Conservatives are outraged by the uniformly negative response to Georgia's new voting law. There are, they say, some good things about the law too.
Fair enough. So I went through and tallied up the major good and bad aspects of the law. The bad things are taken from liberal complaints. The good things are taken directly from what conservatives say. Here's the summary:
The most serious problems with the bill are the three bolded red items at the top. As near as I can tell, conservatives don't even bother to say anything about those aside from a pro forma complaint that Fulton County (home of Atlanta) is totally incompetent and deserves to be taken over anyway.
The others are mostly defended as legitimate ways to increase the security of voting, though without any real attempt to demonstrate that there have been any security problems in the first place.
On the good side of things, it's nice to have an extra Saturday of voting and to make an attempt to do something about long voting lines. Codifying early voting hours is an entirely different thing, however: it probably has no effect on urban centers, which already have longer hours, but it does keep polls open longer in rural areas. I assume we all know that rural areas are generally more heavily Republican, don't we?
Long story short, conservatives protest way too much. Even restricting myself to major provisions of the bill, the score is 11-2 in favor of items that make it harder to vote—especially for Democrats. For the most part, I have a feeling that Georgia Republicans will fail in their attempt to suppress the Democratic vote, partly because they've chosen to target things like absentee ballots, which don't really seem to favor Democrats in the first place, and partly because the other provisions won't have more than a small effect. Nevertheless, the intent to restrict voting is plain as day, and there are only a couple of token provisions that expand voting rights. It's disgraceful, and Republicans have no call to complain that major corporations in Georgia, who don't want to be viewed as accessories to partisan voter suppression that impacts Black voters more than white voters, are publicly complaining about it. What else could they expect?
POSTSCRIPT: I've deliberately omitted lots of minor provisions in the bill. However, if I've missed any major provisions on either side let me know and I'll add them.
UPDATE: I've been convinced that the ban on allowing provisional ballots if you show up at the wrong precinct is probably a fairly major problem. It's been added to the table.
Can't distribute water to voters in line? How about beer? Or lemonade?
I'm still trying to figure out what the compelling state interest is in denying voters food and water.
Other states (and Georgia, too) have prohibitions on party representatives handing out freebies to people standing in line to vote, for obvious reasons. Georgia decided to crank that up to 11.
Brian Kemp is a small man, but I don't know if he qualifies as a druid (as seen in Spinal Tap).
A form of campaigning at the polling place.
No it doesn't PROHIBIT distribution of water. It allows for ONLY election officials to do it and only within 15 feet of the door(?).
Third parties can have water AVAILABLE but at a certain distance from the line.
The Georgia GQP KNEW this was going to be a PR nightmare so they cushioned it as much as they could
Only poll workers can give water to those in line and NOBODY can do it within 150 feet of the polling place
Sorry, mis read another site
I would observe that the putative benefits Kevin’s identified are completely dependent on the good will of the Republican administrators of this law. The points Kevin’s highlighted in red make it clear that those benefits will not under any circumstances accrue to the people of Fulton County. This law reminds me of the constitution of the former USSR which contained some really liberal language about procedural rights but somehow never sidetracked the most transparent show trials or violations of basic human rights.
Yes.
The takeover provision for underperforming precincts is straight from Gov. Rick Snyder's city manager line of bullshit.
The Republican party is hell bent on the idea of suppressing the vote. They have a hard time winning otherwise; a despicable party consisting of looneys, bigots, and hate. The ugliness of the party is apparent by this abhorrent party in most every state. To say I despise that party is putting it mildly. I long for their demise.
Surprised the Peach State GQP hasn't installed Roger Stone to oversee elections.
are you referring to the felon roger stone?
Amazing they've managed to get liberals on the defensive with their bad faith claims about supposed good aspects of the law. Now we have pieces like this one and a thousand others in which some liberal meticulously weighs the pluses and minuses and proclaims yep on balance it's a bad law while the public yawns.
Just keep hammering on the water-in-the-lines bit. That's all people understand and it's unambiguously evil.
I find this cataloging useful. It is helpful to know that while there are a few, arguably, good provisions and talking points, that there are many more things to object to. In a conversation I might have with a conservative and reasonable friend, being able to engage with more than outrage about water would be a bit more effective I think. Thanks, Kevin.
I just prefer saying: limiting the vote is limiting Liberty!
I have found that simple statements of this nature tend to cut off friendly conversation.
For example, I don’t believe completely unlimited voting availability is appropriate. And while that may not be the intended meaning of your statement, it could easily be interpreted to mean that certain limits that one person would find appropriate would not be acceptable to another, and that discussion about where the boundary is are not welcome.
So, what do you intend to mean with that statement? Do you have an interest in a discussion about the subject, or not?
I do have interest in this discussion.
Whenever the government moves to limit freedom, in this case voting which I see as form of political speech, the very foundations of all our freedoms and rights come under attack. Placing limits on that speech squelches the only way to express the electorates will. Do I understand that you suggest that there may be need to draw some boundaries by age or sex or religion or race or caste or ability or education or current bank account status?
Of course I don't think that. But I put it to you, almost any limit to a person's vote is arbitrary and not democratic.
Thanks for your kind response.
There is much agreement. But, you mention “almost”. I find “almost” to soften the sense of “limiting the vote is limiting Liberty”. Again, my interpretation of your words.
I do not suggest restrictions based on “sex or religion or race or caste or ability or education or current bank account status”. Most definitely not. Or based on political affiliation!
I am open to discussion about restriction of those too young, and of those who suffer from certain cognitive issues. Note my use of “discussion”. I am not willing to dictate, but I do believe there are lines to be drawn.
I also believe citizens of other countries should be barred from US voting. I am aware there are gray areas in this. And that is where discussion comes in. But it also demonstrated that some limit on liberty are needed. Are you advocating that this type of limit on speech during an election is abhorrent?
I am very glad to have a discussion. I hope the limitations of my written expression do not cause offense and convey my meaning clearly.
Good to hear your thoughts.
The limits I'm worried about are exactly what the Georgia Legislature are enacting: arbitrary limits to when and how a vote is cast. I'm not even saying that the state of affairs prior to their new legislation was desirable. What I'm saying is that removing opportunities from the electorate is undemocratic. Adding opportunities is democratic. I'm not in favor of a resident of Atlanta having a say in the operation of Savannah's school district, and so some obvious and common sense limits are necessary.
But to require a certain type of ID, for example, to vote is IMO exactly like a literacy test or even poll tax. If a citizen has registered and presents themselves to vote, that should be enough. Problems like ability to read, blindness, mobility, access etc have been overcome in order for these persons to make their voices heard, why should more obstacles be placed in their path?
Obstacles should be removed. And when they are needlessly placed, something nefarious is occurring. Fraud in elections had been minimal to insignificant and therefore isn't a valid reason IMO.
Besides, participation in our democracy has always been lackluster, I wonder why?
They deny Democrat urban voters water, but shall those same voters be otherwise able to water the tree of liberty?
Their water is forfeit to the Harkonnen, the spice must flow.
https://www.gpb.org/news/2021/03/27/what-does-georgias-new-voting-law-sb-202-do
Thanks. Reading through there appears that there are many expansions to voting and this is good (the inverse of my statement is expanding the vote is expanding Liberty), but if there are any - any - limits that are the outcome of this law it is bad law. As elsewhere I've mentioned there should common sense limits such as the citizen of Atlanta voting on Atlantean things out Georgian questions and not Sacramentonites. But if one is registered, the State has already determined your eligibility and identity, why do it over and over and with a arbitrary methods? Why? Because ultimately, a minority position that is inherently biased feels the need to disadvantage a majority that it is biased against.
"If one is registered the State has already determined your eligibility."
Sure, but the point of an ID requirement is to ensure that the person that shows up to vote is the same person as the one the State validated.
Is this a big deal? Probably not. All the evidence shows that in person voting fraud is irrelevant.
Third party ballot collection and voting machine hacking seem to be the most effective ways to cheat.
And those other ways of cheating appear, at least as reported publicly, to be insignificant (result changing) sources of cheating as well.
So with cheating is not a "thing" established, what is this bill for?
You missed the limitations on runoff election timing and how that will impact early voting in them. Given the runoffs are how we got 2 dem GA senators and a dem senate that is a very important oversight.
This. And also the provision allowing the Legislature's handpicked political hacks to take over a county board whenever they feel like it means that they can change the rules anywhere at any time, eg, in the "urban centers, which already have longer hours."
Any Republican argument for any provisions of this bill must be assumed to be in bad faith, and to engage with any such argument is a fool's errand.
"Any Republican argument for any provisions of this bill must be assumed to be in bad faith..."
Yes, but we can take it farther. Any argument by a politician of any party must be assumed to be in bad faith.
Midgard has a burner for his burner?
(This assumes Midgard is just Shooter2242.)
Uhhh, no.
When I hear Abrams, and other Democrats, say that this bill constrains voting opportunities, particularly those for Blacks and urban voters, I see that it conforms to the observable facts, and I conclude that their arguments at least conform to a presumption of good faith. And conversely, when I hear Kemp, and other Republicans, say the opposite, which is at variance with the observable facts, I conclude that their arguments do not conform to a presumption of good faith, or equivalently, that they are acting in bad faith.
Both sides, it turns out, do NOT do it. Republicans are lying. Democrats are not.
Is this comment why Meet the Press didn't have a panel today?
Did Peggy Noonan, Rich Lowery, Van Jones, Kacie Hunt, & Alex Castellanos all have a simultaneous aneurysm knowing these thought are in the ether?
You missed the provision that limits early voting to M-F for the run off election, which is designed to exclude "Souls To The Polls" post-Sunday church GOTV efforts that brought mostly Black voters to the polls.
"Souls To The Polls" solved several problems associated with bringing out the Black vote:
1. It solved the problem of transporting people to geographically inconvenient poll locations, over twenty miles away for some Black communities.
2. It solved the problem of voter intimidation, where Black voters would not feel safe going alone into predominantly white neighborhoods in order to vote.
Since Georgia elections require an outright majority, every major office will likely be determined by a runoff election, which now excludes Sunday voting.
This is the comment I came to make.
Isn't there also a provision raising the bar for courts to extend polling hours on Election Day in response to lines/malfunctions, etc?
I believe that's correct.
In principle, getting elected officials out of election administration is a good thing. However, there need to be safeguards to ensure that the chief electoral officer, whatever title is chosen, is completely non-partisan, and the Georgia statute does not appear to accomplish that. Taking the power away from the partisan Secretary of State and giving it to another dedicated party member does not improve things one bit.
I'm trying to figure out how or why having a partisan Republican elected official chairing the Election Board is better than having a non-partisan chair of the board -- an individual who essentially couldn't have participated in any partisan efforts for at least two years prior to their selectrion.
I remember a couple of years ago how offended Dems were that the Republican Secretary of State was running for Governor. And yet, we now are jumping all over ourselves, insisting that that individual/position should retain the chairmanship of the election board.
Because that was a clear conflict of interest.
But this does not, in fact, make for a non-partisan.
If you think the controlling party will select an actual non-partisan to chair the board of elections, I’ve got a lovely parcel to sell you. Come look before the drought ends ...
Anyway, I think removing the SoS from the board was about offering Raffensberger’s head on a pike to DJT, and little more.
What’s the difference between a partisan SoS and whoever the Republican Legislature selects? Particularly since that person will have been at least two years removed from any partisan efforts.
Also, removed from the direct judgment of the voters. Every state I’ve lived in, voting and elections were the main job of the SoS, and what they were judged on come election time. I don’t think state legislators will be too worried that they’ll be turfed out for voting in a hack at the Board of Elections.
While absentee ballots before 2020 tended to favor Republicans, ID requirements tend to favor Republicans also. So requiring (further) ID for absentee ballots is likely to disqualify a larger proportion of Democratic than of Republican voters. Which is exactly what the GOP legislators intend. The other absentee changes — mailing out ballots only when requested, limiting drop offs and assistance — won’t discourage those industrious Republicans from jumping through all the hoops but will cause us lazy, shiftless Democrats to just give up.
Also, what does the ID requirement do here? How does it identify anyone? Wouldn't any falsified registration/vote already have an ID number anyhow?
In reply to painedumonde,
There was no “reply” button, so I started a new thread.
Again, we largely agree. The law under discussion does look to me like an attempt to make it harder for certain people to vote, rather than the ~”common sense improvements that apply to everyone” talking point I’ve heard. It seems to me more like fixing things that were not broken.
Thanks for taking the time to provide a more complete summary of your thoughts. I appreciate it.
Now one "good" thing you missed--it actually allows drop boxes. Granted that was done in a way to limit their usefulness, but they are now codified.
What about the provision that, in CNN's words, "will allow any Georgian to lodge an unlimited number of challenges to voter registrations and eligibility"? Is that major or minor?
Nate Silver:
" The claim that e.g. "political science research shows that voting restrictions don't greatly affect turnout" shouldn't be treated as settled science IMO. My own research shows restrictions do hurt turnout. I know other studies disagree. But there's room for more study on this."
Jim Crow restrictions - combined with physical intimidation - certainly worked to suppress the black vote in the South up to the Voting Rights Act. It's just a question of how far the restrictions are allowed to go.
I'm interested in the ID requirement for absentee voting -- what exactly is it?
Are you required to produce a photocopy of a picture ID, which for most people would require getting somewhere with a photocopier before they can vote? And remember, people who vote absentee generally do so because they, um, have trouble getting places.
Or is it just filling out whatever identifying code is on your picture ID, which for me would be thirteen characters that I almost never have to refer to otherwise, opening up a high possibility for error? And if it's this, what prevents someone else from fraudulently filling out an absentee ballot in your name if they somehow get your code (... which is far easier to do than -- what was the old method? -- matching your signature).
I'm trying to avoid looking up the actual law, but I haven't been able to find an explanation of the requirement that clarifies this and that I think I can trust to be accurate.
All the Secretary of State stuff is about Kemp being in charge in 2018. These other rules are consistent with other states. Not having 3rd parties within a certain distance much less giving out free stuff is just standard practice everywhere. The ID and absentee ballot procedures are consistent with other states.
Are other states allowing counties to vote through a mobile bus?
I’m not saying that these are good ideas. But why can NY and CA do it this way and they get to hold All-Star games while we are singled out and punished economically and get just a fun event taken away?
https://www.gpb.org/news/2021/03/27/what-does-georgias-new-voting-law-sb-202-do
LOL.
Name one other state that prohibits giving food or water to people standing in line to vote.
https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/electioneering.aspx#prohibition
It seems like a good number have similar provisions regarding influencing voters (AL/MI/ME/PA/NE, I’d say at least 20), but NY specifically prohibits giving anything worth more than a 1 being given. I’ve never bought a bottle of water for less than a $1. Maybe stuff is cheaper in NYC.
I guess you thought this was something hard to google. It wasn’t.
If you want to distribute water in NY, just save your discard bottles, wash them and fill with water from a public fountain. Or carry a large bottle with free water and give out paper cups.
The point of giving out water isn’t to get people sick but to convince them to vote for your candidate.
In short, New York is the only state that has anything even vaguely similar to the Georgia prohibition, and New York's law is much weaker and has (unspecified in the summary cited) exceptions.
The "influencing voters" prohibitions have no effect on facially non-partisan providers.
How is it weaker? $1 seems like a pretty low bar.
It seems like NY and Ga are just the only two states where partisans required the legislature to flesh out specifically how not to try and influence voters while at the polls.
Maybe you should provide some cases where legislatures encouraged this activity as good for democracy. 🙂
As Skeptonomist points out, a paper cup full of water is worth considerably less than a dollar. You can also buy house brand soft drinks for significantly less than a dollar a can; it depends on where you shop. I think you can get a case of bottled water at Costco for less than a dollar a bottle.
I would also ask how old the New York law is. I would suspect that it was passed at a time when a dollar was a reasonable limit that allowed a line-stander to be given a sandwich and a bottle of pop, but not something of large enough value to be likely to affect that line stander's vote. It's fairly common for dollar threshholds to go unadjusted for long enough periods for inflation to render them foolish. A glaring example is the Constitutional right to a jury trial in any federal civil case where more than twenty dollars is in issue. In 1789, twenty dollars was quite a lot of money. Now, convening a jury over twenty dollars is ridiculous.
https://www.ajc.com/politics/georgia-state-legislature/election-laws-how-georgia-stacks-up/KYO7CBZFVFAC5HFUT4XHZURKWI/
Montana has the provision of no food or drink. The Georgia law allows poll workers to distribute drink. The clear fact is that similar provisions are enforced throughout the country regarding limiting access to polling sites and even this specific example is now in place in 3 states. New York hasn't lost any major league All-Star games over it.
Read again. "Montana prohibits candidates and campaigns from distributing food and drink within 100 feet of a polling place."
That's "candidates and campaigns". Again, there is no restriction on facially non-partisan provision distribution of food and drink.
There is no state other than Georgia that prohibits giving food or drink to people standing in line to vote.
Pingback: Links 4/4/21 | Mike the Mad Biologist
Bad DEM messaging again
Take this bill and take the racism out of it entirely
Put out an ad on TV - show the white farmer in his John Deere with Trump stickers on it harvesting cotton in his field looking at his watch on voting day. Wondering aloud = "how can I get the harvest completed AND vote at the same time"? Then show him throwing his hands up in the air mouthing the words screw it as the announcer says "Voting suppression is taking MORE a toll on people who have to work for a living than many realize."
On top what has been discussed one of the biggest problems on the law is how it was passed. These are the types of law that require public hearings, analysis, and a real life understanding of their impact. The fact such an important bill was literally sprung over night and passed and enacted beginning the next morning is degrading to the democratic and legislative process.
Pingback: Are American conservatives facing an extinction-level event? - The Washington Post - Donald J Trump News Network
Pingback: Full Populism | Just Above Sunset