What Georgia’s Voting Law Really Does

[366h34d]

They mail the ballots to you house and only if you showed your ID to register. It is redundant to ask for it again.

ya. but why you need an ID to cast your vote then.

 

[Bullseye]

Ok, whose analysis of the law and the GOP's motivation to change things following their first loss in the state in a while do/did you trust? The Times article list parts of the law that might inhibit voting. Aside from your distrust of one of the world's most respected news sources, what's your interpretation of the law that differs from theirs?

I read several analyses, which puts me ahead of abou t95% of LW whiners.

The GOP has admitted that it tends to lose when lots of people vote. [/wuote]Actually, I believe what they say is they lose whne masses of illegal ballots are included in the counts.

Therefore they have panicked at the large 2020 turnout and the absence of any credible reports of fraud and are trying to make it more difficult to vote in 47 or so states. What else would they be doing that? This particular elephant is not only in the GOP's living room, it is sitting on top of party leaders, yet you open the door, look inside, and say, " Nope, no elephant in there.”

LOL, I KNEW you’d resort to the “no credible evidence” bullshit, the only incredible thing was mass judiicary fear to actually HEAR the evidence. The screaming and shouting the left is doing against some simple, common sense voting procedures is more than evidence enough the left knows it would lose a honest election.

Again, I recommend the documentary "All In," about the history of voter suppression. Nothing really new here.

LOL, I choose my own fiction reading, thanks any way.

 

[Bullseye]

Your are not paying attention. Your post was not about the Georgia voting restriction law. Your post was about the Times.

You’re playing idiot games, deal me out.

 

[Nickyjo]

I read several analyses, which puts me ahead of abou t95% of LW whiners.

Ask Trump or Paul Weyerich. They both said they prefer it when fewer people vote. And again I ask, where is the evidence of voter fraud? Republican leaders around the country said there was none, as did Trump's AG. If you can't trust Barr, who can you trust? If you can refer me to one or another analyses, do so.

 

[Master Debator]

You’re playing idiot games, deal me out.

I think you meant playing games with idiots...

 

[Bullseye]

Ask Trump or Paul Weyerich. They both said they prefer it when fewer people vote.

Sure they did.

And again I ask, where is the evidence of voter fraud? Republican leaders around the country said there was none, as did Trump's AG. If you can't trust Barr, who can you trust? If you can refer me to one or another analyses, do so.

You always digress into semi-literate “whatabouttrump” mumbojumbo. I’m done debating election fraud with lefties; It’s explaining nuclear physics to a three year old.

 

[Nickyjo]

Sure they did.

++ Trump: with measures making it easier to vote, "you'd have levels of voting that a republican would never be elected." (Probably not his exact words, but close)
Weyrich: "I don't want everybody to vote... As a matter of fact our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down."

You always digress into semi-literate “whatabouttrump” mumbojumbo. I’m done debating election fraud with lefties; It’s explaining nuclear physics to a three year old.

++ I don't understand. The point was not whataboutism. It was that republicans tend not to like it when a lot of people vote, and they express that rather frankly. And if there was fraud, where was the proof? If you want to debate election fraud, us silly lefties insist on evidence of a problem before signing on to a solution.

 

[Bullseye]

++ I don't understand. The point was not whataboutism. It was that republicans tend not to like it when a lot of people vote, and they express that rather frankly. And if there was fraud, where was the proof? If you want to debate election fraud, us silly lefties insist on evidence of a problem before signing on to a solution.

And yet you haven’t provided any documentation about Republicans “not wanting people to vote”. You silly lefties were confronted with mounds of proof - you just stuck your fingers in your ears and went “naaaaaaaaaa”. I heard that enough, not interested in rehashing.

 

[Sandy Shanks]

And yet you haven’t provided any documentation about Republicans “not wanting people to vote”.

The intelligent observer would consider it obvious.

 

[Nickyjo]

1- Don't believe me, believe republicans.

Trump says Republicans would ‘never’ be elected again if it was easier to vote

President dismissed Democratic-led push for voter reforms amid coronavirus pandemic during Fox & Friends appearance

www.theguardian.com

Interesting ALEC Quotes - SourceWatch

www.sourcewatch.org

2- despite asking frequently for a link to a study or report about voter fraud, I haven't received a single "mound" of evidence. Again, don't believe me, believe republican officials, including former AG Barr. Send me a mound or two or admit you got nothin'. Heck, even one mound will do.

As I have posted before, this notion of voter fraud will assume for some Trumpista republicans a combination of the "Lost Cause" of the South post-civil war, or the "stab in the back" theory of the Nazis as to why Germany lost WWI. It may be passed on for a few generations, with Trump as Jeff Davis or the Kaiser trotted out to repeat and mourn the legend. Or maybe it will be like the iconic scene of Brando (Trump) in the taxi telling Rod Steiger, (Murkowski-Romney-Rubio-Sasse, those Senators who acknowledged the obvious) It was you, I could a been a contendah. Instead I got a one-way ticket to Palookaville (MaralagoVille).

 

[Bullseye]

The intelligent observer would consider it obvious.

I doubt that.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

What Georgia’s Voting Law Really Does (Published 2021)

The New York Times analyzed the state’s new 98-page voting law and identified 16 key provisions that will limit ballot access, potentially confuse voters and give more power to Republican lawmakers.

www.nytimes.com

This is for all the Rethuglicans who claim there is nothing regressive in the new Georgia voter laws.

All of the vote/voter suppression measures listed above are discussed in annotations contained in the main New York Times article at the link above.

I have questions and counterpoints...

Voters will now have less time to request absentee ballots.

The window is still two and a half months, down from six. Can anyone explain why a having to wait until 78 days before an election to order an absentee ballot is "voter suppression" but 180 is not? Where is the voter suppression line?

It’s now illegal for election officials to mail out absentee ballot applications to all voters.

Sending absentee applications to all voters is an unnecessary security gap. People die or move or their mail can get misdelivered or any number of things can happen to send a ballot application someplace it shouldn't go. Nothing is stopping anyone from requesting an application on their own. No, I don't care what evidence there is for or against this ever having been an issue. It's unnecessary fix to a problem that doesn't exist that exposes the system to fraud. We shouldn't have to wait until a pipe breaks to fix the crack we can see forming.

Drop boxes still exist … but barely.

The article bemoans the reduction in dropboxes and the fact that they are secured off-hours (!), noting that the number drops from 94 in 2020 to 23 going forward. They don't mention how many dropboxes were around in 2016 or earlier, curiously. Dropboxes are largely an adaptation to a raging pandemic. If there weren't any in Georgia before, what's the big deal with not having them again in as large a number as they were for a one-off pandemic event? Further, suggesting (as the article does) that ballot boxes should be left out in the open 24 hours a day is just beyond idiotic. The reason for being against completed ballots being left in a box outside 24 hours a day should be obvious to all but the most dimwitted of morons, like those at the New York Times.

Mobile voting centers (think an R.V. where you can vote) are essentially banned.

Again referencing the aberrant 2020 election, the article states two vehicles hopped around town gathering votes. Again the article fails to state whether this method has ever been used prior to the special circumstances surrounding the collection of votes for 2020. Why the cessation of certain measures taken in response to the pandemic (that can still be reinstituted under particular circumstances) is supposed to amount to voter suppression is something that needs explanation.

Also, I couldn't help but notice the final sentence's blatant shot at the governor, accusing him (without evidence) of being unlikely to declare an emergency to authorize the mobile voting vehicles because "it could increase voter turnout." This is what passes for "news reporting" in the Times, apparently.

Early voting is expanded in a lot of small counties, but probably not in more populous ones.

This seems like a pretty blatant lie that is exposed in their writeup on this point. An extra Saturday is added for early voting. Hours for doing so are now defined in law and not left to some nebulous definition of "regular business hours." The hours permitted for early voting on certain days was expanded from 9am-4pm to 7am-7pm. The article gripes about counties not being required to be open for early voting on Sundays, but the changes they outline to the existing statute don't indicate the removal of such a requirement.

Furthermore, the allegation in the bullet point regarding where early voting is and is not expanded is not supported by anything in their writeup. In fact, I didn't see anything referencing county size and voting ability in there. Regardless, I don't understand how a provision that expands access to early voting is somehow a vote suppression measure. It pretty much seems like the exact opposite.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Offering food or water to voters waiting in line now risks misdemeanor charges.

This bullet point is misleading at best. The measure is intended to curb campaigning at people in lines by offering them goodies, which happens a lot in Georgia, skirting explicit prohibitions on soliciting votes at a polling place. The restriction simply prohibits offering things to people within 25 feet of the voting line or 150 feet of the polling place. People are perfectly free to stand 25 feet away and offer things that can be accepted. And polling locations are free to place self-serve water dispensers at the site. So really the only thing this section does is strengthen and clarify already-existing laws against attempting to influence voters in line. It's probably unnecessary, but it's not exactly how it's been portrayed in the pearl-clutching media.

If you go to the wrong polling place, it will be (even) harder to vote.

Then go to the correct polling location. I would change Georgia's website to simply require an address entry to tell you where your location is supposed to be. As it is you have to log in using your name, DOB, and county before it'll tell you your polling location, and for that you have to be registered first. My state allows you to put in any address and they'll spit out a polling location. That's how it should be. I don't like how you have to go about complying with this provision, but the provision itself is fine. People should vote in their precinct. I don't see anything controversial about that.

If election problems arise, a common occurrence, it is now more difficult to extend voting hours.

This is partly misleading and mostly reasonable. The writeup points to no provision making the extension "more difficult." What the section does do is limit a judge's discretion as to how long voting hours may be extended at a particular polling place in the event of some event that prevents voting from taking place. This makes sense. A judge shouldn't have unlimited discretion to extend the canvas by however long he sees fit.

With a mix of changes to vote-counting, high-turnout elections will probably mean a long wait for results.

How is waiting for results suppressing the vote?

Election officials can no longer accept third-party funding (a measure that nods to right-wing conspiracy theories).

Misleading. The section doesn't prohibit third-party funding of Georgia elections, but it does state that such donations will be used equitably, statewide. Again, the article cites measures taken for the 2020 election due to the pandemic, but doesn't detail how much of an effect these donations typically have in a normal year, or how large they are.

With an eye toward voter fraud, the state attorney general will manage an election hotline.

Oh no! Now all allegations of fraud and intimidation are directed to a single source instead of myriad local and county officials to investigate and ignore!

JIMZ CROW!

Yeah, you're gonna have to help me out on how this is supposed to be voter suppression.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

The Republican-controlled legislature has more control over the State Election Board.

I can't help but suspect that, if the State Election Board existed in the form specified by this new law, an attempt to change it to the way it was previously would be portrayed as an attempt to install the Republican Secretary of State on it so the Republicans can consolidate power. The way they have now structured it sounds a lot like the FEC, and makes it less beholden to elected officials and more independent. What's the problem here?

The secretary of state is removed as a voting member of the State Election Board.

This makes perfect sense when read along with the changes to the Board itself. Again, were the change going the other way, it would look even worse because now the partisan Republican elected official has a say in how elections are run instead of this more independent group of people.

The G.O.P.-led legislature is empowered to suspend county election officials.

Actually, any legislature is so empowered, not just GOP-led ones. And all the way at the bottom of their writeup they admit the bar for doing so is "high" and requires multiple violations of election board rules or "demonstrated nonfeasance, malfeasance, or gross negligence" in not just one election, not just two elections, but two consecutive elections.

And the Times wants these people to be able to remain county election officials?

Runoff elections will happen faster — and could become harder to manage.

Not a vote suppression mechanism.

So there we have it. All the points raised by the Times. And still no solid case made for vote suppression.

 

[Cope]

Is there a point by point (actual text) of what it does? The article is just a subjective look at what they think it does.

 

[HangLow]

This is for all the Rethuglicans who claim
there is nothing regressive in the new Georgia voter laws.

What Georgia’s Voting Law Really Does (Published 2021)

The New York Times analyzed the state’s new 98-page voting law and identified 16 key provisions that will limit ballot access, potentially confuse voters and give more power to Republican lawmakers.

www.nytimes.com

This is for all the Rethuglicans who claim
there is nothing regressive in the new Georgia voter laws.

All of the vote/voter suppression measures listed above are discussed in annotations contained in the main New York Times article at the link above.

​