The recent closure of two prominent Georgia voter turnout groups founded by Stacey Abrams marks a pivotal moment, raising significant questions about the sustainability of Democratic organizing in a state that has seen both historic breakthroughs and persistent Republican dominance.
The political landscape of Georgia has long been a battleground, particularly with its historical leanings. In the 2004 United States presidential election, Georgia solidified its reputation as a “red state,” with incumbent President George W. Bush winning by a significant 16.60% margin of victory. This outcome was consistent with other Deep South states, characterized by strong racial polarization in voting patterns, where white voters largely favored Republicans and African American voters predominantly supported Democrats. Bush’s victory marked the third consecutive Republican win in Georgia, a stark contrast to earlier eras, and he became the first Republican presidential candidate to win the state twice in a row, a feat later matched by Donald Trump (albeit non-consecutively).
However, the early 21st century began to see shifts, particularly in the rapidly growing metro Atlanta area. While Bush managed to win metro Atlanta counties like Douglas, Rockdale, and Newton in 2004, these areas would later transform into Democratic strongholds. This evolving demographic tapestry laid the groundwork for a new political strategy, championed by figures like Stacey Abrams, to challenge the long-standing Republican dominance.
The Rise and Fall of Abrams’ Voter Organizing Model
In 2013, Stacey Abrams founded the New Georgia Project, a nonpartisan organization dedicated to registering and turning out nonwhite and young voters. Along with its affiliated New Georgia Project Action Fund, these groups became a significant political force, operating on Abrams’ belief that engaging less-involved progressive voters was the true path to power for Democrats in the Deep South. Organizers, often seen in distinctive t-shirts, focused their efforts on inner-city Atlanta and rural Georgia towns, targeting areas historically known for low voter turnout.
This strategy gained national attention in 2018 when Abrams narrowly lost the governor’s race to Republican Brian Kemp. The momentum continued into 2020, as Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden won Georgia’s presidential vote, marking a historic turning point. This was followed by a burst of enthusiasm that saw Democrats Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock win their U.S. Senate seats in a January 2021 runoff, shifting control of the upper chamber to the Democratic Party. The New Georgia Project claimed to have knocked on 4 million doors in 2020 alone, highlighting their extensive outreach efforts, as reported by the Associated Press.
Despite these successes, the long-term sustainability of Abrams’ model faced challenges. In her 2022 rematch against Brian Kemp, Abrams lost by a larger margin than in 2018, even though she out-fundraised Kemp and voter groups were actively engaged. While Senator Warnock secured his re-election in a runoff that year, partly by projecting a more moderate image, the 2024 election saw a step back for Democrats in the state. Though Vice President Kamala Harris garnered more Democratic votes than Biden had, Republican turnout for Donald Trump increased by 200,000, powering him to victory.
Headwinds and Closure
Beyond electoral setbacks, the New Georgia Project also encountered significant internal and external difficulties. The groups faced questions regarding leadership and spending, which contributed to a slowdown in donations. In January, the Georgia Ethics Commission levied a record-breaking $300,000 fine against the groups. The commission found that they engaged in illegal election work and fundraising for Abrams in 2018 by failing to register as an independent campaign committee and neglecting to file required campaign finance reports. This information was detailed in a report by the Associated Press. Stephanie Jackson Ali, a former policy director for the organization, described the struggle for funding as “heartbreaking,” noting that the large operational apparatus could not be sustained once funding dwindled.
The fine was followed by multiple rounds of layoffs, some of which employees claimed were targeted for unionization efforts. Ultimately, the New Georgia Project and the New Georgia Project Action Fund announced their closure. Rev. James Woodall, who chaired the board of the New Georgia Project Action Fund, stated, “We recognize that the work of building a just and truthful world remains urgent. This moment calls for strong and courageous leaders to step forward, guided by principles and purpose.”
Implications for Georgia’s Future Political Landscape
The closure of these influential groups raises critical questions about the future of Democratic organizing in Georgia. Their departure leaves a significant void in voter registration and mobilization efforts, particularly among the nonwhite and young voter demographics they actively cultivated. This comes at a crucial time, with Democratic Senator Jon Ossoff seeking re-election in 2026, and Democrats still aiming to win a governor’s race in Georgia for the first time since 1998.
The impact of this void could be substantial. The state recently saw record-breaking turnout in the 2024 election cycle, which was applauded by bipartisan groups like the Democracy Defense Project. Such high engagement levels underscore the importance of robust voter outreach, a role that Abrams’ organizations had largely filled. Without these groups, Democrats will need to find new strategies and resources to maintain and expand their voter base to compete effectively in upcoming elections.
The unfolding situation in Georgia highlights the complex and often precarious nature of grassroots political organizing. While Stacey Abrams’ vision undeniably altered the state’s political trajectory, the challenges faced by her organizations serve as a potent reminder of the financial, legal, and operational hurdles that advocacy groups must navigate to sustain long-term political impact.
