Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Election Integrity Act of 2021

The Election Integrity Act of 2021, enacted as Georgia Senate Bill 202 and signed into law by Governor on March 25, 2021, reformed the state's election processes to bolster security measures and restore public trust amid widespread allegations of administrative irregularities in the 2020 elections. The legislation introduced mandatory photo identification for requests and drop-off envelopes, limited unsupervised ballot drop boxes to early voting sites with restricted operating hours, and prohibited the unsolicited mailing of applications by third parties. It also shortened the runoff election timeline from nine weeks to four while mandating at least 17 days of including two Saturdays, and barred non-election officials from distributing , , or other items to voters waiting in line except in cases of medical necessity. These changes, justified by the as necessary to prevent fraud and ensure verifiable outcomes, faced immediate partisan backlash, including corporate denunciations from entities like —which relocated its 2021 —and accusations of racial disenfranchisement from left-leaning advocacy groups, despite subsequent empirical analyses showing no measurable decline in and record participation in the 2022 midterms. Multiple federal court challenges have upheld core provisions, affirming their constitutionality against claims of discriminatory intent, as evidenced by a September 2025 ruling rejecting challenges to restrictions. The Act centralized certain administrative oversight under state officials, such as requiring county boards to certify results within specified deadlines and authorizing state intervention in underperforming jurisdictions, aiming to standardize practices across Georgia's 159 counties. While proponents highlighted its role in codifying secure practices like automatic voter roll maintenance and enhanced requirements—drawing from first-hand audits of ballots that revealed procedural lapses—critics, often amplified by institutions with documented tilts, framed it as an overreach restricting access, a narrative undermined by data indicating sustained or increased participation rates post-enactment. Its passage by majorities in the ( 45-3, 100-76) reflected a response to empirical voter surveys expressing diminished confidence in outcomes, prioritizing causal safeguards over expansive convenience measures that had invited exploitation risks in prior cycles.

Background

Origins in 2020 Election Controversies

The 2020 United States presidential election in Georgia featured an unprecedented expansion of absentee and early voting amid the COVID-19 pandemic, with over 3 million absentee ballots cast—more than double the 2016 total—and drop boxes placed in all 159 counties without uniform security standards or monitoring requirements. These changes, implemented via executive actions and consent decrees, raised concerns among Republican lawmakers and observers about vulnerabilities to fraud, including unsecured 24-hour drop boxes and inconsistent signature verification on absentee ballots. Investigations by the Georgia Secretary of State's office and State Election Board later identified procedural lapses, such as Fulton County's mishandling of absentee ballot applications and failure to secure containers properly, though no evidence emerged of widespread fraud altering the outcome. Prominent controversies centered on Fulton County, which processed about 20% of the state's ballots and experienced delays, a reported water main break at on election night (later clarified as a leaky ), and video footage showing election workers retrieving ballot containers from under tables after observers had departed. The footage, highlighted by then-President Trump's legal team, fueled allegations of illicit "suitcase" ballots, prompting multiple probes; a 2023 State Election Board investigation concluded the containers were standard secure bins containing normal ballots, with no malfeasance found, though it criticized Fulton officials for inadequate communication and observer protocols. Separately, a post-election revealed Fulton County's machine recount violated procedures for 17,852 ballots, including improper scanning and tabulation errors, as documented in a May 2024 investigative report. These incidents, combined with lawsuits alleging double-counting and unverified ballots, contributed to distrust, with a poll showing only 78% overall voter confidence in the results—particularly low among Republicans at around 30%. Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, a Republican who certified President Biden's narrow 11,779-vote victory on November 19, 2020, after three recounts affirmed the result, publicly maintained the election's integrity while acknowledging the need for reforms to address observed weaknesses and rebuild trust. Governor Brian Kemp echoed this, stating post-election that while no systemic fraud occurred, procedural inconsistencies in absentee processing and oversight warranted legislative fixes to prevent recurrence. These concerns, amplified by the January 2021 Senate runoff victories for Democrats Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff under similar rules, galvanized Georgia's Republican-controlled legislature to prioritize election security enhancements in early 2021, culminating in Senate Bill 202. Subsequent polls indicated rising confidence after such reforms, with 92% of 2024 voters expressing trust in the process.

Provisions

Absentee and Mail-in Voting Reforms

The Election Integrity Act of 2021 introduced verification requirements for absentee ballot applications, mandating that applicants include their date of birth and the last four digits of their Georgia driver's license number, state identification number, or Social Security number. Applications must be signed under penalty of perjury and requested directly by the voter, with election officials prohibited from mailing or otherwise distributing unsolicited applications to registered voters. Third-party organizations are barred from distributing pre-filled absentee ballot applications, except in cases where the voter has explicitly authorized it. Standard absentee ballot applications must be received by county registrars or municipal clerks no later than 11 days before the election, though voters may apply in person up to the day before the election. Drop boxes for returning absentee ballots were regulated to enhance security, with counties permitted a maximum of one drop box per 100,000 active registered voters (with at least one required), resulting in caps such as eight for Fulton County. These drop boxes must be located indoors at polling places, accessible only during advance voting hours—typically 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.—and equipped with video surveillance capturing 24-hour continuous recording. Ballots deposited in drop boxes must be retrieved by teams of at least three election workers, using tamper-evident bags sealed in view of the camera, with retrieval limited to after 6:00 p.m. each day. Outside drop boxes used in the election cycle were discontinued under these provisions. All absentee ballots require signature verification, comparing the signature on the return envelope to the voter's signature on file from registration or prior ballots, with standardized procedures for election officials to reject non-matching envelopes unless cured by the voter providing identification or an within three days. The Act permits election officials to open absentee envelopes, verify signatures, and scan ballots for tabulation prior to —up to 15 days in advance for preparation—but prohibits reporting results until after polls close statewide at 7:00 p.m. Completed absentee ballots returned by mail must be postmarked by and received by 5:00 p.m. the following Friday to be counted, while in-person returns to drop boxes or clerks must arrive by 7:00 p.m. on . These measures built on prior practices but codified stricter timelines and oversight to mitigate risks of unauthorized ballots and chain-of-custody issues observed in 2020.

Early and In-Person Voting Adjustments

The Election Integrity Act of standardized the advance voting period—commonly referred to as early in-person voting—to a minimum of 17 consecutive days across all counties, beginning on the Monday two weeks and three days prior to and concluding on the Friday immediately preceding it. This adjustment replaced prior variability in county-specific schedules, mandating inclusion of two Saturdays within the period while prohibiting voting, which some counties had previously offered as an optional extension. Advance voting hours were set to a baseline of 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on weekdays and applicable weekends, with counties permitted to extend operations to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. if desired, aiming for uniformity in access while allowing local flexibility. Additional reforms restricted the use of mobile voting units, such as buses deployed by counties like Fulton to reach underserved areas during early voting, limiting them to situations declared as state emergencies by the governor. For in-person voting on Election Day and during the advance period, the Act introduced measures to manage polling site operations, including requirements for counties to report daily tallies of in-person votes cast and to address long lines in precincts exceeding 2,000 registered voters by adding staff or subdividing precincts if wait times surpassed one hour. Provisional ballots cast at incorrect precincts were adjusted to count only for eligible races if submitted after 5:00 p.m., with voters directed to their correct precinct earlier in the day; previously, such ballots could count more broadly if eligibility was affirmed. The legislation also imposed restrictions on non-electioneering activities near polling places during both advance and in-person , prohibiting distributions of food or water by non-poll workers within 150 feet of any entrance or 25 feet of voters waiting in line, except by election officials. These provisions applied uniformly to enhance procedural consistency and security, with advance sites required to display prominent for any changes in polling locations. For runoffs, advance was mandated to commence "as soon as possible" after the primary or , with standard weekday hours but without guaranteed weekend extensions.

Election Administration and Oversight

The Election Integrity Act of 2021 amended provisions governing the State Election Board by creating the position of , appointed by the board and serving at its pleasure, thereby shifting appointment authority from the Secretary of State to the board itself. This change enabled the board to hire its own staff and counsel independently, enhancing its operational autonomy in overseeing election procedures statewide. Additionally, the act restricted the Secretary of State's involvement in investigations related to their office, aiming to reduce potential conflicts in oversight. At the county level, the legislation prohibited members of county boards of elections and registration from participating in investigations or audits of elections in their own county, transferring such responsibilities to ensure impartiality. election superintendents were required to complete annual programs approved by of and were barred from taking vacation or personal leave during the 10 business days preceding any or primary. The act further empowered the Board to intervene in underperforming by authorizing replacement of a county election board or via a vote if deadlines for duties such as processing or certification were missed, or if other standards were not met. Certification processes were standardized with strict timelines: county returns must be certified no later than 5:00 p.m. on the Monday following , with state certification following by noon on the third Monday after the election, unless a recount is ordered. Failure to meet these deadlines triggers potential state intervention. The act also mandated post-election audits, including risk-limiting audits for the highest-profile race on the ballot in statewide general elections, to statistically confirm results with a risk limit not exceeding 5 percent. These audits require hand-counting of randomly selected precincts or batches until the risk limit is met or the outcome is confirmed, promoting verifiable accuracy in tabulation. Oversight was bolstered through expanded monitoring allowances, permitting and candidates to appoint more poll watchers—up to one per 250 voters or fraction thereof at precincts—and requiring superintendents to verify watcher credentials in advance. Watchers gained rights to observe ballot drop box collections and processing, with designated observation areas established within precincts. The legislation also criminalized interference with election officials' duties, such as providing food or water to voters in line beyond certain parameters, to maintain order during administration. These measures collectively aimed to centralize authority at the state level while imposing procedural safeguards against local irregularities.

Additional Security and Procedural Measures

The mandated the implementation of risk-limiting audits for general elections, requiring county election officials to conduct statistical audits of the statewide race with the smallest reported margin of victory to verify results with a 95 percent assurance level that the outcome was correct. These audits involve randomly sampling ballots until the probability of an incorrect outcome falls below five percent, with public observation permitted during the process. This provision amended O.C.G.A. § 21-2-498 to expand precertification tabulation audits into a formalized risk-limiting framework, building on prior practices but standardizing them statewide for greater transparency and statistical rigor. To strengthen ballot handling, the Act imposed stricter chain-of-custody requirements for containers and drop boxes, mandating that counties use secure, tamper-evident transport procedures with signed logs and documentation for every transfer of custody. Drop boxes, where permitted, must be under continuous 24-hour video with footage retained for at least 180 days post-, and access limited to election officials. These measures amended O.C.G.A. § 21-2-381 to address potential vulnerabilities in and retrieval, requiring bipartisan teams for transfers and immediate of any discrepancies. Penalties for election code violations were elevated, with offenses such as unauthorized possession, tampering with voting equipment, or failing to maintain proper custody now classified as felonies punishable by one to five years and fines up to $10,000. The Act amended O.C.G.A. § 21-2-604 to increase penalties to high misdemeanors or felonies depending on intent and harm, aiming to deter misconduct by election workers or third parties. Procedural safeguards at polling places included a on non-poll workers providing " or gifts, including or drink" to voters within 150 feet of any entrance, with exceptions for self-service water receptacles or items distributed equally without solicitation. This amended O.C.G.A. § 21-2-385 to prevent during lines, enforceable as a . Additionally, voting equipment underwent mandatory logic and accuracy testing at least 21 days before , open to public and party observers, with no wireless modems permitted in ballot scanners post-2021.

Legislative History

Bill Introduction and Debate

Senate Bill 202 was introduced in the Georgia Senate on February 17, 2021, by a group of 24 sponsors as an omnibus measure to revise election and voting procedures in response to perceived vulnerabilities exposed during the 2020 and subsequent audits. The bill originated in the Senate Ethics Committee, which conducted hearings and reported it favorably without recommendation on March 3, 2021, following testimony on issues such as unsecured ballot drop boxes, lack of absentee ballot verification, and inconsistent county administration practices highlighted in post-election reviews. During Senate floor debate on March 8, 2021, Republican proponents, including Senate Majority Leader Mike Kennedy, argued that the reforms were essential to enhance election security and public trust, pointing to specific 2020 incidents like the unmonitored handling of ballots in Fulton County's State Farm Arena and allegations of ballot stuffing in drop boxes, while also noting expansions such as mandatory two weeks of early voting including one Saturday. They contended these changes balanced accessibility with safeguards against fraud, drawing on empirical observations from the 2020 election where absentee voting surged amid relaxed rules during the COVID-19 pandemic, leading to disputes over chain-of-custody and verification. Democrats, led by Minority Leader Gloria Butler, countered that the bill imposed unnecessary restrictions, such as limiting drop box hours and locations to early voting periods and prohibiting their use after 7 p.m., which they claimed would hinder urban and minority voters who relied heavily on such options in 2020, without sufficient evidence of fraud justifying the curbs. The debate, lasting several hours, largely followed partisan lines, with Republicans emphasizing causal links between procedural lapses and diminished confidence—polls showing only 20-30% of Georgians trusted the 2020 results—while Democrats highlighted potential disparate impacts based on turnout data from high-minority precincts. The approved on , , by a vote of 44-3, with two Democrats joining and one abstaining, reflecting the chamber's of 34 seats. This passage set the stage for consideration, where similar arguments were reiterated amid broader discussions on restoring without unduly restricting participation.

Passage and Enactment

Bill 202, formally titled the Election Integrity Act of 2021, originated in the and advanced through the process amid control of both chambers, with the GOP holding a 34–22 in the and a 103–75 in the . The approved the measure on , , by a vote of 32 to 20, with one member not voting and three absent; the vote largely followed party lines, though it fell short of unanimous support. This passage came after amendments and debates focusing on enhancements in response to 2020 irregularities. The bill then proceeded to the , where the Special Committee on Election Integrity proposed a substitute version incorporating additional provisions on voter ID and processing. The passed the amended bill on March 25, 2021, by a 100 to 75 margin, again predominantly along party lines with three s dissenting and one absent. The rapid timeline from Senate approval to House concurrence reflected urgency among Republican leaders to codify reforms before the cycle. Governor Brian Kemp signed SB 202 into law later that same day, March 25, 2021, enacting it as the Election Integrity Act without delay. Kemp described the legislation as a means to "restore confidence in Georgia's elections" by standardizing procedures and adding safeguards, effective primarily for the subsequent election cycles though certain provisions applied immediately. The enactment occurred despite opposition from Democratic lawmakers and external pressures, including from former President Donald Trump, who argued the bill did not sufficiently address alleged 2020 fraud vulnerabilities.

Reception and Debates

Supporters' Arguments for Enhanced Integrity

Supporters argued that the Election Integrity Act of 2021 was essential to safeguard against potential fraud and irregularities exposed in Georgia's 2020 elections, where expanded absentee voting amid the led to vulnerabilities such as unsecured drop boxes and unverified ballot applications. These issues, including reports of ballot harvesting and chain-of-custody lapses in counties like Fulton, fueled public distrust, with a 2019 Gallup poll indicating 59% of Americans lacked confidence in the honesty of elections. Key provisions, such as requiring for absentee ballots—using numbers or state ID—were defended as straightforward deterrents that streamline verification compared to prior matching, which took 3-4 minutes per ballot and allowed for subjective errors. Supporters, including , emphasized that this measure, alongside citizenship verification and bans on third-party prepaid absentee applications, upholds the principle of "easy to vote and hard to cheat" without restricting access. Restrictions on drop boxes to one per 100,000 registered voters, confined to hours and under constant video , addressed 2020 complaints of overnight vulnerabilities and unauthorized collections, thereby strengthening chain-of-custody protocols. The Act's oversight enhancements, including state intervention in underperforming counties and expedited result reporting, were cited as responses to administrative delays and errors in that delayed certifications and eroded trust. Organizations like praised the reforms for elevating to the top ranking in election integrity, noting that post-2021 turnout remained high—matching or exceeding records in subsequent elections—demonstrating no suppression while closing loopholes like unmonitored drop boxes that had invited fraud referrals, with the State Election Board prosecuting dozens of cases annually. Overall, proponents viewed the law as a targeted fix for systemic weaknesses rather than a reaction to unsubstantiated widespread claims, arguing that uniform rules and audits foster verifiable outcomes and counter , as evidenced by sustained voter participation and judicial affirmations of the Act's .

Critics' Claims of Voter Suppression

Critics, including Democratic leaders and civil rights organizations, asserted that the Election Integrity Act of 2021 (SB 202) enacted barriers that would disproportionately suppress turnout among Black, Latino, low-income, and elderly voters, who relied heavily on expanded absentee, early, and drop-box voting options during the 2020 elections. They argued the law reversed accommodations that facilitated Georgia's record 2020 turnout of over 5 million voters, including 1.3 million absentee ballots, by shortening the absentee ballot request period from four months to approximately three months (from October 5 to March 5 in non-federal cycles), requiring identification numbers on absentee applications, and limiting drop boxes to one per 100,000 registered voters with operations restricted to early voting hours and county boundaries. President Joe Biden labeled the legislation "Jim Crow in the 21st century" and an "atrocity," claiming it constituted an assault on voting rights by curtailing methods like Sunday early voting—popular for "souls to the polls" efforts in Black communities—and prohibiting non-poll workers from offering food or water to voters waiting in line within 150 feet of a polling entrance or 25 feet of any voter in queue. Voting rights groups such as the NAACP and League of Women Voters echoed these concerns in federal lawsuits, alleging violations of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by imposing unequal burdens on minority voters who used drop boxes (over 25% in some urban counties in 2020) and faced longer lines due to historical under-resourcing in Democratic-leaning areas like Fulton County. Stacey Abrams, through Fair Fight Action, described the provisions as partisan restrictions lacking evidence of widespread fraud, particularly the takeover of election administration in Fulton County by state-appointed boards and the criminalization of unsolicited distribution, which critics said would deter to infrequent voters. Organizations like the ACLU contended that ID requirements for —mandating numbers, state ID numbers, or the last four digits of Social Security numbers—created hurdles for those without easy access to such documents, potentially disenfranchising up to 10% of Georgia's predominantly Black and low-income population based on prior surveys of ID possession rates. These groups predicted reduced participation in urban and minority-heavy precincts, framing the law as a response to 2020's Democratic victories rather than integrity concerns.

Key Lawsuits and Claims

The primary legal challenges to the Election Integrity Act of 2021 (SB 202) were consolidated in the federal case In re Georgia Senate Bill 202 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, encompassing multiple suits filed shortly after the law's enactment on March 25, 2021. Plaintiffs, including voting rights organizations and individuals, alleged that provisions such as limits on drop boxes, stricter absentee ballot ID requirements, and reduced advance voting days imposed undue burdens on voters, particularly in urban and minority-heavy areas. They further claimed these measures violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by diluting Black voting power through disparate impacts, without sufficient state interest justification, citing data on higher reliance by Black voters on Sunday early voting and drop boxes in 2020. A key suit within the consolidation was filed on March 30, 2021, by the Legal Defense Fund, alongside co-plaintiffs like the Conference of the NAACP and individual voters, arguing SB 202's takeover of county election boards by state-appointed members enabled partisan interference and reduced local oversight, contravening equal protection under the 14th Amendment. The highlighted the law's prohibition on counties providing food or water to voters in line—except by poll workers—as targeting minority voters facing longer wait times due to historical precinct under-resourcing, framing it as intentional traceable to 2020 election turnout patterns. Another major challenge, Sixth District African Methodist Episcopal Church v. Kemp, was initiated on March 29, 2021, by the ACLU, , and other civil rights groups representing churches and voters. Plaintiffs contended that SB 202's criminalization of unsolicited applications and restrictions on third-party distribution of forms burdened organizational get-out-the-vote efforts, disproportionately affecting communities reliant on such assistance, in violation of the First and 14th Amendments and the Voting Rights Act. They cited evidence from prior elections showing higher absentee request rates among minority groups via nonprofits, asserting the law's intent to curb perceived 2020 irregularities while suppressing turnout. The U.S. Department of Justice joined the fray on June 25, 2021, filing under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, claiming SB 202's aggregate effect— including fewer drop boxes (capped at one per 100,000 voters per county), elimination of no-excuse absentee voting distribution by non-government entities, and shortened runoff timelines—denied Black voters equal electoral opportunity. The DOJ's complaint referenced statistical disparities, such as Black voters comprising 25% of early votes but facing amplified barriers under the law, without evidence of widespread justifying the restrictions. This suit was later dismissed in March 2025 by the incoming Trump administration, which described the prior claims as unfounded.

Major Court Rulings and Outcomes

In the consolidated federal lawsuit In re Senate Bill 202, multiple challenges alleging violations of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and other federal laws were brought by voting rights organizations, including the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and Fair Fight Action, claiming that provisions like ID requirements and drop box restrictions imposed undue burdens on minority voters. A U.S. District Court for the Northern District of , in rulings spanning 2021 to 2023, upheld the majority of the Act's provisions, including voter ID mandates for and limitations on unsecured drop boxes, finding insufficient evidence of discriminatory intent or under empirical standards like the Gingles preconditions for vote dilution claims. The U.S. Department of Justice, under the Biden administration, joined the suit in 2022, arguing racial discrimination in provisions such as the ban on providing food and water to voters in line within 150 feet of polling places and restrictions on Sunday early voting hours; however, on March 31, 2025, the DOJ dismissed its claims following a change in leadership, with Attorney General Pamela Bondi stating the case relied on unsubstantiated narratives of suppression rather than evidence of widespread irregularities. Appeals to the Eleventh Circuit largely affirmed the district court's decisions, rejecting broader injunctions against the law's core security measures. Narrow exceptions included an August 18, 2023, preliminary injunction by the Northern District of Georgia blocking enforcement of the Act's ban on "line relief" assistance (providing water outside the 150-foot buffer) and the requirement for birthdates on envelopes for the 2024 elections, on First Amendment and equal protection grounds, though these were limited to specific procedural applications rather than invalidating the statute wholesale. On September 9, 2025, the same court upheld the prohibition on unsolicited applications sent by third parties, dismissing claims of overbreadth and affirming the state's interest in preventing fraud without evidence of suppression in subsequent election data. The U.S. declined to grant or emergency relief in related appeals, leaving the Eleventh Circuit's affirmations intact and allowing most of the Act to remain in effect, consistent with precedents emphasizing states' authority over administration absent clear constitutional violations. Ongoing challenges by groups like the of Women Voters have focused on peripheral issues, such as mass voter eligibility challenges enabled by the , but have not overturned foundational reforms.

Implementation and Impacts

Administrative Changes Post-Enactment

Following its enactment on March 25, 2021, the Election Integrity Act introduced procedural shifts in administration, requiring local election officials to verify numbers—such as or state ID numbers—submitted on envelopes against voter records before processing. This step, intended to prevent unauthorized , was reported by 49% of officials as accelerating application processing times, with 46% noting faster overall handling due to streamlined digital matching. requests were restricted to no earlier than 78 days before an , and non-UOCAVA ballots could not be mailed sooner than 30 days prior, compelling administrators to adjust timelines for printing, mailing, and tracking applications. Secure drop box management underwent substantial revision, limiting placement to indoor locations at early voting sites, with availability confined to early voting hours (typically 9 a.m. to 8 p.m.) and one box per county unless population exceeded certain thresholds—such as eight in Fulton County. Post-enactment surveys indicated 33% of local officials encountered greater difficulty in overseeing these restricted drop boxes, citing logistical challenges in monitoring and security, though 24% reported eased burdens from reduced outdoor exposure risks. The Act also permitted scanning of absentee ballots starting the third Monday before Election Day in 58% of counties, which officials in 71% of those jurisdictions found less cumbersome than prior methods, enabling earlier tabulation and chain-of-custody documentation. Provisional ballot protocols were modified to count only those cast after 5 p.m. in an incorrect precinct for eligible voters residing in the proper county, while mandating redirection of earlier-arriving voters to correct sites, which reduced on-site provisional volume and administrative backlog. Runoff election administration faced compressed schedules, shortening the post-general-election interval to 28 days, a change deemed more difficult by 73% of local officials due to intensified demands on staffing, equipment setup, and ballot curing within the tighter window. Early in-person voting expanded to require two Saturdays and permit up to two Sundays, with 39% of officials reporting added administrative strain from extended site operations. Poll worker administration adapted by allowing certified workers from adjoining counties to assist once their home county's needs were met, broadening recruitment pools amid persistent shortages. voting units were curtailed to use only during declared disasters, limiting routine deployment and requiring officials to rely more on fixed polling locations. Overall, 67% of officials assessed state-provided training on these reforms as sufficient, facilitating implementation without widespread disruptions in subsequent cycles.

Effects on 2022 Midterm Elections

The Election Integrity Act's provisions, including voter ID requirements for absentee ballots, restrictions on drop box usage to periods with mandatory video and secure storage, and prohibitions on unsolicited applications, were fully implemented during the 2022 midterm elections. These changes aimed to enhance verification processes while maintaining expanded windows of at least 17 days. Voter turnout in Georgia reached approximately 57.9% of eligible voters in surveyed counties, aligning closely with statewide figures and surpassing expectations under the new rules. Early in-person voting set records, exceeding the 1.8 million ballots cast in the midterms and approaching levels, with over 2.5 million early votes by the close of the period. usage dropped to 5.6% of votes, reflecting the Act's tightened deadlines and ID mandates, while voting comprised 39.2%. Overall participation led the Southeast region, with 92% of voters reporting their experience as easier or comparable to and only 1.1% encountering ballot-casting issues. Election administration under the Act proceeded without widespread disruptions, as 75% of in-person voters experienced wait times of 10 minutes or less, and poll worker satisfaction with procedures was generally high. Voter confidence in rose to 90% for individual votes and 76% statewide, particularly among Republicans (from 26% in 2020 to 70% in 2022), with 59% of that group attributing gains to the Act's safeguards. Instances of irregularities remained minimal; state investigations identified only isolated cases, such as two charges for double across and , marking the first such prosecutions in recent years. Empirical analyses, including a MIT Election Data and Science Lab study of surveyed counties, found no causal evidence that the Act suppressed turnout, attributing high participation to robust access options despite modified absentee and drop box rules. Critics' predictions of disenfranchisement, often from left-leaning advocacy groups, were not substantiated by aggregate data, as turnout metrics exceeded prior midterms and showed broad accessibility. The elections yielded mixed partisan results, with Republicans gaining U.S. House seats and the governorship while Democrat retained his seat in a 2023 runoff conducted under the same framework.

Effects on 2024 General Elections

The in , held on November 5, 2024, operated under the (SB 202), which imposed requirements such as voter ID for s, restrictions on drop box availability and hours, and prohibitions on unsolicited applications. The election resulted in a victory for over , with Trump receiving approximately 2.4 million votes to Harris's 2.3 million, a margin of about 1.9 percentage points, flipping the state from its 2020 outcome. certified the results on November 22, 2024, following comprehensive audits that confirmed the accuracy of the vote tallies across counties. Voter turnout reached a record high of nearly 5.3 million ballots cast, representing 64% of registered voters and 68.3% of the voting-eligible population, surpassing the figure by about 1% in total participation. Early voting, facilitated by expanded in-person options under SB 202, also set records, with over 3 million ballots cast before , reflecting adaptations to the law's emphasis on supervised voting methods over extended unsupervised drop box access. Absentee voting complied with the act's ID verification mandates, comprising a smaller share of total votes compared to but without reported widespread rejections due to procedural errors. Analyses of turnout disparities noted a 3-percentage-point increase in the gap between white and voter participation rates from to , with some advocacy groups attributing this to SB 202's restrictions on mail voting and drop boxes disproportionately affecting minority communities. However, overall participation levels contradicted broad suppression claims, as total turnout exceeded prior benchmarks amid the law's safeguards against unauthorized ballot distribution and enhanced audit protocols. No large-scale irregularities or successful legal challenges disrupted the certification process, with post-election audits verifying machine counts against paper ballots in line with SB 202's risk-limiting procedures.
Metric2020 Presidential Election2024 Presidential Election
Total Votes Cast~5.0 million~5.3 million
Turnout (% of Registered Voters)~63%64%
Winner's MarginBiden (D) by ~0.2% (R) by ~1.9%
The law's implementation facilitated a secure environment, as evidenced by the absence of the extended legal battles seen after 2020, though critics continued to litigate specific provisions into 2025.

Empirical Analyses of Turnout and Integrity

In the 2022 midterm elections, the first major contest following the enactment of the Election Integrity Act of 2021 (SB 202), Georgia's overall voter turnout increased by over 4% compared to 2018, rising from 3,946,259 total votes to 4,141,820. Early in-person voting set records, surpassing the 2018 midterm total of 1.8 million early votes and approaching the 2020 presidential early voting volume of 2.6 million. A post-election survey of over 1,200 voters in surveyed counties found turnout at 57.9%, closely mirroring the statewide average of 57.8%, with 92% of respondents reporting that voting was the same or easier than in 2020 and only 1.1% citing access issues. Absentee ballot usage declined to 5.6% in surveyed areas (versus 5.9% statewide), attributed in part to new ID requirements and processing changes, while early in-person voting held steady at 54.9%. Demographic analyses revealed disparities in turnout gains: white voter participation increased by 5.25% from 2018 to 2022, compared to a 1.47% rise for Black voters, widening the racial gap in 111 of Georgia's 159 counties where Black turnout declined. However, county election officials reported faster absentee processing (49%) and fewer rejections (34%) under SB 202 provisions, suggesting administrative efficiencies offset potential barriers. In the 2024 presidential election, eligible voter turnout reached 68.3%, exceeding the 2020 rate, with total ballots cast setting a new record of nearly 5.3 million—1% higher than 2020's 5 million—and early voting volumes shattering prior benchmarks. Regarding election integrity, Georgia's 2024 statewide risk-limiting examined 442 batches across counties, finding no discrepancies in 86.1% (381 batches) and confirming the voting system's accuracy with minimal deviations overall. Post-2022 surveys indicated heightened Republican voter confidence (from 26% in 2020 to 70%), while Democratic confidence remained stable at 85-94%, with no of widespread irregularities undermining results. Isolated cases, such as cross-state double , led to indictments, but statewide investigations and audits post-SB 202 revealed no systemic patterns sufficient to alter outcomes, consistent with pre-2021 baselines of low incidence. A poll of 1,541 2024 voters reported 98% experienced smooth processes, reinforcing operational integrity under the Act's expanded verification measures like voter ID and tracking. Empirical reviews of similar reforms indicate negligible impacts on aggregate turnout or results, prioritizing verifiable participation over unsubstantiated suppression claims.

References

  1. [1]
    [PDF] 21 SB 202/AP S. B. 202 - 1 - Senate Bill 202 By
    BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF GEORGIA: 65. SECTION 1. 66. This Act shall be known and may be cited as the "Election Integrity Act of 2021." 67. Page ...<|separator|>
  2. [2]
    SB 202 Changes - Fulton County Government
    Senate Bill 202 was adopted by the Georgia General Assembly in 2021 and brings about a number of changes for voters.Missing: key | Show results with:key
  3. [3]
    [PDF] 21 LC 28 0338S S. B. 202 (SUB) - Georgia General Assembly
    BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF GEORGIA: 64. SECTION 1. 65. This Act shall be known and may be cited as the "Election Integrity Act of 2021." 66.
  4. [4]
    [PDF] Gauging the Effects of SB 202 on Voting in Georgia - MIT Election Lab
    Since becoming law,. SB 202 remains controversial among many in the state who view the measure as potentially acting to suppress voter turnout. This research ...
  5. [5]
    Raffensperger Wins Again: Court Upholds Georgia's Election ...
    Sep 9, 2025 · A federal district court has upheld key provisions of Georgia's Election Integrity Act (SB 202), rejecting yet another challenge from liberal ...
  6. [6]
    Judge rules Georgia can restrict absentee ballot applications
    Sep 9, 2025 · A federal judge has rejected a challenge to absentee ballot restrictions implemented under SB 202, delivering a blow to one of the last ...Missing: key | Show results with:key<|separator|>
  7. [7]
    Election Integrity Act of 2021 | Research Starters - EBSCO
    The Election Integrity Act of 2021, originally known as Georgia Senate Bill 202, is a law enacted in Georgia that significantly alters the state's voting ...
  8. [8]
    State Election Board Refers Fulton Absentee Mishandling Case to ...
    was not limited to Fulton … the large extent of problems with the processing of absentee ballot applications were clearly evident in Fulton County, and now ...
  9. [9]
    Fulton County used improper procedures in 2020 recount
    May 7, 2024 · ... vote count irregularities involving 17,852 ballots. McGowan said the ... Georgia's 2020 election. DEAL OR NO DEAL? WHERE DONALD TRUMP ...
  10. [10]
    State Election Board Clears Fulton County “Ballot Suitcase ...
    Jun 20, 2023 · ... investigation into alleged malfeasance during the 2020 election at the State Farm Arena in Atlanta. Over the course of the investigation, it ...
  11. [11]
    [PDF] Winners, Losers, and Voter Confidence in Response to Partisan ...
    May 31, 2025 · For the first time in 28 years, Georgia's electoral votes went to a Democrat, Joe Biden, in 2020. Then, in early January 2021, Democrats won ...
  12. [12]
    New poll shows increased voter confidence following Georgia's ...
    Dec 11, 2024 · In 2020, perhaps the most contentious race in political history, only 78% of Georgia voters expressed confidence in the election results, the ...
  13. [13]
    Brad Raffensperger: Georgia's election results are sound
    Nov 21, 2020 · Brad Raffensperger is Georgia's secretary of state. Georgia's elections have received a lot of unfair and unwarranted criticism over the past two years.<|control11|><|separator|>
  14. [14]
    Kemp, Raffensperger respond to criticism of new voting law - WALB
    Mar 26, 2021 · Georgia's governor and the state's top elections official are responding to criticism of a newly-signed elections law.
  15. [15]
    Raffensperger Defends Georgia's Election Integrity Act from Last ...
    Aug 15, 2024 · 202, but misguided attempts by the State Election Board will delay election results and undermine chain of custody safeguards. Georgia voters ...<|separator|>
  16. [16]
    A new Georgia voting law reduced ballot drop box access in ... - NPR
    Jul 27, 2022 · Georgia lawmakers changed voting laws after 2020, including eliminating drop boxes in certain counties, making it harder for many voters in ...
  17. [17]
    What Does Georgia's New Voting Law SB 202 Do?
    Mar 27, 2021 · Georgia has a new slate of voting laws after Gov. Brian Kemp signed a 98-page bill Thursday. From absentee restrictions to more flexibility ...<|separator|>
  18. [18]
    Georgia's S.B. 202 Unpacked - Democracy Docket
    Mar 24, 2023 · On March 25, 2021, Georgia made headlines when it enacted Senate Bill 202, an omnibus voter suppression bill targeting many aspects of voting in the Peach ...
  19. [19]
    [PDF] Fallout from the 2020 Presidential Election and S.B. 202 placed ...
    120 The law gives the State Election. Board the power to then replace the county election board and/or the probate judge that supervises elections in the ...
  20. [20]
    Audit Law Database – Georgia - Verified Voting
    Oct 11, 2024 · The statute expands the number of contests subject to a risk-limiting audit, requiring one race in addition to the race at the top of the ballot ...<|separator|>
  21. [21]
    Georgia Code § 21-2-498 (2022) - Precertification Tabulation Audits
    As used in this Code section, the term: “Incorrect outcome” is when the winner of a contest or the answer to a proposed constitutional amendment or question ...
  22. [22]
    GA SB202 | 2021-2022 | Regular Session - LegiScan
    2021 GA SB202 (Summary) Elections and Primaries; persons or entities that mail absentee ballot applications shall mail such applications only to eligible ...
  23. [23]
  24. [24]
    Kemp signs sweeping elections bill passed by Georgia legislature ...
    Mar 25, 2021 · GOP lawmakers in the Georgia General Assembly passed an omnibus bill that makes sweeping changes to election law. Republican Gov.
  25. [25]
    Evaluating the Constitutionality of Georgia's Election Integrity Act
    Aug 2, 2024 · Winning the competition for absentee ballots in battleground states like Georgia could mean the difference between winning and losing the entire ...
  26. [26]
    Georgia's election integrity act - Greater Georgia
    Georgia's Election Integrity Act (SB 202) is a new law designed to increase security and accessibility at the ballot box.
  27. [27]
  28. [28]
    Heritage Foundation Releases Fact-Check on Georgia Election ...
    Apr 16, 2021 · The Truth: The Georgia bill, according to Joe Snead, executive director of the Honest Elections Project said, “Overall, the Georgia law is ...Missing: Act | Show results with:Act
  29. [29]
    State Election Board Refers Voter Fraud Cases for Prosecution
    “Election fraud is not tolerated in Georgia. When there is evidence of it, the people responsible face prosecution,” said Secretary of State Brad ...
  30. [30]
    LDF's Lawsuit Challenging Georgia's Voter Suppression Law
    After Georgia voters turned out in record numbers for the 2020 presidential election and U.S. Senate elections in early 2021, state legislators passed S.B. ...Missing: key | Show results with:key
  31. [31]
    [PDF] in the united states district court - NAACP
    Mar 27, 2021 · The law targets early in-person voting, voting by absentee ballots, and the use of absentee ballot drop boxes - means of voting that have been ...
  32. [32]
    Georgia Senate Bill 202 - League of Women Voters
    Jan 22, 2024 · LWV Georgia and partners filed a federal lawsuit challenging SB202, which restricted early voting and ballot drop boxes and criminalized ...Missing: key | Show results with:key
  33. [33]
    Statement by President Biden on the Attack on the Right to Vote in ...
    Mar 26, 2021 · More Americans voted in the 2020 elections than any election in our nation's history. In Georgia we saw this most historic demonstration of ...
  34. [34]
    Biden calls Georgia law 'Jim Crow in the 21st Century' and says ...
    Mar 26, 2021 · President Joe Biden on Friday called a sweeping elections bill signed into law in Georgia “Jim Crow in the 21st Century” and “an atrocity,” ...
  35. [35]
    Civil Rights Groups Sue Georgia Over New Sweeping Voter ... - ACLU
    Civil rights groups have filed a new federal lawsuit against Georgia's sweeping law that makes it much harder for all Georgians to ...
  36. [36]
    Stacey Abrams calls Republican efforts to restrict voting in Georgia ...
    Mar 14, 2021 · Bill includes various measures including ending the right to vote by mail without having to provide an excuse.
  37. [37]
    [PDF] 1 Statement of Stacey Y. Abrams Founder of Fair Fight Action On ...
    Apr 20, 2021 · Instead, the Jim Crow voting laws focused on behaviors or characteristics most likely to affect Black voters. However, the sly grandfather ...<|separator|>
  38. [38]
    In Re Georgia Senate Bill 202 - Department of Justice
    Jan 31, 2024 · A consolidated lawsuit challenging restrictions on absentee and in-person voting under Georgia Senate Bill SB 202 (“SB 202”).
  39. [39]
    Justice Department Files Lawsuit Against the State of Georgia to ...
    Jun 25, 2021 · The United States' complaint challenges provisions of Senate Bill 202 under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. “The right of all eligible ...
  40. [40]
    Sixth District of the African Methodist Episcopal Church v. Kemp
    Dec 20, 2024 · Civil rights groups filed a federal lawsuit on March 29, 2021, against Georgia's sweeping law that makes it much harder for all Georgians to ...
  41. [41]
    Attorney General Pamela Bondi Dismisses Biden-Era Lawsuit ...
    Mar 31, 2025 · Attorney General Pamela Bondi directed the Department of Justice to dismiss its claims in In Re Georgia Senate Bill 202, a Biden-era lawsuit that falsely ...<|separator|>
  42. [42]
    In re Georgia Senate Bill 202 | Cases - Westlaw
    202”) governs election-related processes and was signed into law by Governor Brian Kemp on March 25, 2021. Plaintiffs, among other plaintiff groups, ...
  43. [43]
    In a change of course, US Justice Dept drops challenge to Georgia ...
    Mar 31, 2025 · Biden-era case alleged discrimination against Black voters · Attorney general says lawsuit fueled false narrative · Civil rights groups continuing ...
  44. [44]
    Federal Court Sides with Civil Rights Groups and Lifts Georgia's Ban ...
    Aug 18, 2023 · ... restrictions put in place by Georgia's anti-voter law, Senate Bill 202 (S.B. 202), for the 2024 elections. The rulings blocked portions of ...
  45. [45]
    Federal Court Halts Portion of Georgia's SB202 Voter Suppression ...
    Aug 18, 2023 · Problems with voting? Call the Election Protection hotline at 866 ... Georgia State Election Board. It also cites several Georgia ...
  46. [46]
    Georgia Voters Set All-Time Midterm Early Turnout Record
    Nov 5, 2022 · Early Voting far exceeded the total from 2018, which saw 1.8M voters cast their ballots and was within striking distance of the 2.6M....
  47. [47]
    Georgia Voters Lead Southeast in Engagement, Turnout
    May 17, 2023 · A recent survey by the US Census Bureau confirms that Georgia voters shattered turnout and participation rates in the 2022 midterm elections, leading the ...
  48. [48]
    Georgia voting fraud allegations result in rare criminal charges
    Aug 28, 2024 · Two men have been charged with felonies for voting twice in the 2022 election, the first known criminal prosecutions for Georgia voting fraud in recent years.
  49. [49]
    Georgia Election Results
    See historical Georgia election results prior to July 31,2012 below. Download PDFs. PLEASE NOTE: These Adobe Acrobat documents (PDF) require the ...Missing: midterm | Show results with:midterm
  50. [50]
    2024 Georgia Election Results | AP News
    Georgia President. 16 electoral votes. Donald Trump wins. AP race call at 9:58 p.m. on Nov. 5, 2024. AP logo certified results. Candidate, votes ...
  51. [51]
    Raffensperger Certifies Presidential Election Following ...
    Nov 22, 2024 · Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger officially certified the results of the 2024 Presidential Election today following county certification as well ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  52. [52]
    Georgia voters set a new turnout record at almost 5.3 million in 2024 ...
    Nov 7, 2024 · About 64% of registered voters participated in the race, with a majority of them supporting Republican Donald Trump over Democrat Kamala Harris.<|separator|>
  53. [53]
    Voter turnout in Georgia - Ballotpedia
    Ballotpedia uses this expression if the jurisdiction does not report total ballots counted. The overall turnout rate of eligible voters in Georgia in the 2024 ...
  54. [54]
    Georgia sees record early voting turnout for 2024 election - YouTube
    Oct 19, 2024 · The deadline to request mail-in ballots is Monday for DC; Oct. 25 for Virginia and Oct. 29 for Maryland.
  55. [55]
    Georgia Election Integrity Act, S.B. 202 in 2024 - 11Alive.com
    Oct 14, 2024 · The law, which faced much scrutiny during its revision, has five central elements: New restrictions on the use of drop boxes and mobile voting, changes in ...Missing: provisions | Show results with:provisions
  56. [56]
    Racial Turnout Gap Grew in Georgia — Again
    Dec 23, 2024 · The gap in turnout rates between white and Black voters in Georgia grew by 3 percentage points between 2020 and 2024.
  57. [57]
    [PDF] Voting Rights Project: Georgia Final Research Report
    Jul 1, 2024 · Ultimately, racial disparities in turnout widened from 2018 to 2022 in Georgia, with these results being most clearly visible on a county-by- ...
  58. [58]
    Georgia Votes
    Nov 8, 2024 · At this point in the 2020 general election, that number was 4,015,790. Total turnout for the 2024 general election is 1% higher. The voting ...
  59. [59]
    Georgia's 2024 Statewide Risk Limiting Audit Confirms Voting ...
    Nov 20, 2024 · In total, county election officials audited 442 batches of ballots. Of the 442 batches, 381 (86.1%) had no deviation from the original candidate ...
  60. [60]
    Secretary Raffensperger Announces Cross-State Double Voting ...
    Aug 21, 2024 · ... election fraud. ###. Georgia is recognized as a national leader in elections. It was the first state in the country to implement the trifecta ...Missing: incidents | Show results with:incidents
  61. [61]
    University of Georgia Poll Finds Smooth Voting Experience for 98 ...
    Dec 10, 2024 · The survey polled 1,541 registered voters in Georgia who voted in the 2024 Presidential election. ###. Georgia is recognized as a national ...
  62. [62]
    Changes in state election laws have little impact on results, new ...
    Jul 18, 2023 · “Contemporary election reforms that are purported to increase or decrease turnout tend to have negligible effects on election outcomes,” write ...Missing: peer | Show results with:peer