Each semester in my Public Policy classes, we begin the term by laying out the basics – how policy is developed and the fundamental phases of the policy cycle. Then, we spend much of the semester analyzing and evaluating policy. Through these exercises in analysis, we discuss the drivers and influences on policy. Some of the typical drivers of policy include:
· disequilibrium within a group – some population is unhappy with some issue that the government can address
· political leadership – a politician has made a promise and they are attempting to “make good” on that promise
· protests – the population or a specific part of the population are publicly protesting an issue
· a critical mass of attention – something big happens and it focuses attention toward the issue
Then, when one or more of these drivers have functioned to get an issue on the legislative agenda, there are several typical influences that determine the success of that agenda. These might include media attention, public opinion, major expert reports, interest groups, and good timing.
Interestingly, the same drivers and influences that help get an issue on the agenda also can operate to determine whether a policy is adopted.
This week in the Georgia legislature, the Senate voted (29-20) on the issue of voting rights in our state during crossover day. Crossover day is the deadline that bills must pass out of one chamber to remain alive for the remainder of the legislative session.
The voting rights bill is a clear result of the 2020 elections. The election, which resulted in several key Democratic wins at the national level, prompted controversy over whether our state conducted a secure election. This controversy was spurred on by unfounded claims by the President. These claims were followed by support from various leaders in the GOP, protests that culminated in a riot at the Capitol, and a great deal of media attention. The result is that there are now a slew of political leaders who must react to the critical mass of attention surrounding this issue.
All of the typical drivers and influences are present in this case: disequilibrium, political leadership, protests, and a critical mass of attention accompanied by media attention, strong public opinion, and appropriate timing. So, the agenda has been set by the Republican-led legislature and it seems to have a good chance of success. Therefore, the analysis of the Bill’s merits will ultimately be left to the Governor.
When I ask students to analyze policy, the big question they must ask is “who gets what and what are the alternatives?” In the case of SB 241, the question really needs to be reframed as “who doesn’t get what?” because it is a restriction of current laws. The bill ends no-excuse absentee voting and limits it to only people 65 years of age and older, those with a physical disability, and those who will be out of town during the voting period. The House voted in favor last week on a similarly restrictive bill (HB 531) that would limit Sunday voting, restrict the use of ballot boxes, and require an ID for absentee voting among other provisions.
At first blush, this may sound like it will increase the security of our elections. Georgia’s Republican Governor, however, along with the Republican Secretary of State, both repeatedly affirmed that there was no widespread voter fraud in 2020. Therein lies the first problem – if these bills are meant to address an issue, where is the issue? It seems that there is a perception of an issue within parts of the population, but it is not clear that an issue actually exists in the first place. Even within the committee meetings for these bills, GOP law makers have made statements indicating that while there is no evidence of fraud, they must address the perception of fraud.
Next, by keeping people 65 and older in the mix of eligible absentee voters but excluding all others, limiting Sunday voting, and requiring ID for absentee voting, a clear message is being sent that the GOP hopes to keep this kind of voting flexibility for their older majority exclusively. In fact, a March 6th report from the Brennan Center for Justice indicated that it is clear that the provisions in these bills will directly impact Black voters in the state disproportionately. Simply put, younger Black voters increased their use of mail-in voting in 2020, utilized Sunday voting to a greater degree, and are less likely to have ID compared to white voters.
The final concern the Governor will need to consider is the fact that in 2020, 5 million Georgians voted and 1.3 million of them voted absentee. This was record-breaking turnout. And while it resulted in some national gains for Democrats, it also resulted in a Republican-led Assembly. While it is clear Georgia is now purple, it is not clear that we are a blue state. Given that the Governor will be running for his seat next year, he will need to carefully consider if signing these restrictive bills will have the political effect of alienating more moderate voters in this state-wide seat.
There are certainly voting security alternatives that can be considered, and at the College we will continue to ponder these alternatives in our classrooms. But, as these bills make their way through the legislative process, it seems clear that the onus of such analysis will be left to our Governor in short order.
Dr. Heather Farley is Chair of the Department of Criminal Justice, Public Policy & Management and a professor of Public Management in the School of Business and Public Management at College of Coastal Georgia. She is an associate of the College’s Reg Murphy Center for Economic and Policy Studies.
Reg Murphy Center