In the past few years, we’ve witnessed many serious threats to American democracy. Some that loom large include: the January 6 Capitol riot, President Trump’s “perfect phone call” to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger (“I just want to find 11,780 votes”), and here in Arizona, the election “audit” performed by conspiracy-theorists and Trump loyalists (the Cyber Ninjas).
But not every criticism of election administration is a threat to democracy. Nor is every legal challenge. Nor is every proposed legislation seeking to change how elections are administered.
If we label everything as a threat to democracy, we will undermine the credibility of our public comments, we will impede attempts at election reform, we will exasperate good-faith actors who simply have different policy priorities, and we will cause outrage fatigue (similar to the “sympathy fatigue” described in Arlie Russell Hochschild’s Strangers in Their Own Land).
Unfortunately, many on the political left have done exactly this in recent years. Whether because it fits their immediate political goals or fundraising needs, politicians, activist groups, and nonprofits on the political left have used the term “threat to democracy” constantly over the past few years. I’ve closely witnessed at least two instances – Georgia’s Senate Bill 202 (2021) and Arizona’s Senate Bill 1485 (2021) – that have wrongly been characterized by these actors as grave threats to democracy. These statements have a negative long-term impact on our ability to protect American democracy.
Georgia Senate Bill 202
In the wake of the November 2020 election, Georgia’s legislature introduced “The Election Integrity Act.” Once passed by the state legislature and signed by the governor, the bill changed the type of identification needed for mail voting, it limited the number of ballot-drop-boxes for early ballots, and it prohibited the distribution of food or water within the no-electioneering zone outside a voting location. The new law also expanded the number of early voting days to include at least one Saturday and possibly two Sundays.
The bill caused a firestorm. Elected Democrats in Georgia branded the bill “Jim Crow 2.0” – evoking one of the ugliest points of American history. President Biden called the proposed law “Jim Crow in the 21st Century.” Major League Baseball removed its 2021 All-Star Game from Atlanta as a result of the law, and major companies such as Delta, Coca-Cola, and JP Morgan protested that the law would cause democratic backsliding.
I don’t know if I agree with Senate Bill 202. In fact, I don’t agree with some of the changes. But almost all components of the legislation are ideas that are regularly discussed at election administration policy conferences. They are not outlandish. They are not the equivalent of storming the Capitol to thwart the transfer of power to the lawfully elected President of the United States. They are not the equivalent of extreme physical violence to deter black people from voting.
And the characterization is wrong in terms of where it left Georgia in the national voting landscape and the effect it had on Georgia elections. Even after the bill became law, Georgia has more permissive voting laws that many states, including states like Illinois that are thought to be left-leaning states. As for the alleged decreased turnout – especially among racial minorities – that many on the left promised would happen as a result of the new law, Georgians actually voted in record numbers in the 2022 elections.
Arizona Senate Bill 1485
In the past three years, Arizona has introduced more bills related to election administration that any other state. One new law, signed by Governor Doug Ducey in 2021, changed the state’s “Permanent Early Voting List” (PEVL) to the “Active Early Voting List” (AEVL). If you were an Arizona registered voter on the PEVL, you would automatically receive a ballot-by-mail for every election for which you are eligible. The change to AEVL meant that if you didn’t participate by early ballot for four years, you would be removed from the list. You could still vote, you just wouldn’t automatically be sent a mail ballot for the election.
This proposed change prompted commentary similar to Georgia. Business groups mobilized against the bill, activists evoked “Jim Crow 2.0,” and, ultimately, left-leaning groups sued in federal court to argue that the law was unconstitutional (Mi Familia Vota v. Fontes, CV-21-01423-PHX-DWL).
I was recently deposed in this case. As I said in my deposition, the law has been overblown by both the right and the left. The benefits of the bill are likely to be small (the biggest benefit will likely be the reduction in some unused postage). But the harm of the bill (preventing voters from voting) is speculative, fails to consider multiple mitigating factors, and ignores that even after the new law, Arizona’s election laws remain some of the most voter-friendly in the country.
Conclusion
Very real threats to democracy exist. Maybe more so now than at any recent time in our country’s history. But not everything is a threat to democracy. Not everything is “Jim Crow 2.0.” And while the use of these terms might help some on the political left fundraise or mobilize followers, the more common the use of these terms, and the more often the danger is exaggerated, the more we cloud the very real threats to democracy that we face.
That is why I objected to these cries of outrage with respect to Georgia Senate Bill 202 and Arizona Senate Bill 1485, and it’s why I think academics, including one we’ve read for class, are acting irresponsibly when they adopt these terms for the promotion of their papers (e.g. Bentele, Keith G., and Erin E. O’Brien. 2013. “Jim Crow 2.0? Why States Consider and Adopt Restrictive Voter Access Policies.” Perspectives on Politics 11 (4): 1088-1116).
Help democracy. Don’t cry wolf unless there’s a wolf.
Stephen Richer is the elected Maricopa County Recorder, responsible for recording, voter registration, and early voting in the second largest voting jurisdiction in the United States. He was awarded “Arizonan of the Year, 2021” by The Arizona Republic and “Republican Politician of the Year, 2021” by The Phoenix New Times. He received his M.A. and J.D. from The University of Chicago, his B.A. from Tulane University, and he is a PhD student at Arizona State University.
I agree that claims of threats to democracy should not be overused as it risks limiting their usefulness when greater damage can be done to democratic systems. As mentioned in your post, Georgia’s new law limited the number of ballot-drop-boxes for early ballots. This may seem like a small change as first glance since it doesn’t necessarily stop people from voting early. Many would claim such a change was put in place to stop unsubstantiated claims of ballot box stuffing. But when does restricting access to voting ever strengthen a democracy? This merely makes it harder for people to find places to safely drop off their ballots, which is predominately done by Democratic voters. This discourages voters who can’t and/or don’t want to go in person from voting as it is now more difficult to vote. If your nearest ballot drop box was a 15 minute ride away and now it is an hour away, the average person would be much less likely to vote. Your blog post ignores this implication entirely. This change will likely have a real effect on people’s voting behavior. Election laws should encourage more people to vote and take an active role in politics, not less. You used the phrase “don’t cry wolf” to emphasis supposed overreactions to these laws but I believe you’ve presented such changes as wolves in sheep’s clothing with real implications for democracy and voter’s civic participation.
Hi Stephen,
Although I agree with the high level message of your post, I disagree with the examples used. Overall, there are wildly varying levels of democratic erosion in different events. A state’s bill to change the process for early voting for some constituents does not create the same damage as a political group storming the capital, I agree.
I also agree we should avoid calling every politically tense event democratic erosion. Not every issue threatens an aspect of U.S. democracy and pushing this narrative could desensitize both citizens and politicians to the terminology, therefore hindering the ability for the country to react to a true democratic threat. However, the discussion of the two example bills lacks some depth of understanding.
First, in both examples there is a comparison made to the quality of elections in other states. In a country that has a voter turnout that consistently lags behind other comparable democratic countries, should the comparison be made to our own states? Yes, Georgia’s voting laws may be more accessible than Illinois, but a comparison to Australia is less favorable. Then, there was no discussion of how these laws would affect voters choices. Removing ballot boxes in Georgia will make it more difficult for a voter who now has to travel a further distance to submit their ballot. This could discourage some voters. Perhaps adding more early voting days on the weekend will counteract that negative effect, but there was no consideration for this within the blog post.
I like the main message of this post, just the examples are not as cut-and-dry as implied by the brief analysis.
Hi Stephen, I was immediately drawn to your post because of your excellent title; overblowing the dangers of democratic erosion is something I am constantly aware of. I think we are often fighting a battle of facts presented as opinion and a lot is getting misconstrued. Though, I was unfortunately disagreed with your argument as I read further. While I think this is something worth analyzing, I do not think your examples are asserting your argument well.
When looking through your hyperlinks, specifically to the examples in the Georgia case, I did not find the information you were alluding to that helped your case. The NCSL website simply outlined the early voting dates and details, but it did not provide much to assert your claim that Georgia’s voting laws are permissive. In fact, I think it helped the argument that these types of rules are confusing on purpose.
In regards to the Arizona example, the AZ Mirror article outlined even more measures the government took in the state that added to the anger of business leaders and others that you left out. If anything, while reading your argument, I found myself more sure that these measures would easily be examples of the deliberate weakening of our democratic institutions. These unnecessary roadblocks, like purging Arizonians from the voter rolls without warning, is a clear example of small steps to erode the peoples’ voice in a democratic government. The AZ Mirror article quoted the business leaders saying, “’these measures seek to disenfranchise voters. They are ‘solutions’ in search of a problem. They are attempts at voter suppression cloaked as reform — plain and simple,” the statement read” (Duda).
While we can argue over the language that is used to over or downplay these moments and policies, I think we all lose when the argument is overwhelmed by whether or not these acts are threatening our democracy or not.
Hi Stephen! Your title piqued my curiosity in reading your blog post right away. It helped me understand your topic clearly. More than ever, erroneous accusations of dangers to democracy are prevalent. However, the support for your case was somewhat undermined by the way you used the material in your blog post. The Arizona Senate Bill, for example, does not provide convincing evidence to support your argument when examined in light of your evidence. You express a coherent thought in your blog post. Overall, I do agree with your point. I also concur that we shouldn’t refer to every contentious political situation as democratic decline. Making the distinction can help reduce the number of unfounded accusations made against democracy. In general, I support your blog’s idea.