to travel further to exercise their civic duty. And in the case of low-income and people of color, that number goes up.

As stated before, this crusade on voting rights comes after the 2020 election that many, including those responsible for enacting the aforementioned legislation, believe was fraudulent. In their minds, all the voting bills and laws enacted aren’t restrictive and are a crucial part to maintaining fair and non-fraudulent elections. But in a joint statement, members of the Election Infrastructure Government Coordinating Council, the assistant director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, and the national secretaries of state, called the 2020 election the “most secure in American history.” Much of what many states presented in their election laws could have been prevented under key provisions of the Voting Rights Acts of 1965. But thanks to the Supreme Court case of Shelby County v. Holder in 2013, states can enact new election laws without legal authorization from the federal government. With this decision, money in politics was basically left unregulated, gerrymandering practices encouraged, and the system of federalism left to suffer in the benefit of states. Now, it’s clear that those states have the upper hand. 

But they beg the question, is what we are seeing currently the federalism envisioned by the founding fathers? Whether the answer to that question is yes or no, history will tell. Citizens United v. FEC is another example of how much our election laws have changed, which is exactly the problem. It is crystal clear that our democracy is under attack, and states are to blame. But with the For the People Act failing to pass in Congress and our country getting more polarized, states are in a strong position to escape accountability. Georgia, Texas, and Iowa all took advantage of the loopholes in the Voting Rights Act created by the Shelby County v. Holder case. What we are seeing in America is a crusade against voting rights. But whether the federal government will act and take its power back is hard to tell. Much of our democracy has looked for strong national leadership to tackle issues most urgent to Americans, from FDR’s New Deal to Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society programs. But as of right now, that leadership is nowhere. What’s not hard to tell is that the Republican-led state election laws are restrictive.