In the 21st century, a global, often subtle and piecemeal retreat from the principle of universal suffrage has been taking place. This article examines the constitutional and legislative techniques through which (nominally) democratic states restrict or deprive certain citizens of the right to vote and/or stand for election. The main techniques include: expanding grounds for disenfranchisement (criminal convictions, especially corruption, terrorism, organized crime, and “moral” offenses); introducing competency-based voting or candidacy tests (knowledge of the constitution, language proficiency, “economic citizenship”); disqualifications linked to unpaid taxes or public debt; restrictions targeting dual citizens; group-based exclusions (e.g., residents of overseas territories, internal migrants, homeless persons); de facto disenfranchisement through increasingly burdensome water registration and identification procedures; new forms of political censorship and candidacy ban justified as “protection of democracy” (the so-called “militant democracy 2.0”). The author argues that, while the scale of these measures remains limited compared to the19th century property or gender-based suffrage restrictions, there is a clear return to the logic of “common-sense” limitation of democracy by political and judicial elites. This process is typically framed as “defending democracy against its enemies”, allowing regression to be legitimized and the language of progress and security justifies it. The article draws on a comparative analysis of legislative changes and case law in over 30 countries between 2000 and 2025, with particular attention to Europe, Latin America, the United States, India, and selected states of Africa and Southeast Asia. The selection of over 30 countries was made using a comparative case study methodology, prioritizing states that represent diverse legal traditions and varying degrees of democratic backsliding to illustrate the global reach of these restrictive techniques.