Why Georgia, Why? Peach State Residents’ Perceptions of Voting‐Related Improprieties and Their Impact on the 2018 Gubernatorial Election *

Abstract

Objective
In the historic 2018 Georgia gubernatorial election, which for the first time featured a black Democratic woman against a white Republican man, we assess opinions toward voting‐related concerns and their impact on voters’ preferences.

Methods
We surveyed political behavior with a representative sample of likely Georgia voters to gauge their perceptions of voting‐related improprieties and their possible effect on vote choice.

Results
Our analysis makes it clear that not only did voters divide over election‐related concerns, which dominated the narrative of the gubernatorial contest, but opinions on this matter strongly influenced the choice for governor.

Conclusions
Reflecting a national development, but amplified in Georgia because demographic changes and growing minority participation are increasing competition, election administration has become highly politicized and it was the focal point of the 2018 gubernatorial campaign and the principal short‐term factor shaping mass voting behavior.

Full text

Why Georgia, Why? Peach State Residents’
Perceptions of Voting-Related Improprieties
and Their Impact on the 2018
Gubernatorial Election
M. V. Hood III , University of Georgia
Seth C. McKee, Texa s Tec h Un i v e r s i t y
Objective. In the historic 2018 Georgia gubernatorial election, which for the first time featured
a black Democratic woman against a white Republican man, we assess opinions toward voting-
related concerns and their impact on voters’ preferences. Methods. We surveyed political behavior
with a representative sample of likely Georgia voters to gauge their perceptions of voting-related
improprieties and their possible effect on vote choice. Results. Our analysis makes it clear that
not only did voters divide over election-related concerns, which dominated the narrative of the
gubernatorial contest, but opinions on this matter strongly influenced the choice for governor.
Conclusions. Reflecting a national development, but amplified in Georgia because demographic
changes and growing minority participation are increasing competition, election administration has
become highly politicized and it was the focal point of the 2018 gubernatorial campaign and the
principal short-term factor shaping mass voting behavior.
Voter suppression in the American South is a story as old as the Civil War. Soon after
the conflict ended, during Reconstruction ex-Confederate soldiers were marginalized by
the practice of requiring a loyalty oath to the Union as a condition of reenfranchisement
(Foner, 1988). Learning thoroughly the methods of their northern overseers, when native
southern whites finally “redeemed” their state governments, the eventual implementation of
an elaborate structure of restrictive voting laws shrunk the southern electorate to the point
that most poor whites and the vast majority of blacks did not participate from the early
1900s until well into the 1950s (Burnham, 2010; Key, 1949; Kousser, 1974; Woodward,
2002). This era of the Solid (Democratic) South ended in the wake of the 1960s civil rights
movement, which brought forth the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting
Rights Act (VRA), with the latter provision spurring massive voter mobilization among
blacks and whites in certain southern localities (Bullock and Gaddie, 2009; Davidson and
Grofman, 1994; McKee, 2017; Timpone, 1995).1
From the mid-1960s up to the new millennium, American politics experienced a lengthy
period in which most sections of the United States, including the South, approved of
election reforms that, at least at the margins, lowered the costs of voting (Highton and
Direct correspondence to M. V. (Trey) Hood III, Department of Political Science, School of Public and
International Affairs, 180 Baldwin Hall, University of Georgia, Athens,GA 30602 th@uga.edu.Theauthors
will share all data and coding for replication purposes. The title of this article pays tribute to the song “Why
Georgia” by John Mayer.
1In Georgia, between 1964 and 1968, black voting-age registration went from 44 to 56 percent while white
voting-age registration pre-VRA (1962–1964) to post-VRA (1966–1967) increased from 63 to 80 percent
(McKee, 2017:143–44).
SOCIAL SCIENCE QUARTERLY, Volume 100, Number 5, August 2019
C2019 by the Southwestern Social Science Association
DOI: 10.1111/ssqu.12655

Peach State Residents’ Perceptions of Voting-Related Improprieties 1829
Wolfinger, 1998; Keyssar, 2009; Rosenstone and Hansen, 1993) (e.g., shortening closing
dates for registration prior to Election Day, the national “motor voter” law in 1993, no-
excuse absentee voting by mail, early in-person voting). The contentious 2000 presidential
election, however, proved a harbinger for a decided partisan tilt toward election adminis-
tration (Hicks et al., 2015). The controversial Bush v. Gore (2000) Supreme Court ruling,
which determined the outcome of the 2000 presidential contest, heralded a new era of
contentious party politics in which election reforms would take center stage in battles to
win not only national majorities in Congress and the White House, but anywhere partisan
elections were highly competitive (Hasen, 2012).
This brings us to Georgia, a Deep South state that has been moving in a more competitive,
read Democratic direction, since Barack Obama was elected in 2008. The Peach State
offers an illuminating case study of the changing South and particularly as manifested
in a closely fought 2018 gubernatorial election pitting a Republican white man against a
Democratic African-American woman; the descriptive standard bearers of the Deep South’s
contemporary major party coalitions (McKee, 2018). In this study, we contextualize and
evaluate the 2018 Georgia gubernatorial election via three lenses: the historical backdrop of
this Deep South state, the contemporary partisan wrangling over restrictive voting reforms
(i.e., stricter voter identification [ID] laws), and how these two factors collided to create
the distinct political milieu of the 2018 contest.
Republican Brian Kemp, the Secretary of State (2010–2018), defeated Democratic
political activist and former state representative (2010–2017) Stacey Abrams with 50.2
percent of the total votes cast to become the new governor of Georgia. This remarkably
close contest and the fact that both candidates played key roles in either overseeing the
administration of the voting apparatus (Kemp) or mobilizing vast numbers of supporters
via registration drives (Abrams) generated considerable concern over questions of fairness
and hence the legitimacy of the outcome. We have leveraged a unique survey of likely
general election voters to evaluate their preferences in the 2018 Georgia gubernatorial
election. Most importantly, given the contentious context of this contest, our emphasis
is placed on gauging opinions toward alleged voting-related improprieties and how these
views may have impacted vote choice. But before we turn to an assessment of mass political
behavior in the 2018 election, we begin with a trip back in time to briefly contextualize
the history of Georgia politics and how it brought us to the current era.
Georgia Politics: Then to Now
Georgia is a Deep South state, one of five, including Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi,
and South Carolina. This southern subregion, mainly because of its much larger percentage
of African Americans, has always endured more contentious race relations than its Rim
South counterparts consisting of Arkansas, Florida, North Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and
Virginia (Key, 1949). For most of the Peach State’s post-Civil War history, race has driven
the character of its politics and advantaged a one-party Democratic faction of white elites
residing primarily in the rural (black-belt) sections of the state (Key, 1949).
Starting with the Reconstruction era (1865–1877), Georgia was perhaps the most mil-
itant in its resistance to federal intervention. Indeed, the Peach State was never compli-
ant with northern oversight (Russ, 1935) and twice had to be readmitted to the Union
(McKee, 2019:21). Georgia was the first southern state to enact a poll tax in 1871
(Kousser, 1974); long before the elaborate post-Reconstruction implementation of Jim
Crow laws (circa 1889–1908; see McKee, 2019:39) ensured a one-party white supremacist

1830 Social Science Quarterly
Democratic Solid South (Woodward, 2002). In 1877, the Peach State enacted a cumulative,
and hence more punitive, poll tax widely regarded as disfranchising the black population.
In the 1880s, turnout in Georgia was under 50 percent while in the rest of the South,
which still lacked “effective restrictive legal devices,” turnout was over 65 percent (Kousser,
1974:67).
From the late 1800s into the 1950s, Democratic politics was synonymous with Georgia
politics. For most of these decades, a bi-factionalism within the party pitted a more
formidable rural, “pseudo-Populist” (Key, 1949:116), demagogic group (highlighted by the
likes of Tom Watson and Eugene Talmadge) against a relatively progressive urban opposition
(e.g., Ellis Arnall). The urban faction was institutionally disadvantaged by the County-Unit
System, employed for most statewide and even congressional, Democratic primary contests
(Buchanan, 1997; Key, 1949). This arrangement produced substantial malapportionment
because rural counties had comparatively more unit votes than the smaller number of more
populous urban counties. Like the Electoral College, the campaign strategy was the same,
heavily contest the most competitive counties (states) and sometimes the popular vote loser
was the victor (e.g., Eugene Talmadge in the 1946 Democratic gubernatorial primary)
because unit votes (electoral votes) privileged candidates who garnered support from rural
residents.
There were two revolutions in the 1960s, one concerning civil rights and the other reap-
portionment (Cox and Katz, 2002). These two extremely electorally disruptive develop-
ments were tightly linked. As African Americans fought and won concessions for equal rights
under the law, Georgia’s Democratic monopoly was broken up by abolition of the County-
Unit System (Gray v. Sanders, 1963) and enforcement of the one-person, one-vote principle
(see Wesberry v. Sanders, 1964; Reynolds v. Sims, 1964) in district-based elections (i.e., U.S.
House and state legislative races). As a consequence, in the 1970s, the Grand Old Party
(GOP) was gaining strength in Georgia’s rapidly growing suburbs (Fenno, 2000). The one-
sided Democratic affiliation of Georgia’s burgeoning black electorate directly contributed
to GOP growth as white elites appropriated the erstwhile moribund Republican Party as
the vehicle for maintaining political power (Hood, Kidd, and Morris, 2012). Nonetheless,
Georgia Democrats held the upper hand via biracial coalitions up through the 1980s (Lamis,
1988). But Republican ascendancy took off in the 1990s in part because majority–minority
redistricting undermined the Democrats’ biracial coalitions (Black and Black, 2002) as the
Department of Justice insisted that the Peach State (under Section 5 Preclearance Voting
Rights Act enforcement) draw three majority black congressional districts for the 1992
elections (Bullock, 2010). Consider that before the 1992 election, Republican Newt Gin-
grich was the only Republican in Georgia’s 10-member U.S. House delegation, but by
1995 (with a party switch by future Governor Nathan Deal), the 11-member Peach State
delegation consisted of three black Democrats and eight white Republicans (McKee, 2010).
By the 1990s, whites in rural sections of Georgia were strongly realigning in favor of the
Republican Party (Bullock and Gaddie, 2013) and long-running cultural battles like the
one waged over the Confederate battle flag (Huffmon, Knotts, and McKee, 2017–2018;
Hutchings, Walton, and Benjamin, 2010) ultimately benefited the GOP, since its almost
exclusively white coalition had become the new home of racial conservatives (Valentino
and Sears, 2005). In 2002, Sonny Perdue became the first Georgia Republican governor
since Reconstruction and rural whites were a key contributor to his victory (Hayes and
McKee, 2004). Republican electoral success in the new millennium has been impressive
up and down the ballot, with the GOP consistently winning the majority (and lately all)
of statewide contests and holding majorities in the Georgia Senate since 2002 and in the
Georgia House since 2004.

Peach State Residents’ Perceptions of Voting-Related Improprieties 1831
FIGURE 1
Index of Republican Electoral Strength in the South, 1950–2016
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
1950 1954 1958 1962 1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 19 90 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014
GOP Index (%)
Year
Georgia Deep South Rim South South
NOTES: Shown is David’s Index (see David, 1972) Composite B (votes for governor, U.S. Senate, and U.S.
House) for Republican electoral strength. We have applied a 10-year moving average to smooth out any
short-term spikes in the data series.
We conclude this brief synopsis of Georgia politics with two telling figures that speak to
long-term partisan changes in the Peach State. First, Figure 1 displays Republican electoral
strength based on a composite index of the party’s performance weighted equally (in
thirds) for gubernatorial, U.S. Senate, and U.S. House elections (see David, 1972). We
present these data from 1950 to 2016 for the South, Rim South, Deep South (including
Georgia), and Georgia. Several things stick out in Figure 1. From the 1950s to early the
1970s, the Deep South, and especially Georgia, had an electorally weak (but strengthening)
Republican Party compared to the Rim South. Interestingly, the rise of Democratic native
son Jimmy Carter from 1974 to 1980 is the only period in which the GOP index was
higher in Georgia than the Deep South as a whole. Thereafter, Georgia plays catch up with
the rest of the South until the historic 2008 election of Democrat Barack Obama, when its
GOP index finally exceeds that of the Rim South. Notice, however, that since 2008, Deep
South Republicanism grows ever stronger while it levels off in Georgia.
In Figure 2, we present the Republican margin of the two-party (popular) presidential
vote in Georgia (GOP percentage minus Democratic percentage) from 1960 to 2016.
The presidential vote is the most salient indicator of change in signaling the direction of
party politics (Carmines and Stimson, 1989). With this in mind, we begin with 1960
to show that the Peach State went decidedly for New England Democrat John Kennedy
but then trended Republican for the next three contests in which the “Southern Strategy”
(Phillips, 1969) of courting racially conservative white voters paid electoral dividends.2Not
surprisingly, Georgia embraced its native son, Democrat Jimmy Carter, in 1976 and was
2Barry Goldwater was the first Republican to win Georgia’s popular presidential vote (Democrats prevailed
even in the Reconstruction elections of 1868, 1872, and 1876) and the first non-Democrat to do so since
Whig nominee Zachary Taylor in 1848.

1832 Social Science Quarterly
FIGURE 2
Presidential Popular Two-Party Vote Margin (Republican Minus Democratic) in Georgia,
1960–2016
-55
-45
-35
-25
-15
-5
5
15
25
35
45
55
1960 1964 1968 1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 20 08 2012 2016
GOP (Two-Party) Vote Margin
Presidenal Elecons (1960 2016)

NOTES: Data are from Dave Leip’s Atlas of Presidential Elections (https://uselectionatlas.org/). Values
are computed as the Republican percentage of the presidential vote minus the Democratic percentage
and therefore positive values mean a higher Republican vote, whereas negative values mean a higher
Democratic vote.
the only southern state to stick with him in 1980. Only fellow Democratic southerner Bill
Clinton has managed to carry Georgia since 1980 (in 1992). But we consider the emergence
of Democrat Barack Obama in 2008 to be a true turning point in Georgia politics. In
the previous two elections, 2000 and 2004, Republican George W. Bush won the Peach
State by double digits. In contrast, Georgia presidential elections have been notably more
competitive since. A major reason for this development is because of changing demography
and minority voter mobilization in favor of Democrats. It is this political reality that leads
us to the next section, which outlines efforts by Georgia Republicans to maintain power
via election administration.
The New Millennium and the Republican Push for Restrictive Voting Reforms
Cobb County, located northwest of Atlanta’s beltway, provides an excellent vignette for
comprehending the remarkable demographic changes overtaking the Peach State. Compar-
isons between 1990 and 2016 reveal notable transformations to this rapidly growing and
diversifying county.3Over this quarter-century, Cobb’s population increased 63 percent,
African Americans went from 10 to 27 percent, Latinos from 2 to 13 percent, while the
share of non-Hispanic whites plummeted from 88 to 61 percent. At the same time, gradu-
ate degree holders (25 years or older) increased from 9 to 15 percent and residents born in
Georgia declined from 46 to 38 percent. Politically, these changes benefit Democrats. In
1996, the two-party presidential vote went 61 to 39 percent in favor of Republican Bob
Dole over Democrat Bill Clinton. Twenty years later, Democrat Hillary Clinton bested
Republican Donald Trump 51 to 49 percent. In 2014, Republican Governor Nathan
Deal defeated Democrat Jason Carter (Jimmy Carter’s grandson) 57 to 43 percent in Cobb
3Comparing 1990 decennial census data with 2012–2016 five-year American Community Survey (ACS)
estimates.

Peach State Residents’ Perceptions of Voting-Related Improprieties 1833
County. In 2018, Cobb County went 55 to 45 percent in favor of Democrat Stacey Abrams
over Republican Brian Kemp. Perhaps most interesting is that from 1992 to 1998, Repub-
lican Congressman Newt Gingrich represented most of Cobb County and in 2018 the best
cognate of his district (changed through redistricting), the current Georgia District 6, was
won by African-American Lucy McBath—the only majority white district (70 percent) in
Georgia represented by a Democrat.4
Statewide, over the same period of time (1990–2016), Georgia’s black population went
from 27 to 31 percent (third highest in the South) and Latinos increased from 2 to 9
percent (third highest in the South), whereas the non-Hispanic white population dropped
from 71 to 60 percent. The share of Georgia natives declined from 64 to 55 percent,
the percent urban increased from 63 to 75 percent (2010 census: fourth highest in the
South), and based on 2012 (ACS) data, 30 percent of northern in-migrants came from
the “deep blue” Northeast (fifth highest in the South; see McKee and Teigen, 2016:229).
Based on these metrics, Georgia is looking less Deep South and more Rim South (McKee
and Springer, 2015) and the currently dominant Georgia GOP has a big problem on its
hands. Compositional changes to the Georgia electorate clearly advantage the Democratic
opposition, and like so many other states (southern and northern) that are experiencing
real or impending competition, if Republicans control the political system, then they have
busily proposed/enacted restrictive voting reforms as a means to at least slow the Democratic
advance (Levitt, 2012; McKee, 2019).
Control of election administration, particularly in the new millennium, a time of histor-
ically competitive two-party competition (Shafer, 2016), has increasingly been recognized
and deployed as a means to seek electoral advantage. For sure, gerrymandering is a time-
honored American tradition (Engstrom, 2013), and bipartisan in the sense that both parties
use this tactic if they have the opportunity (McGann et al., 2016).5But more recently,
restrictive voting measures have come to the fore.
Most salient and divisive among them has been the push for stricter voter ID as a
requirement for in-person voting. It is not our purpose to litigate whether this reform
actually curtails the electorate in a manner that disadvantages the Democratic Party (on this
debate, see the recent exchange between Hajnal, Kuk, and Lagevardi, 2018 and Grimmer
et al., 2018 in The Journal of Politics). Rather, what we know for certain is that tightening
voter ID at the polls is one of the most partisan-polarized reforms in American politics.
Further, there is little doubt Republican officials view this measure as a way to gain electoral
advantage (Keyssar, 2009) and this is the principal reason their Democratic counterparts
overwhelmingly oppose stricter voter ID. Finally, the stark elite partisan divide on this
issue has resonated, registered, and filtered down to the mass public (see Gronke et al.,
2018), with rank-and-file Republicans receiving the GOP’s message that stricter voter ID
is needed to combat possible voter fraud (von Spakovsky, 2012), while many Democratic
voters are cognizant of their party’s talking point that the reform is nothing more than a
naked partisan ploy (Levitt, 2012).
4In the 2018 midterms, Georgia Democrats netted three seats in the state Senate and 12 in the
state House, making the upper chamber 63 percent Republican and the lower chamber 59 percent
Republican (National Conference of State Legislatures website: http://www.ncsl.org/research/about-state-
legislatures/partisan-composition.aspx). Democrats came within 420 votes of unseating Republican Con-
gressman Rob Woodall in the rapidly changing District 7.
5Following the lead of Texas Republicans (McKee and Shaw, 2005), when they took control of redistricting
after the 2004 elections, Georgia Republicans “redistricted” their congressional map for the 2006 midterms
(Hood and McKee, 2009). Likewise, when Georgia Democrats were in charge for the 2002 elections, they
implemented a partisan gerrymander for the state Senate, which was later overturned in Georgia v. Ashcroft
(2003) (see Gaddie and Bullock, 2006).

1834 Social Science Quarterly
In 2005, along with Indiana the Peach State was the first to pass a strict photo ID
law (Hicks, McKee, and Smith, 2016). Even at this early date (since then, over 40 states
have entertained voter ID laws; see Barreto et al., 2018), partisan lawmakers were deeply
divided over this reform. In Georgia’s large General Assembly (N=56 senators, N=180
representatives), among those casting a vote, 95 percent of House Democrats voted no and
98 percent of House Republicans voted yes; in the state Senate, 100 percent of Democrats
voted no and 94 percent of Republicans voted yes (Hicks, McKee, and Smith, 2016:Table
A1).6After the 2010 Republican wave election, many state legislatures in swing states
flipped in favor of GOP majorities and a raft of new voter ID legislation was proposed with
impressive partisan polarization in the votes cast for and against (see McKee, 2015). In
the South, from 2011 to 2013, seven states took up stricter voter ID legislation (AL, AR,
NC, SC, TN, TX, and VA), “summing all of these votes by party . . . 98 percent of GOP
lawmakers voted yes for a stricter voter ID provision while 98 percent of their Democratic
counterparts voted no” (McKee, 2019:310).
Republican majorities make it difficult to overturn restrictive voting reforms like voter
ID laws, which invariably get challenged in the courts, increasingly the Democrats’ only
hope for recourse. From the vantage of Democrats, compounding their problem was the
recent Shelby County v. Holder (2013) U.S. Supreme Court ruling, which rendered null
and void Section 5 Preclearance under the Voting Rights Act. The absence of Section 5
enforcement in Georgia is particularly worrisome to Democrats because the GOP majority
no longer is required to get approval from the federal government in making changes to its
voting/elections apparatus (e.g., for redistricting, altering voting precincts, administering
voter registration, etc.). Amidst this highly charged partisan backdrop, events leading up
to the 2018 Georgia gubernatorial election and those unfolding during the campaign itself
meant that perceptions of voting-related improprieties would take center stage.
Tu r n o u t i n G e o r g ia
Despite no presidential campaign presence in Georgia in the 2008 election (Huang and
Shaw, 2009), there was a palpable “Obama effect” manifest in black mobilization (see
McKee, Hood, and Hill, 2012). Figures 3 and 4 display registered turnout in Georgia
according to race and gender in presidential (2004–2016) and midterm (2006–2018)
elections, respectively. Both figures start with the most immediate election (presidential
and midterm) prior to Obama’s 2008 candidacy. Between 2004 and 2008, turnout among
black women and men jumped 4 (percentage) points and concomitantly dropped 3 points
among white women and men. In the two Obama elections of 2008 and 2012, black
women were the most participatory segment of the Peach State electorate. In contrast, their
black male peers were the least participatory of these four groups. Turnout plunged in the
2016 presidential election, as the two most unpopular major party nominees dampened
participation across the board.
Interestingly, in the first Obama midterm of 2010, characterized by the president as a
“shellacking” (a 63 Democratic House seat-loss; Jacobson and Carson, 2016), compared
to 2006, participation increased among all four groups and the rate of increase was higher
among African Americans, with black women increasing their turnout the most: an impres-
sive 10 points (45–55 percent). Participation dropped substantially among all four groups
6Not a single Indiana Democrat voted yes on strict photo ID, whereas every Republican did (Hicks, McKee,
and Smith, 2016:Table A1).

Peach State Residents’ Perceptions of Voting-Related Improprieties 1835
FIGURE 3
Registered Turnout by Race and Gender in Georgia Presidential Elections
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
2004 2008 2012 2016
Registered Turnout (%)
Elecon
Black Women Black Men White Women White Men
NOTES: Data only include active registrants and are the official numbers archived by the Georgia Secretary
of State: http://sos.ga.gov/index.php/Elections/voter_turn_out_by_demographics.
FIGURE 4
Registered Turnout by Race and Gender in Georgia Midterm Elections
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
2006 2010 2014 2018
Registered Turnout (%)
Elecon
Black Women Black Men White Women White Men
NOTES: Data only include active registrants and are the official numbers archived by the Georgia Secretary
of State: http://sos.ga.gov/index.php/Elections/voter_turn_out_by_demographics.
in 2014 and then registered a modern midterm surge in 2018.7Turnout rocketed up to 62
percent for white women and men, while black women were not far behind at 59 percent
and black men again trailed, but nonetheless increased their participation to 47 percent
(from 35 percent in 2014).
7One has to go back to 1912 (50.4 percent) to find a higher national midterm turnout than 2018
(50.1 percent) based on Michael P. McDonald’s voting eligible population (VEP) numbers http://www.
electproject.org/home/voter-turnout/voter-turnout-data.

1836 Social Science Quarterly
FIGURE 5
Voting Eligible Turnout in Georgia Midterm Elections, 2002–2018
35.4% 34.7%
39.8%
38.2%
54.9%
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
2002 2006 2010 2014 2018
VEP Turnout: Highest Office (%)
Midterm Elecon
NOTES: Data show turnout for the highest office (e.g., governor) based on Georgia’s voting-eligible population
(VEP). All data were compiled, computed, and made available at Michael P. McDonald’s U.S. Elections
Project website: http://www.electproject.org/home/voter-turnout/voter-turnout-data.
Overall, based on the VEP, starting with the 2002 midterm, 2018 turnout was easily a
contemporary high, far outpacing all previous years. As displayed in Figure 5, in the first
two midterms of the new millennium (2002 and 2006), VEP turnout in Georgia was in
the mid-30s. In the next two contests (2010 and 2014), Georgia VEP turnout registered in
the high-30s. Then, in 2018, the Peach State’s VEP midterm turnout vaults to the mid-50s
(54.9 percent). In sum, there is a palpable trend of increasing participation in midterm
years when Georgia holds its gubernatorial election.
The Historic 2018 Georgia Gubernatorial Election
We have chronicled turnout patterns in contemporary Georgia elections because this
is the appropriate backdrop in which to assess the dynamics of the 2018 gubernatorial
contest. Indeed, in a closed-door Republican meeting held in the summer of 2018, GOP
gubernatorial nominee Brian Kemp, Georgia’s Secretary of State since 2010, let those in
attendance know that “[t]he Democrats are working hard. There have been these stories
about them . . . registering all these minority voters that are out there . . . If they can
do that, they can win these elections in November” (Joseph, 2018). Kemp’s Democratic
opponent, Stacey Abrams, a former Georgia General Assembly House Minority Leader, cut
her teeth leading minority voter registration drives (the New Georgia Project) dating back
to 2014.8Hence, the Secretary of State, responsible for election administration, sought the
governorship against an opponent highly familiar with and harshly critical of his oversight
of election administration.
Indeed, given Georgia’s history of voter suppression coupled with the controversy sur-
rounding Republican control of election administration in more recent years, it was a
8This information on Stacey Abrams is taken directly from her website: https://staceyabrams.com/meet-
stacey/.

Peach State Residents’ Perceptions of Voting-Related Improprieties 1837
foregone conclusion that the 2018 governor’s race would be historically contentious.9Fur-
ther, the possibility of America’s first black woman winning a gubernatorial election, and
her obvious stark visual contrast with a white male opponent, was an irresistible media
story, and a reflection of the contemporary faces of the Deep South’s major party coalitions.
To be sure, both gubernatorial nominees had policies to push and the partisan divide was
exacerbated by the fact that Kemp was backed by President Trump (including at the GOP
primary stage) while Abrams clearly aligned with the progressive wing of the Democratic
Party.10 Nonetheless, the issue of voting-related improprieties dominated the headlines
because it was obvious that the election would come down to which side was more capable
of mobilizing its supporters.
Specifically, there were at least three voting-related issues that became highly salient and
resonated with voters in the 2018 election: (1) Georgia’s “use it, or lose it” voting law, (2)
the “exact match” legislation passed a year prior to the election, and (3) the vulnerability of
Georgia’s voter registration database. Ironically, the authority to purge inactive voters (after
six years of not voting) from the registration rolls was passed in 1997, when Democrats
had majority control of the General Assembly along with the governorship. Nevertheless,
only more recently, under GOP majorities, has the state been aggressive in enforcing this
so-called use it, or lose it law. An analysis estimates that since 2012, 1.4 million voters have
been removed from Georgia’s registration system and most because of inactivity (Judd,
2018a).
Second, making national news was that over 50,000 Georgians had their registration
eligibility flagged for not complying with the “exact match” law, which means the name
of a registrant must match an official form of identification (e.g., driver’s license, Social
Security number; see Niesse, 2018). What made this news was the fact that minorities were
disproportionately more likely to have their registration out of compliance with this law
(80 percent of the total), with African-American registrants comprising 70 percent of those
failing to pass the exact match standard (Good, 2018). The law was made effective on
July 1, 2017 and, like stricter voter ID, the legislation was passed in remarkably polarized
fashion: in both chambers only one Republican voted against passage (a state senator) and
only three Democrats voted in favor (all state representatives).11
Finally, for the last few years there have been issues regarding the security of Georgia’s
voter registration database. Within the context of the 2018 election, accusations swirled
around the ease with which the system could be hacked and Democratic complaints
that Kemp refused to take any steps to make the system more secure. Days before the
election, Kemp accused Democrats of hacking the system while Democrats, and Abrams
in particular, said Kemp “cooked up the charge . . . and he recognizes that if he got caught
two days before the election having exposed so many Georgians, he would lose” (Associated
Press, 2018; also see Judd, 2018b).
9The 2018 contest will go down in the annals along with the “Three Governors Controversy” of 1946
(Bullock, Buchanan, and Gaddie, 2015) and the 1966 contest in which the Republican won the popular
vote but, falling short of a majority, lost the governorship when the Democratic-controlled Georgia General
Assembly chose the Democrat Lester Maddox (Bullock and Hood, 2015).
10Trump’s endorsement was likely pivotal in Kemp winning the GOP nomination over Lieutenant Governor
Casey Cagle. On her way to winning the Democratic nomination, Abrams defeated former state representative
Stacey Evans, a white woman, which further speaks to the changing locus of political power in the modern
Democratic Party in a Deep South state.
11The voting summary on the legislation (House Bill 268) can be found here: http://www.legis.ga.gov/
legislation/en-US/Display/20172018/HB/268. Among all Republicans voting yea or nay (both Senate and
House), 99 percent voted yes (134 of 135) and among all Democrats voting yea or nay, 95 percent voted no
(61 of 64).

1838 Social Science Quarterly
In sum, the 2018 Georgia gubernatorial election was mainly fought over issues related to
allegations of voting improprieties, with the Democrat Stacey Abrams assuming the mantle
of voter access and leveling accusations of voter suppression, while the Republican Brian
Kemp defended his role of election overseer in defense of ballot integrity amidst possible
incidents of voter fraud. It is within this highly divisive political milieu that we constructed
four questions that captured the leading sentiments of likely Georgia voters regarding their
perceptions of voting-related improprieties in the 2018 gubernatorial election.
Data and Methods
To evaluate opinions toward voting-related concerns and their effects on vote choice
in the 2018 Georgia gubernatorial election, we surveyed over 1,000 (N=1,091) likely
voters in the period leading up to Election Day (October 21–30, 2018).12 Our sample is
representative of the Peach State’s 2018 midterm electorate on the basis of race, gender,
and age (see the Supplementary Appendix for additional details).13
Of primary interest was survey respondents’ answers to the following four questions
(frequency distributions in brackets), which directly tap into perceptions of voting-related
improprieties germane to the campaign rhetoric hanging over the 2018 governor’s contest:
Do you think it is very likely,likely,not very likely,ornot likely at all each of the following
will happen during this year’s midterm election in Georgia?
1. Many votes will actually not be counted (19, 28, 35, 18 percent).
2. Someone will tamper with Georgia’s voting system (18, 28, 38, 15 percent).
3. Many people will show up to vote and be told they are not eligible (20, 32, 35, 13
percent).
4. There will be voter fraud, that is, people who are not eligible will vote (16, 34, 32,
18 percent).
With this four-option ordinal scale, in the analysis that follows, we coded responses
according to our theoretical expectations. Specifically, we coded the responses to reflect our
expectations regarding the partisan divide over each question. Hypothesizing Democrats
exhibit the greatest likelihood of choosing the “very likely” response for the first three
questions, we coded these responses from 0 to 3 with 0 =not likely at all,1=not very
likely,2=likely,and3=very likely. For shorthand, the variable labels for the first three
questions are as follows: (1) “Votes Not Counted,” (2) “Not Eligible,” (3) “Tampering.”
Regarding the fourth question on the issue of voter fraud, we rely on what we know about
the national partisan framing of this issue—that Republicans are more likely to perceive
widespread evidence of electoral fraud (Gronke et al., 2019). To keep the coding consistent
with Democrats more inclined to offer a “very likely” response, the voter fraud variable is
0=very likely,1=likely,2=not very likely,and3=not likely at all. This variable is labeled
“No Fraud,” and like the other three, there are notable partisan splits on this question: 67.2
12The survey was administered by the School of Public and International Affairs Research Center at the
University of Georgia. Our preelection poll surveyed respondents at a time when early voting was underway
and therefore the survey instrument was designed (via a branching question) to capture the opinions of those
who either stated they already voted or that they intended to vote. The entire survey instrument will be made
available upon request. Likely voters were respondents who had voted in the 2018 May primaries and/or the
2016 general election, who indicated they were currently registered to vote in Georgia, and were definitely or
probably going to vote in the 2018 November election.
13The AAPOR response rates were 4.43 percent (RR1) and 4.87 percent (RR3).

Peach State Residents’ Perceptions of Voting-Related Improprieties 1839
percent of Republicans viewed voter fraud as very likely or likely, whereas 66.7 percent of
Democrats considered this malfeasance not very likely or not likely at all.14
In the context of Georgia’s 2018 gubernatorial election, the first two aforementioned
questions, which we labeled “Votes Not Counted” and “Tampering,” are arguably much
more specific to this contest because of Kemp’s capacity as Secretary of State and suspicions
surrounding the possibility of him being less than an honest broker of the election appa-
ratus while seeking the governorship. The question of eligibility (Not Eligible) is perhaps
best contextualized in both national and state perspectives because, nationally, Democrats
advocate for greater voter access, while in Georgia, Secretary Kemp invested considerable
resources in removing inactive voters from the registration rolls. As discussed, voter fraud
(No Fraud) is nationally viewed by Republicans as more than a hypothetical, whereas
Democrats perceive it as a rarity (in other words, very likely no fraud). But within the con-
text of Georgia politics, because of the profiles of the major party nominees, a Republican
Secretary of State and a Democratic political activist (leading voter registration drives),
perceptions of voter fraud may be different for other voter characteristics, principally race
and gender. We expect divisions over voting-related concerns to be significant with respect
to party, race, and gender, since these are cardinal characteristics shaping southern politics
and influencing public opinion.
In the empirical analysis that follows, our objective is first to assess opinions toward these
voting-related issues outlined above. We employ ordered probit regression since each of our
four dependent variables (“Votes Not Counted,” “Tampering,” “Not Eligible,” and “No
Fraud”) are coded 0, 1, 2, 3. Second, we are then interested in seeing what effect, if any,
these perceptions of voting-related concerns had on gubernatorial vote choice. In other
words, in our assessment of vote choice we include what were the dependent variables
in the first analysis as explanatory variables. Thus, we anticipate that opinions toward
possible voting-related improprieties directly influenced one’s vote for governor. Finally,
in estimating both opinions toward voting-related improprieties and vote choice, we have
included one additional model based on an additive index we labeled “VRC Index.” VRC
stands for voting-related concerns. This index sums the responses to the four voting-related
questions and therefore its low value equals 0 (responses coded 0 on all four questions)
and its high value equals 12 (responses coded 3 on all four questions). Hence, scaling the
VRC Index in this fashion allows us to run an OLS regression when this measure serves
as the dependent variable for assessing opinions toward voting-related improprieties. With
regard to evaluating vote choice (1 =vote for Stacey Abrams, 0 =vote for Brian Kemp
or Libertarian candidate Ted Metz), the VRC Index becomes the primary independent
variable of interest (see the Supplementary Appendix for detailed information on variable
coding).
Results
All the models we present in this section include covariates for party affiliation (Democrat,
independent, and Republican as omitted category), race (black, other, and white as omitted
category), gender (female, with male as omitted category), age groups (18–29, 30–44,
14For “Votes Not Counted,” 72.9 percent of Democrats considered this very likely or likely, while 76.9
percent of Republicans found this not very likely or not likely at all. For “Not Eligible,” 79.0 percent of
Democrats considered this very likely or likely while 73.5 percent of Republicans found this not very likely or
notlikelyatall. For “Tampering,” 68.9 percent of Democrats considered this very likely or likely, while 72.2
percent of Republicans found this not very likely or notlikelyatall.

1840 Social Science Quarterly
45–64, with 65 and above as omitted category), ideology (six-point scale: strong liberal
to strong conservative), education (five-point scale: high school or less to graduate study),
income (six-point scale: from under $25,000 to over $150,000), and density (number of
inhabitants per square mile of land area in each Georgia county). The Supplementary
Appendix provides the detailed coding for each of these variables.
Table 1 displays the results for the five models examining perceptions of voting-related
improprieties in the 2018 Georgia gubernatorial election. We will emphasize the effects
of party, race, and gender in these models. As expected, in every instance, compared to
Republicans, Democrats are significantly more likely to perceive a higher incidence of:
votes not being counted, tampering, voters being deemed ineligible; and a lower likelihood
of voter fraud. Not surprisingly, in the last model with the VRC Index as the dependent
variable, compared to Republicans, Democrats register much higher on this index of
voting-related concerns.
Similar to the partisan disparity in opinions regarding voting-related improprieties
(Democrats vs. Republicans), the differences with respect to race and gender comport
with our expectations in every model except for the one gauging perceptions of fraud. In
this case, contrary to the partisan dynamic, whites and males expect there to be a lower inci-
dence of voter fraud vis-`
a-vis blacks and females. This runs counter to the national partisan
framing of the fraud narrative and we suspect the reason for this is directly attributable to
Kemp serving as the Georgia Secretary of State, which prompted African Americans and
women to view fraud as more likely because the Republican gubernatorial candidate was
not to be trusted.
To get a better sense of the relative differences toward opinions on voting-related con-
cerns, in Table 2 we show predicted probabilities according to party affiliation (Democrat
vs. Republican), race (black vs. white), and gender (female vs. male). The probability dif-
ferences among Democrats and Republicans are greatest with respect to the issues of voter
eligibility and fraud, and thus align with the nationally-driven rhetoric regarding these
concerns. Interestingly, in the case of race, the differences are largest for the two issues
that are most immediate to the context of Georgia’s gubernatorial election: the possibility
of not all votes being counted and the possibility of tampering. For both issues, African
Americans are notably more likely to think these voting-related improprieties may have
occurred. Finally, the gender gap on voting-related concerns is markedly smaller than that
for partisan and racial differences, not once nearing double digits.
Turning to vote choice in the gubernatorial election, we present two models in Table 3.
The first model includes what were the dependent variables in the previous analysis as the
key explanatory variables for estimating vote choice. In the second model, the VRC Index
is the primary variable of interest for evaluating vote choice. Starting with the first model,
after controlling for a host of variables related to voter preferences, we find that opinions
toward tampering, voter eligibility, and fraud all significantly and positively influence
the likelihood of voting for the Democrat Stacey Abrams. Stated somewhat differently,
respondents who thought it more likely that tampering occurred and voters were denied
access to the franchise, while also thinking fraud was not a very likely occurrence, were
much more likely to support Abrams.
In the second model, the VRC Index registers a highly significant and positive effect on
the likelihood of voting Democratic in the 2018 Georgia gubernatorial election. That is,
respondents registering higher on this index of voting-related concerns were much more
likely to vote for Abrams. We make this relationship more decipherable in Figure 6, which
plots the probability of casting a vote for Abrams on the y-axis according to the respondent’s
placement on the VRC Index, which is plotted from 0 to 12 on the x-axis. As displayed,

Peach State Residents’ Perceptions of Voting-Related Improprieties 1841
TABLE 1
Factors Influencing Voting-Related Concerns in the 2018 Gubernatorial Election
Is it Ver y Li ke ly that Each of the Following Will Happen During This Year’s Midterm Election in Georgia?
Votes Not Counted Tampering Not Eligible No Fraud VRC Index
Democrat 0.579 (0.151)∗∗∗ 0.437 (0.142)∗∗ 0.835 (0.132)∗∗∗ 0.789 (0.119)∗∗∗ 2.112 (0.295)∗∗∗
Independent 0.200 (0.162) 0.006 (0.108) 0.433 (0.157)∗∗ 0.454 (0.130)∗∗∗ 0.879 (0.286)∗∗
Black 0.635 (0.116)∗∗∗ 0.598 (0.116)∗∗∗ 0.399 (0.101)∗∗∗ −0.290 (0.105)∗∗ 0.977 (0.225)∗∗∗
Other 0.434 (0.186)∗0.538 (0.200)∗∗ 0.318 (0.160)∗−0.302 (0.175) 0.849 (0.333)∗
Female 0.167 (0.070)∗0.255 (0.072)∗∗∗ 0.199 (0.068)∗∗ −0.197 (0.081)∗0.304 (0.116)∗
Ages 18–29 −0.602 (0.221)∗∗ 0.059 (0.157) −0.024 (0.167) −0.023 (0.144) −0.487 (0.272)
Ages 30–44 −0.075 (0.131) −0.034 (0.099) −0.062 (0.131) −0.100 (0.103) −0.810 (0.215)
Ages 45–64 −0.175 (0.065)∗∗ 0.008 (0.078) −0.108 (0.084) 0.108 (0.076) −0.128 (0.105)
Ideology −0.094 (0.038)∗−0.092 (0.036)∗−0.094 (0.037)∗−0.094 (0.052) −0.300 (0.069)∗∗∗
Education −0.055 (0.024)∗−0.040 (0.028) −0.059 (0.025)∗0.055 (0.030) −0.089 (0.048)
Income −0.031 (0.019)∗−0.006 (0.015) −0.022 (0.015) 0.007 (0.019) −0.022 (0.027)
Density 3.68 ×10−6(0.00003) −0.0001 (0.0000)∗∗ −0.00004 (0.00004) 0.00007 (0.00004) −2.76 ×10−6(0.00006)
Constant 6.010 (0.539)∗∗∗
Pseudo R2/R20.109 0.085 0.117 0.067 0.437
N957 961 951 973 880
NOTES: First four models are ordered probit regressions and the last model is an OLS regression. In the probit models the dependent variable is coded: 0 =not likely
at all,1=not very likely,2=likely,3=very likely (reverse-coded for “No Fraud” model). VRC =voting-related concerns, and the dependent variable is an additive
index coded from 0 to 12. Robust SEs are in parentheses and clustered on the county. ∗p<0.05; ∗∗p<0.01; ∗∗∗ p<0.001 (two-tailed).

1842 Social Science Quarterly
TABLE 2
Predicted Probabilities of a Voting-Related Concern Being Very Likely According to Party,
Race, and Gender
Very Likely . . . Votes Not Counted Tampering Not Eligible No Fraud
Democrat 0.226 0.206 0.263 0.259
Republican 0.099 0.110 0.076 0.078
difference 0.127 0.096 0.187 0.181
Black 0.265 0.251 0.226 0.119
White 0.114 0.109 0.136 0.178
difference 0.151 0.142 0.090 −0.059
Female 0.177 0.177 0.185 0.137
Male 0.143 0.124 0.144 0.179
difference 0.034 0.053 0.041 −0.042
NOTES: Predicted probabilities generated using the observed values approach (see Hanmer and Kalkan,
2013). Recall that in the case of “No Fraud,” the predicted probabilities are actually registering the likelihood
that a respondent chooses the option not likely at all with respect to the incidence of voter fraud occurring.
TABLE 3
Influence of Voting-Related Concerns on 2018 Gubernatorial Vote Choice
1=Abrams, 0 =Kemp/Metz 1 =Abrams, 0 =Kemp/Metz
Votes not counted −0.070 (0.156) –
Tampering 0.342 (0.115)∗∗ –
Not eligible 0.333 (0.153)∗–
No fraud 0.469 (0.110)∗∗∗ –
Voting-related concerns
index
– 0.169 (0.061)∗∗
Democrat 3.622 (0.397)∗∗∗ 3.630 (0.389)∗∗∗
Independent 1.475 (0.370)∗∗∗ 1.517 (0.357)∗∗∗
Black 1.919 (0.376)∗∗∗ 1.848 (0.335)∗∗∗
Other 0.981 (0.438)∗0.908 (0.401)∗
Female 0.087 (0.258) 0.046 (0.249)
Ages 18–29 0.361 (0.325) 0.568 (0.360)
Ages 30–44 −0.568 (0.314) −0.479 (0.347)
Ages 45–64 −0.210 (0.255) −0.128 (0.258)
Ideology −0.523 (0.110)∗∗∗ −0.540 (0.101)∗∗∗
Education 0.155 (0.077)∗0.167 (0.081)∗
Income 0.051 (0.068) 0.071 (0.066)
Density 0.0001 (0.0001) 0.0001 (0.0001)
Constant −2.240 (0.743)∗∗ −1.688 (0.712)∗
Pseudo R20.889 0.885
N852 852
NOTES: Models are probit regressions and the dependent variable is coded 1 =vote for Abrams and 0 =
vote for Kemp/Metz. The voting-related concerns index is an additive index coded from 0 to 12. Robust
SEs are in parentheses and clustered on the county. ∗p<0.05; ∗∗p<0.01; ∗∗∗ p<0.001 (two-tailed).
after controlling for all of the other covariates in the second model in Table 3 (based on
the observed values approach, see Hanmer and Kalkan, 2013), the probability of voting
for Abrams based on the VRC Index ranges from a low of 0.38 (at 0 on the index) to a
high of 0.52 (at 12 on the index).

Peach State Residents’ Perceptions of Voting-Related Improprieties 1843
FIGURE 6
Voting-Related Concerns and the 2018 Georgia Gubernatorial Vote
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Probability of Vong for Abrams (D)
Vong-Related Concerns Index
NOTES: Predicted probabilities were derived from the second model in Table 3 and computed using the
observed values approach (Hanmer and Kalkan, 2013). Dotted lines are the upper and lower bounds at
the 95 percent confidence level.
Conclusion
In this study, we have surveyed the political history of a rapidly changing southern state
whose latest transformations auger a tilt back in favor of the Democratic Party (Bullock,
2017). We contend that current demographic trends and a fairly recent (since 2008) but
sustainable increase in minority mobilization has prompted Georgia’s Republican majority
to increasingly turn to election administration as one possible means to counter Demo-
cratic advances. Georgia’s shift toward the Democratic Party and the GOP’s response to this
development produced a historic gubernatorial election in 2018, which heavily centered
on allegations of voting-related improprieties. Importantly, this controversy was framed
by the national parties’ competing narratives of “protecting ballot integrity” (Republicans’
position) versus “increasing voter access” (Democrats’ stance).15 Framed in this way, our
empirical analysis shows that (likely) voters polarized in their perceptions of voting-related
improprieties in alignment with their partisan proclivities and their views on this issue
directly influenced their preferences for governor. In the immediate context of the 2018
Georgia gubernatorial election, the relationship between the issue of voting-related impro-
prieties and vote choice was enhanced by the fact that the Republican candidate refused
to recuse himself as the sitting Secretary of State (with authority over Georgia’s election
administration), while his Democratic opponent had risen to prominence through her
success in mobilizing minority registration.
15A question on the 2018 Georgia gubernatorial election exit poll (N=2,943) nicely captures the partisan
split over potential voting-related improprieties. It asks, “Which concerns you more? Some people will”: (1)
Cast illegitimate votes (42 percent chose this option) or (2) Be prevented from voting (51 percent chose this
option). The vote went 82 to 16 percent in favor of the Republican Kemp for respondents choosing the first
option, a proxy for ensuring ballot integrity. In contrast, the vote cleaved 76 to 22 for the Democrat Abrams
among respondents selecting the second option, which relates to voter access. All of the results of the exit poll
can be found at: https://www.cnn.com/election/2018/exit-polls/georgia.

1844 Social Science Quarterly
The nation’s first African-American president galvanized Georgia’s black electorate in
2008 (McKee, Hood, and Hill, 2012), and since then the Peach State has remained elec-
torally competitive even though Obama and his respective GOP opponents treated Geor-
gia as a “blackout”/“base” Republican state (Gimpel, Kaufmann, and Pearson-Merkowitz,
2007; Shaw, 2006) in 2008 and 2012 (also the case in 2016). A decade hence, midterm
turnout reached modern highs and a charismatic Democratic African-American woman
came within a whisker of taking the 2018 gubernatorial contest to a runoff. In the
process, Abrams’s candidacy captured the attention of Oprah Winfrey and yes, Barack
Obama, who campaigned on her behalf because it appeared that a Democratic victory
was finally possible. Stacey Abrams may have come up short, but Democratic gains ma-
terialized down Georgia’s ballot in U.S. House and state legislative elections. Relatively
recent demographically-driven political developments have increasingly distanced Georgia
from its more Republican Deep South neighbors. As a consequence, one can antici-
pate that for the first time since 1996, the Peach State will be a vigorously contested
prize in the 2020 presidential election and it will also likely feature a contentious and
competitive U.S. Senate race. Beyond 2020, ongoing compositional changes to Georgia’s
electorate are expected to be countered with increasing concern on the part of the extant
GOP majority because this development is clearly providing a path for a Democratic
comeback.
REFERENCES
Associated Press. 2018. “Security Experts Say Georgia’s Voter Database Vulnerable to Hackers.” Avail-
able at https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/security-experts-say-georgia-s-voter-database-vulnerable-
hackers-n931266.
Barreto, Matt A., Stephen Nu ˜
no, Gabriel R. Sanchez, and Hannah L. Walker. 2018. “The Racial Implications
of Voter Identification Laws in America.” American Politics Research. Available at https://journals-sagepub-
com.lib-e2.lib.ttu.edu/doi/full/10.1177/1532673X18810012.
Black, Earl, and Merle Black. 2002. The Rise of Southern Republicans. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Buchanan, Scott E. 1997. “The Effects of the Abolition of the Georgia County-Unit System on the 1962
Gubernatorial Election.” Politics & Policy 25(4):687–704.
Bullock, Charles S. III. 2010. Redistricting: The Most Political Activity in America. Lanham, MD: Rowman &
Littlefield.
———. 2017. “Georgia: Republicans Still Dominate.” In Charles S. Bullock III and Mark J. Rozell, eds.,
The New Politics of the Old South. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Bullock, Charles S. III, Scott E. Buchanan, and Ronald Keith Gaddie. 2015. The Three Governors Controversy:
Skullduggery, Machinations, and the Decline of Georgia’s Progressive Politics. Athens: University of Georgia Press.
Bullock, Charles S. III, and Ronald Keith Gaddie. 2009. The Triumph of Voting Rights in the South. Norman,
OK: University of Oklahoma Press.
———. 2013. Georgia Politics in a State of Change.NewYork:Pearson.
Bullock, Charles S. III, and M. V. Hood III. 2015. “The Damnedest Mess: An Empirical Evaluation of the
1966 Georgia Gubernatorial Election.” Social Science Quarterly 96(1):104–18.
Burnham, Walter Dean. 2010. Voting in American Elections: The Shaping of the American Universe Since 1788.
Bethesda, MD: Academica Press.
Carmines, Edward G., and James A. Stimson. 1989. Issue Evolution: Race and the Transformation of American
Politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Cox, Gary W., and Jonathan N. Katz. 2002. Elbridge Gerry’s Salamander: The Electoral Consequences of the
Reapportionment Revolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Peach State Residents’ Perceptions of Voting-Related Improprieties 1845
David, Paul T. 1972. Party Strength in the United States: 1872–1970. Charlottesville, VA: University Press of
Virginia.
Davidson, Chandler, and Bernard Grofman, eds. 1994. Quiet Revolution in the South: The Impact of the Voting
Rights Act, 1965–1990. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Engstrom, Erik J. 2013. Partisan Gerrymandering and the Construction of American Democracy. Ann Arbor:
University of Michigan Press.
Fenno, Richard F. Jr. 2000. Congress at the Grassroots: Representational Change in the South, 1970–1998. Chapel
Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.
Foner, Eric. 1988. Reconstruction: America’s Unfinished Revolution, 1863–1877.NewYork:Harper&Row.
Gaddie, Ronald Keith, and Charles S. Bullock III. 2006. “From Ashcroft to Larios: Recent Redistricting
Lessons from Georgia.” Fordham Urban Law Journal 34(3):997–1048.
Gimpel, James G., Karen M. Kaufmann, and Shanna Pearson-Merkowitz. 2007. “Battleground Versus Blackout
States: The Behavioral Implications of Modern Presidential Campaigns.” Journal of Politics 69(3):786–97.
Good, Courtney. 2018. “53,000 Stalled Votes in Georgia’s Governor Election: Stacey Abrams vs. Brian Kemp.”
College Media Network November. Available at https://www.collegemedianetwork.com/53000-stalled-votes-
in-georgias-governor-election-stacey-abrams-vs-brian-kemp/.
Grimmer, Justin, Eitan Hersh, Marc Meredith, Jonathan Mummolo, and Clayton Nall. 2018. “Obstacles to
Estimating Voter ID Laws’ Effect on Turnout.” Journal of Politics 80(3):1045–51.
Gronke, Paul, William D. Hicks, Seth C. McKee, Charles Stewart III, and James Dunham. 2018. “Voter ID
Laws: A View from the Public.” Social Science Quarterly 100(1):215–32.
Hajnal, Zoltan, John Kuk, and Nazita Lagevardi. 2018. “We All Agree: Strict Voter ID Laws Disproportionately
Burden Minorities.” Journal of Politics 80(3):1052–59.
Hanmer, Michael J., and Kerem Ozan Kalkan. 2013. “Behind the Curve: Clarifying the Best Approach to
Calculating Predicted Probabilities and Marginal Effects from Limited Dependent Variable Models.” American
Journal of Political Science 57(1):263–77.
Hasen, Richard L. 2012. The Voting Wars: From Florida 2000 to the Next Election Meltdown. New Haven, CT:
Yale University Press.
Hayes, Danny, and Seth C. McKee. 2004. “Booting Barnes: Explaining the Historic Upset in the 2002 Georgia
Gubernatorial Election.” Politics & Policy 32(4):708–39.
Hicks, William D., Seth C. McKee, Mitchell D. Sellers, and Daniel A. Smith. 2015. “A Principle or a Strategy:
Voter Identification Laws and Partisan Competition in the American States.” Political Research Quarterly
68(1):18–33.
Hicks, William D., Seth C. McKee, and Daniel A. Smith. 2016. “The Determinants of State Legislator Support
for Restrictive Voter ID Laws.” State Politics and Policy Quarterly 16(4):411–31.
Highton, Bejamin, and Raymond E. Wolfinger. 1998. “Estimating the Effects of the National Voter Registra-
tion Act of 1993.” Political Behavior 20(2):79–104.
Hood, M. V. III, Quentin Kidd, and Irwin L. Morris. 2012. The Rational Southerner: Black Mobilization,
Republican Growth, and the Partisan Transformation of the American South. New York: Oxford University Press.
Hood, M. V. III, and Seth C. McKee. 2009. “Trying to Thread the Needle: The Effects of Redistricting in a
Georgia Congressional District.” Political Science and Politics 42(4):679–87.
Huang, Taofang, and Daron Shaw. 2009. “Beyond the Battlegrounds? Electoral College Strategies in the 2008
Presidential Election.” Journal of Political Marketing 8(4):272–91.
Huffmon, Scott H., H. Gibbs Knotts, and Seth C. McKee. 2017–2018. “Down with the Southern Cross:
Opinions on the Confederate Battle Flag in South Carolina.” Political Science Quarterly 132(4):719–41.
Hutchings, Vincent L., Haynes Walton Jr., and Andrea Benjamin. 2010. “The Impact of Explicit Racial
Cues on Gender Differences in Support for Confederate Symbols and Partisanship.” Journal of Politics 72(4):
1175–88.
Jacobson, Gary C., and Jamie L. Carson. 2016. The Politics of Congressional Elections. Lanham, MD: Rowman
& Littlefield.

1846 Social Science Quarterly
Joseph, Cameron. 2018. “Georgia Governor’s Race Is Epic Showdown Over Voting Rights.” Talking Points
Memo October. Available at https://talkingpointsmemo.com/feature/abrams-kemp-bring-long-running-war-
over-voting-rights-to-georgia-governors-race.
Judd, Alan. 2018a. “Georgia’s Strict Laws Lead to Large Purge of Voters.” Atlanta Journal-Constitution Octo-
ber. Available at https://www.ajc.com/news/state-regional-govt-politics/voter-purge-begs-question-what-the-
matter-with-georgia/YAFvuk3Bu95kJIMaDiDFqJ/.
———. 2018b. “How Brian Kemp Turned Warning of Election System Vulnerability Against Democratics.”
Atlanta Journal-Constitution December 14. Available at https://www.myajc.com/news/state-regional-govt-
politics/how-brian-kemp-turned-warning-election-system-vulnerability-against-democrats/iLOkpHK3ea39t
8Eh4PCGxM/.
Key, V. O. Jr. 1949. Southern Politics in State and Nation.NewYork:AlfredA.Knopf.
Keyssar, Alexander. 2009. The Right to Vote: The Contested History of Democracy in the United States.NewYork:
Basic Books.
Kousser, J. Morgan. 1974. The Shaping of Southern Politics: Suffrage Restriction and the Establishment of the
One-Party South, 1880–1910. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Lamis, Alexander P. 1988. The Two-Party South. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Levitt, Justin. 2012. “Election Deform: The Pursuit of Unwarranted Electoral Regulation.” Election Law
Journal: Rules, Politics, and Policy 11(1):97–117.
McGann, Anthony J., Charles Anthony Smith, Michael Latner, and Alex Keena. 2016. Gerrymandering in
America: The House of Representatives, the Supreme Court, and the Future of Popular Sovereignty.NewYork:
Cambridge University Press.
McKee, Seth C. 2010. Republican Ascendancy in Southern U.S. House Elections.NewYork:Routledge.
———. 2015. “Politics Is Local: State Legislator Voting on Restrictive Voter Identification Legislation.”
Research & Politics 2(3):1–7.
———. 2017. “Race and Subregional Persistence in a Changing South.” Southern Cultures 23(2):134–59.
———. 2018. “Sorting Dixie: The Changing Profile of Southern Presidential Primary Electorates.” In Robert
G. Boatright, ed., The Routledge Handbook of Primary Elections.NewYork:Routledge.
———. 2019. The Dynamics of Southern Politics: Causes and Consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: CQ Press.
McKee, Seth C., M. V. Hood III, and David Hill. 2012. “Achieving Validation: Barack Obama and Black
Turnout in 2008.” State Politics and Policy Quarterly 12(1):3–22.
McKee, Seth C., and Daron R. Shaw. 2005. “Redistrictingin Texas: Institutionalizing Republican Ascendancy.”
In Peter F. Galderisi, ed., Redistricting in the New Millennium. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
McKee, Seth C., and Melanie J. Springer. 2015. “A Tale of ‘Two Souths’: White Voting Behavior in Contem-
porary Southern Elections.” Social Science Quarterly 96(2):588–607.
McKee, Seth C., and JeremyM. Teigen. 2016. “The New Blue: Northern In-Migration in Southern Presidential
Elections.” Political Science and Politics 49(2):228–33.
Niesse, Mark. 2018. “Kemp Defends Georgia’s ‘Exact Match’ Voter Registration Law.” Atlanta Journal-
Constitution August. Available at https://www.ajc.com/news/state-regional-govt-politics/kemp-defends-
georgia-exact-match-voter-registration-law/tuzifo37vnhJQn5ja0oUYI/.
Phillips, Kevin P. 1969. The Emerging Republican Majority. New Rochelle, NY: Arlington House.
Rosenstone, Steven J., and John Mark Hansen. 1993. Mobilization, Participation, and Democracy in America.
New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.
Russ, William A. Jr. 1935. “Radical Disfranchisement in Georgia, 1867–71.” Georgia Historical Quarterly
19(3):175–209.
Shafer, Byron E. 2016. The American Political Pattern: Stability and Change, 1932–2016. Lawrence, KS:
University Press of Kansas.
Shaw, Daron R. 2006. The Race to 270: The Electoral College and the Campaign Strategies of 2000 and 2004.
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Peach State Residents’ Perceptions of Voting-Related Improprieties 1847
Timpone, Richard J. 1995. “Mass Mobilization or Government Intervention? The Growth of Black Registra-
tion in the South.” Journal of Politics 57(2):425–42.
Valentino, Nicholas A., and David O. Sears. 2005. “Old Times There Are Not Forgotten: Race and Partisan
Realignment in the Contemporary South.” American Journal of Political Science 49(3):672–88.
von Spakovsky, Hans A. 2012. “Protecting the Integrity of the Election Process.” Election Law Journal: Rules,
Politics, and Policy 11(1):90–96.
Woodward, C. Vann. 2002. The Strange Career of Jim Crow. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Supporting Information
Additional supporting information may be found online in the Supporting Information
section at the end of the article.