Skip to content

Republicans Need to Stop Defending the Georgia Election Law

Over at National Review, Rich Lowry has been doing yeoman's work defending the Georgia voter law. I'm already on record as not being all that concerned about the details of early voting and mail ballots and so forth, which I don't think have nearly the effect that conservatives hope for and liberals fear. So I'll skip all that stuff and instead offer just two comments.

No more water for you! (Cat shown for scale.)

First, are liberals overplaying the ban on handing out water bottles in line? Maybe a bit, but it really is in the law and it's a stupid own-goal. If the roles were reversed, Tucker Carlson would devote an entire week to the subject of patriotic, hardworking Americans keeling over in long lines thanks to Democratic hatred of white people.

Second, the detailed voting stuff isn't the biggest problem with the Georgia law. The biggest problems are the provisions that (1) remove authority from the Secretary of State and give it to a politico appointed by the legislature, and (2) allow the legislature to take control of local election boards that are "underperforming."

The first provision is plainly nothing more than revenge against Brad Raffensperger, who refused to knuckle under to Donald Trump's desire to "find" a few thousand additional votes in 2020. It's pretty obvious that Georgia Republicans never want that to happen again and are planning to appoint a chairman of the State Election Board who will slavishly do whatever Republicans want him to do.

The second provision is designed to allow the legislature to take over Democratic election boards in urban areas if they feel like it. Republicans have a long, long history of insisting that urban areas with large Black and Hispanic populations are rife with fraud, and this is just the latest continuation of that fabrication. There's no evidence for it, but it appeals to the GOP's white constituency so it's useful to keep it going. It's disgraceful.

In the end, the question is this: Do "reasonable" Republicans agree that our current election laws—which are already insanely partisan—should become even more partisan? This is pure Trumpism, which they claim to oppose. So why defend it when someone is so clearly following Trump's lead? Instead, why not support something that makes voting less partisan? Shouldn't that be a goal that everyone aims for?

44 thoughts on “Republicans Need to Stop Defending the Georgia Election Law

  1. Are you gonna eat that sandwich

    Sometimes I wonder if Kevin and I share the same reality. The GOP as currently constructed will never stop pursuing and defending anti-majoritarian measures because minority rule is it’s only chance to, you know, rule.

    1. MrPug

      Yeah, this is a real head scratcher of a post. What Republicans oppose Trump-ism (Trump, himself does seem to be fading somewhat, but Trump-ism is booming in the party)? What Republicans do not want to monkey wrench our elections? What Republicans want nonpartisan elections? What Republicans do Drum think he can have a good faith debate with on the subject of election integrity?

      I sure can't think of any. Pretty sure even the Romney's and Liz Cheney's of the party are on board with eliminating "election fraud" and all of disenfranchising legislation that goes along with that.

  2. Doctor Jay

    Yeah, the demise of Mr. Potatohead heralds the End of Western Culture As We Know It. So liberals must be stopped by Any Means Necessary. Because we must save Mr. Potatohead. And if denying water to people waiting in line patriotically to perform their duty as citizens will serve to save Mr. Potatohead, then so be it.

    I'm not one to normally lean into ridicule, but wow.

    1. colbatguano

      You left out the cancelling of Dr. Seuss, the most heinous threat to Western Civilization since the invasion of the Moors.

  3. Special Newb

    Also note that lefties were right again to be concerned about democracy. Republican election officials mostly performed properly this year but Republicans are working hard to make sure that doesn't happen again. So I think democracy is in trouble here.

    1. oakchairbc

      Are we not counting Republicans sabotaging the post office to stop voting, removing voters from the rolls, shutting down polling places in Dem areas, mandating ID’s that they admitted the purpose of was to stop blacks from voting, in this measurement of republicans performing properly?
      Maybe we shouldn’t assume a party that stole the 2000 president election is automatically not committing massive electoral fraud under Trump. Especially since we know they’ve been essentially rigging elections for years.

  4. quakerinabasement

    Do "reasonable" Republicans agree that our current election laws—which are already insanely partisan—should become even more partisan?

    "Reasonable" Republicans? Name three.

          1. Mitch Guthman

            To begin with, I don’t think anyone still remaining in the Republican Party is capable of feeling shame. They’re all either deplorables or cosplaying grifters. So trying to shame them really is like trying to shame the desert because it doesn’t have water.

            But my real problem with Kevin’s post is obviously that he is earnestly engaging in good faith dialogue with people who are either incapable or unwilling of doing anything in good faith. He is wasting his time. And by so doing he is also legitimizing the crew of the National Review who have never been anything but the most vile bigots. Urbane bigots with good table manners but bigots nonetheless.

    1. theAlteEisbear

      I think Kevin has given up on democrats' ability to fight back in at least some of the red states. The QOP has decided to stop disguising itself as a political party. There's no upside for them to that. Trump liberated them from having, much less displaying, any shame whatsoever about their real political goal, which is to win and remain in power.
      It's all out in the open, and maybe in a weird way, this is what Kevin is saying.
      I found this one of his strangest posts.

      1. Mitch Guthman

        The fundamental problem I have with Kevin’s analysis is that he doesn’t believe that Republicans really are committed to a form of Herrenvolk democracy (but with minority rule by the “real Americans” to the exclusion of minorities and whites who don’t understand the “dangers” facing white Christians). I don’t think he believes that Republicans are prepared to “save America or take back their country” by whatever means are necessary.

        I think Kevin’s rather Panglossian assumption is that most of these new laws, such as in Georgia, might make voting a little more difficult at the margins but all of this is just posturing and preening—which he also thinks will actually spur the turnout of minorities. And all of those votes will be counted fairly. Whereas, I’m certain that the only thing that was holding them back was fear of the consequences if they tried a coup d’état and lost (a fear that the lack of consequences for January 6th is dissipating).

        And, yes, it does seem like a strangely optimistic response to something he’d be well advised to take more seriously.

  5. Daniel Berger

    The provision allowing the state board to take over local precincts will, of course, result in narrow Republican wins in overwhelmingly Democratic precincts. Shock! Surprise!

    Clearly the local boards have been suppressing Republican votes.

  6. bbleh

    Do "reasonable" Republicans agree that our current election laws—which are already insanely partisan—should become even more partisan?

    [Principal Skinner voice] Yes. Yes they do.

    Instead, why not support something that makes voting less partisan? Shouldn't that be a goal that everyone aims for?

    Hahahahahaaa! Ahahahaha! HahahaHAAhaha! Ahahaha. Stop it, you're killing me! AhahahaHAAhaha! HAAhahahaha! Ahahaha. Oh my ...

  7. kingmidget

    "remove authority from the Secretary of State and give it to a politico appointed by the legislature, "

    Actually, what the statute does is allow the Georgia Legislature to select the chair of the State Election Board, and the statute has put some parameters around who the person can be. To qualify for the appointment, the person must be "non-partisan." Establishing that requires that none of the following occurred within the two years preceding the appoint: the person cannot have participated in a political party, not have been a candidate for partisan office, and not have contributed to a partisan candidate for public office.

    When I read this I wondered who they would actually find who could meet those requirements. I'm assuming that "participating in a political party" means being registered as anything other than "decline to state," but the phrase is undefined and could be subject to interpretation that could be problematic.

    But ... I skimmed the rest of the legislation and don't think it's as horrible as the MSM and the activists are telling us. Yes, they are placing limits in some places, but there are also changes that actually reflect fairness ... for instance, the number of polling stations and drop boxes should be uniform now and not be absent or minimal in heavily minority communities. There are supposed to be polling stations and drop boxes available based on number of voters in each precinct. Also, the water thing ... the statute previously prohibited the provision of money or gifts to voters. The change inclues "food or drinks" in the definition of "money or gifts." So ... just charge .50 for that bottle of water and all is good.

    I think the noise about this legislation is a perfect example of the loudest voices on the left misleading a bit, just like the loudest voices on the right.

    1. Marlowe

      OK, I was wrong. It is possible to be more tone deaf, and disingenuously fair minded, than Kevin's original post. I'm willing to concede that some provisions--like the notorious criminalization of handing water to waiting voters--is more indicative of Republicans' petty cruelty and how much they revel in playing the bully than it will suppress the vote (though it will do that, too). But the provisions removing the SoS's authority and--even worse--permitting a takeover of local election boards are at least as bad as advertised. Probably worse. This will basically allow the Republicans to defenestrate the election board of (to take a county at random, of course) Fulton County and begin tossing out votes on whatever pretext they like until they have the result they want.

      To paraphrase Kyle Reese: "Listen, and understand. The Republicans are out there. They can’t be bargained with. They can’t be reasoned with. They don’t feel pity, or remorse, or fear or shame. And they absolutely will not stop, ever, until the Democratic Party is dead." Anyone like Kevin or this poster who try to poo-poo this are either whistling past the graveyard or Republican trolls.

      1. kingmidget

        I agree there are problematic provisions, but some of the provisions we are hearing the most noise about just aren't that bad. You disagree.

        1. KenSchulz

          ‘Not that bad’ is a lousy criterion. We have very low voter participation rates as compared to other wealthy democracies. We also have extremely low rates of voter fraud. Any reasonable person looking at the data would conclude that we need to put more effort into making it more, not less, convenient to vote, to lower the personal costs in time and money.

          1. kingmidget

            I agree. What specifically in the legislation do you think places more limits on people’s ability to vote?

      2. kingmidget

        I’m curious ... have you read the legislation or are you basing your opinion on what other people are saying is in it?

      3. kingmidget

        And one other thing. I see your type of comment on right wing blogs all the time. If I disagree with your perspective, I must be either clueless or a troll. Try a little harder. You can be better than them.

  8. DFPaul

    Bret Stephens in the NYT yesterday (in the weekly conversation with Gail Collins) made the case that the new Georgia election law actually expands access to voting. Just noting it.

    I took it as a sign that even anti-Trump "thinking" Republicans are deeply okay with voter suppression.

    1. bbleh

      For Republicans it's a moral issue. For them, morally good people acknowledge the correct authorities and are loyal to the proper groups, and of course morally good people should have their votes counted. Conversely, those who do not acknowledge the correct authorities or are not loyal to the proper groups are not morally good, and being not morally good their (purported) votes should at a minimum be subject to stringent validation. (It's not suppression, you see; it's just being careful.) Would one trust an embezzler as one's accountant? One would not. QED.

      They should be bulldozed into the sea, where they will have the FREEDOM™ to swim anywhere they wish.

  9. clawback

    "are liberals overplaying the ban on handing out water bottles in line? Maybe a bit"

    lol. no. Overplaying isn't a thing anymore. Skewer them ruthlessly and relentlessly forever. That's what they would do to us, so don't even ask questions about scale and fairness and proportionality.

    1. jte21

      Church members should hand out food and water during the next election and dare officials to arrest them and then appeal the sentence on grounds that it's religious persecution. It will be interesting to see what happens to that case when it's actually a matter of the state forbidding people to practice the dictates of their faith, as opposed to just some asshole who wants to be misogynistic or homophobic and hides behind 'freedom of religion" to do so. IIRC, a jury in AZ recently refused to convict a Christian activist who would leave water for border crossers in the Sonoran desert despite it being illegal.

  10. jte21

    Kevin writes: "Do "reasonable" Republicans agree that our current election laws—which are already insanely partisan—should become even more partisan?"

    Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence. There are no "reasonable" Republicans. They're all dead-eyed Trumpists now. Repeat: there is no longer any daylight between what Republicans believe and what Donald Trump happens to feel this morning.

    1. ScentOfViolets

      Um, if there are no reasonable Republicans, then of course it's true that _all_ reasonable Republicans want our current election laws to be even more partisan. Therefore, _all_ Republicans want our current election laws to be even more partisan.

      Q.E.D.

  11. ScentOfViolets

    Um, if there are no reasonable Republicans, then of course it's true that _all_ reasonable Republicans want our current election laws to be even more partisan. Therefore, _all_ Republicans want our current election laws to be even more partisan.

    Q.E.D.

  12. Mitch Guthman

    A slightly different and maybe slightly off topic thought: Whether the Republicans can get away with this will depend very much on the Democrats cohesion and willingness to play hardball. The passage of a new voting rights act would definitely be important.

    But the hardball aspect might be even more important. The restoration of Pre-Clearance requirements and an extremely aggressive DOJ would rollback or at least block all of these voter suppression laws before the next midterms. It might even be possible to all a majority of voters in Georgia to take control of the state government and then gerrymander the GOP out of existence in Georgia under the rubric of either nobody gerrymanders or everyone gerrymanders.

  13. n1cholas

    The guardrails of Democracy barely held up in 2020.

    Now those guardrails are actively being torn down the the Republican Party.

    Nothing to see here folks.

  14. KenSchulz

    The fact that obstacles and hindrances to voting have so far, in many cases, been overcome by vigorous get-out-the-vote campaigns, does not make those obstacles insignificant. Voting is the right of free citizens of a democracy, and should be encumbered only to the extent necessary to insure the integrity of electoral results. Which apparently we were doing very well under the Voting Rights Act of 1965, because nobody could find more than a handful of illegal ballots out of billions cast. We need to restore the provisions of that legislation, add provisions to defeat the recent innovations in voter suppression, apply protections nationwide, and make the new act strong enough to withstand the Supreme Court. If they strike it down anyway, start impeaching.

Comments are closed.