We assess the opinions of Georgia voters regarding the 2020 presidential election, election administration, and voting laws following passage of Senate Bill (SB) 202. After the 2020 presidential election and subsequent 2021 Senate runoffs, contests all won by Democrats in Georgia, the Republican-controlled legislature passed SB 202 to appease their agitated and disaffected base of supporters. It appears that SB 202 had the effect of boosting Republican voters’ confidence in Georgia’s election system while registering the opposite effect among Democratic voters. Indeed, across a host of questions, including several asking about specific provisions in SB 202, we find a partisan schism in opinions expressed by Democrats and Republicans.
AbramowitzAI (2010) The Disappearing Center: Engaged Citizens, Polarization, and American Democracy. New Haven: Yale University Press.
2.
AbramowitzAI (2018) The Great Alignment: Race, Party Transformation, and the Rise of Donald Trump. New Haven: Yale University Press.
3.
AbramowitzAIWebsterSW (2016) The rise of negative partisanship and the nationalization of U.S. elections in the 21st century. Electoral Studies41: 12–22.
4.
AbramowitzAIWebsterSW (2018) Negative partisanship: why Americans dislike parties but behave like rabid partisans. Political Psychology39(S1): 119–135.
5.
BlackMBlackE (2012) Deep South politics: the enduring racial divide in national elections. In: BullockCSRozellMJ (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Southern Politics. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 401–423.
6.
CampbellJE (2016) Polarized: Making Sense of a Divided America. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
7.
ColeDR (2021) Irreconcilable Differences: Limits to United States National Unity. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
8.
DruckmanJNLevenduskyMSMcLainA (2018) No need to watch: how the effects of partisan media can spread via interpersonal discussions. American Journal of Political Science62(1): 99–112.
9.
FinkelEJBailCACikaraM, et al. (2020) Political sectarianism in America. Science370(3516): 533–536.
10.
FiorinaMPAbramsSAPopeJC (2008) Polarization in the American public: misconceptions and misreadings. Journal of Politics70(2): 556–560.
11.
FleisherRBondJR (2004) The shrinking middle in the US Congress. British Journal of Political Science34(3): 429–451.
12.
GronkePHicksWDMcKeeSC, et al. (2019) Voter ID laws: a view from the public. Social Science Quarterly100(1): 215–232.
13.
HanmerMJKalkanKO (2013) Behind the curve: clarifying the best approach to calculating predicted probabilities and marginal effects from limited dependent variable models. American Journal of Political Science57(1): 263–277.
14.
HasenRL (2012) The Voting Wars: From Florida 2000 to the Next Election Meltdown. New Haven: Yale University Press.
15.
HetheringtonMJ (2001) Resurgent mass partisanship: the role of elite polarization. American Political Science Review95(3): 619–631.
16.
HicksWDMcKeeSCSellersMD, et al. (2015) A principle or a strategy: voter identification laws and partisan competition in the American states. Political Research Quarterly68(1): 18–33.
17.
HicksWDMcKeeSCSmithDA (2016) The determinants of state legislator support for restrictive voter ID laws. State Politics & Policy Quarterly16(4): 411–431.
18.
HoodMVMcKeeSC (2019) Why Georgia, why? Peach State residents’ perceptions of voting-related improprieties and their impact on the 2018 gubernatorial election. Social Science Quarterly100(5): 1828–1847.
19.
HoodMVMcKeeSC (2022) Getting the message: opinion polarization over election law. Election Law Journal: Rules, Politics, and Policy21(2): 124–134.
20.
IyengarSLelkesYLevenduskyM, et al. (2019) The origins and consequences of affective polarization in the United States. Annual Review of Political Science22: 129–146.
21.
JacobsonGC (2007) A Divider, Not a Uniter: George W. Bush and the American People. New York: Pearson/Longman.
22.
JacobsonGC (2020) Donald Trump and the parties: impeachment, pandemic, protest, and electoral politics in 2020. Presidential Studies Quarterly50(4): 762–795.
23.
JacobsonGC (2021) The presidential and congressional elections of 2020: a national referendum on the Trump presidency. Political Science Quarterly136(1): 11–45.
24.
JacobsonGCCarsonJL (2020) The Politics of Congressional Elections. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
25.
KaneJVWilsonDC (2021) Controversy and costs: investigating the consensus on American voter ID laws. Political Behavior43: 397–421.
26.
KeithBEMaglebyDBNelsonCJ, et al. (1992) The Myth of the Independent Voter. Berkeley: University of California Press.
27.
KeyVO (1949) Southern Politics in State and Nation. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
28.
KeyssarA (2009) The Right to Vote: The Contested History of Democracy in the United States. New York: Basic Books.
29.
LeeFE (2016) Insecure Majorities: Congress and the Perpetual Campaign. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
30.
LevenduskyM (2009) The Partisan Sort: How Liberals Became Democrats and Conservatives Became Republicans. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
31.
LevenduskyMS (2010) Clearer cues, more consistent voters: a benefit of elite polarization. Political Behavior32: 111–131.
32.
LevittJ (2012) Election deform: the pursuit of unwarranted electoral regulation. Election Law Journal: Rules, Politics, and Policy11(1): 97–117.
33.
LupiaA (1994) Shortcuts versus encyclopedias: information and voting behavior in California insurance reform elections. American Political Science Review88(1): 63–76.
34.
MasonL (2018) Uncivil Agreement: How Politics Became Our Identity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
35.
McCartyNMPooleKTRosenthalH (2016) Polarized America: The Dance of Ideology and Unequal Riches. Cambridge: MIT Press.
36.
McKeeSC (2019) The Dynamics of Southern Politics: Causes and Consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: CQ Press.
37.
McKeeSCSpringerMJ (2015) A tale of ‘two Souths’: white voting behavior in contemporary southern elections. Social Science Quarterly96(2): 588–607.
38.
MillerWE (1991) Party identification, realignment, and party voting: back to the basics. American Political Science Review85(2): 557–568.
39.
PopkinSL (1991) The Reasoning Voter: Communication and Persuasion in Presidential Campaigns. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
40.
RogowskiJCSutherlandJL (2016) How ideology fuels affective polarization. Political Behavior38: 485–508.
41.
RohdeDW (1991) Parties and Leaders in the Postreform House. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
42.
SchattschneiderEE (1960) The Semisovereign People: A Realist’s View of Democracy in America. New York: Holt, Reinhart, and Winston.
43.
SidesJTeslerMVavreckL (2018) Identity Crisis: The 2016 Presidential Campaign and the Battle for the Meaning of America. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
44.
TheriaultSM (2008) Party Polarization in Congress. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
45.
ValentinoNANeunerFG (2017) Why the sky didn’t fall: mobilizing anger in reaction to voter ID laws. Political Psychology38(2): 331–350.
46.
von SpakovskyHA (2012) Protecting the integrity of the election process. Election Law Journal: Rules, Politics, and Policy11(1): 90–96.
47.
WebsterSW (2020) American Rage: How Anger Shapes Our Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
48.
WickerstaffD (2021) Ralston wants review of Ga. election Issues – but House Speaker Skeptical of Proposal to Greatly Curb Absentee Voting Atlanta Journal-Constitution: B1.
49.
ZallerJR (1992) The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
