Exact Match is the New Jim Crow: An Analysis of Georgia’s Voting Policies and their Effect on Minority Voters

Abstract

On November 7, 2018, people all over the nation waited with bated breath to find out the results of the state of Georgia’s 2018 midterm election. Democratic candidate Stacey Abrams competed against Republican Brian Kemp, who was also Georgia’s Secretary-of-State at the time for Governor of the state. The election was notable for several reasons; for example, Abrams had the potential to become the nation’s first black, female governor. However, what really captured the nation’s attention in regard to the election was the widespread Democratic support for Abrams as well as the widespread coverage suggesting that the Republican Party was actively suppressing the black vote. As Secretary-of-State, Kemp was charged with overseeing the election. This caused widespread outrage as critics complained in the conflict-of-interest that it was for the man who was tasked with overseeing the legitimacy of an election also participating in it. However, since there is no law forbidding the practice, Kemp refused to leave his post as Secretary-of-State until after he won the election These conflict-of-interest claims, coupled with the implementation of several strict voting laws during his tenure as Secretary-of-State, made his critics extremely weary that Kemp was intentionally trying to suppress minority votes in the state. Kemp adamantly claimed, however, that any policies he enacted while Secretary-of-State were meant to protect the integrity of elections. Additionally, he argued that the Secretary-of-State’s roll was simply to oversee elections and, thus, him maintaining the position was not a conflict-of-interest. This thesis aims to answer the question: what is happening in Georgia? It looks at three of Kemp’s policies, examines their content and impact, and assesses whether or not the state meant to suppress minority votes when employing them. The policies are those of polling location closing, exact-match, and voter roll purging. To evaluate the policies, I replicate the methodology used by the CDC to examine the content and impact of health policies. I use qualitative methods in this thesis. I use data collected from interviews conducted with Georgian citizens, legislators, and political actors. I evaluate newspaper articles, books, research studies, and blog posts to arrive at a conclusion regarding the effect of Georgia’s policies on the minority voter. Ultimately, I find that Georgia’s policies are meant to disproportionately affect its minority citizens and make it more difficult for them to vote. This implies the state does not want its minority citizens to vote. This thesis explores how an election was stolen from the people in plain sight.