Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

MLB moves All-Star game in response to GA voter laws


Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, AAABatteries said:

My serious answer is similar to what fatguy said earlier in the thread.  The GOP was butt hurt that they lost GA so they designed some laws that when taken individually can seem like no big deal and definitely not worthy of the Jim Crow talk.  But when taken at aggregate are obvious to me that they are trying to make it harder for metro Atlanta voters to vote.  We should be making it easier for everyone to vote.

How does it make it harder?  Haven't seen any good arguments on this.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I always enjoy reading IK's posts even when we disagree because he makes his views clear and attempts to explain them in a compelling way.  Here are the two reasons I think he and I see things so diff

Right, and I'm not engaging with people being dishonest about what this is, and pretending a 98 page bill is about presenting an ID in order to vote. These laws aren't a reaction to voter fraud,

I just read the statement.  Good grief, what do you agree with?  LOL! "This law, like so many others being pursued by Republicans in statehouses across the country is a blatant attack on the Cons

1 minute ago, Snotbubbles said:

How does it make it harder?  Haven't seen any good arguments on this.

TBH, if you’ve read this thread and still don’t think it makes it harder then nothing I’m going to say would change your mind.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, timschochet said:

. I believe demanding voter ID is racist

Why do you consider this racist? Why would you consider race at all in reference to voter id 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, timschochet said:

Stop. This is getting awfully annoying. I don’t ever parrot “party lines”- if I write something it’s because I believe it. I believe this law is racist because it takes actions designed to repress the votes of black people specifically. I believe demanding voter ID is racist (not that this law does that; I’m responding to your post here) because it will unfairly target minorities in order to solve a problem that doesn’t exist. Back to the Georgia law:  I believe it is good for MLB to take a stand and I approve of it. Finally, I believe the Republicans are going to lose badly on this issue with the American people, and these laws are going to be repealed one by one, or perhaps overruled by a federal law. 
These are my honest opinions. Of course they can change if someone offers compelling arguments to the contrary. So far in this thread nobody has. 

Scratches head.  Colorado requires ID to register to vote, in-person voters need ID to vote, first time mail-in voters need ID to vote.  What stand did MLB really take?  And why again is it racist to require an ID to vote?  Is it racist to require an ID to drive, fly, be gainfully employed, buy a house, take out a loan, purchase alcohol and cigarettes, apply for food stamps, welfare, medicaid, social security, unemployment, get married, purchase a gun, buy a cell phone, go to a casino, give blood.  C'mon tim, Georgia doesn't even require an ID.  If you don't have one, they'll provide you with an identifier so you can vote.  All you have to do is check a box.  My 8 year old can do that.  The racism argument really isn't a good one when it comes to voter ID.  What percentage of adult age voters haven't done at least one of the activities I listed above that require identification.  It's a lazy argument that hold very little water.  

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, AAABatteries said:

TBH, if you’ve read this thread and still don’t think it makes it harder then nothing I’m going to say would change your mind.

If you read what I wrote, I said I didn't see any good arguments, not that people aren't trying.  

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

That's cool.  I'm mainly just annoyed at the hyperbole and fainting spells that people are having over this.  If somebody just wants to say that they like the convenience of having a drop-box right outside their workplace without all the crazy Jim Crow stuff, that works for me.

You know I’m one of those who is really not big on comparisons of this type. I attacked AOC for using the term “concentration camp” to describe the refugee areas, and I detest it when people glibly use the word “lynching” to describe when they receive unfair treatment. 

And yet, in this case I’ve been willing to accept the phrase “Jim Crow” being used, because I honestly think It’s a decent comparison. You and others dismiss it out of hand, but I believe this law was deliberately designed to repress black voting in a southern state with a long history of voting repression against blacks. It’s impossible to separate what’s happening here from that history. 
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, HellToupee said:

Why do you consider this racist? Why would you consider race at all in reference to voter id 

It's racist to presume that blacks cannot get ids.  Weird stance he's dug in on

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, timschochet said:

You know I’m one of those who is really not big on comparisons of this type. I attacked AOC for using the term “concentration camp” to describe the refugee areas, and I detest it when people glibly use the word “lynching” to describe when they receive unfair treatment. 

And yet, in this case I’ve been willing to accept the phrase “Jim Crow” being used, because I honestly think It’s a decent comparison. You and others dismiss it out of hand, but I believe this law was deliberately designed to repress black voting in a southern state with a long history of voting repression against blacks. It’s impossible to separate what’s happening here from that history. 
 

I believe that you believe that, because you tend to pick up narratives from talk radio and cable news and buy into them fervently, right up until somebody on talk radio changes that narrative, at which point you triumphantly announce that you've changed your mind.  That's going to happen here too.  After a week-long freak-out, most people seem to be willing to acknowledge that the Georgia law ended up as much ado about nothing.  That narrative just hasn't made it to cable yet.

  • Like 2
  • Love 1
  • Laughing 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Grace Under Pressure said:

Why did they even pass the law? Honest question, just trying to figure out the problem they were solving for. 

They lost and needed to figure out a way to win next time.

  • Like 3
  • Laughing 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Snotbubbles said:

Scratches head.  Colorado requires ID to register to vote, in-person voters need ID to vote, first time mail-in voters need ID to vote.  What stand did MLB really take?  And why again is it racist to require an ID to vote?  Is it racist to require an ID to drive, fly, be gainfully employed, buy a house, take out a loan, purchase alcohol and cigarettes, apply for food stamps, welfare, medicaid, social security, unemployment, get married, purchase a gun, buy a cell phone, go to a casino, give blood.  C'mon tim, Georgia doesn't even require an ID.  If you don't have one, they'll provide you with an identifier so you can vote.  All you have to do is check a box.  My 8 year old can do that.  The racism argument really isn't a good one when it comes to voter ID.  What percentage of adult age voters haven't done at least one of the activities I listed above that require identification.  It's a lazy argument that hold very little water.  

Demanding Voter ID is unnecessary because there’s no problem to solve. It’s racist ONLY when it’s promulgated in battleground states with large minority urban populations. Unfortunately that’s where Republican legislators have tended to push it the most in recent years. 
Look, we can argue all day about the specifics regarding this in each state but instead I prefer to cut to the chase: all of these proposed restrictions are about one thing: a growing fear among a certain percentage of white people that, within a short period of time, whites will be the minority in this country. It was this same fear that led to the election of Donald Trump, the same fear that has turned the GOP into a nativist party, amd the same fear that is the cause of the new round of Jim Crow type voter suppression laws. I want to defeat these fears whenever they emerge. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, FairWarning said:

Would the D’s care if the people waiting in lines for hours were voting R?  How about in the rural areas?  

I’m not a D but I would care.  We should make it easier for everyone to vote and let the results be whatever they will be.  

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Demanding Voter ID is unnecessary because there’s no problem to solve. It’s racist ONLY when it’s promulgated in battleground states with large minority urban populations. Unfortunately that’s where Republican legislators have tended to push it the most in recent years. 
Look, we can argue all day about the specifics regarding this in each state but instead I prefer to cut to the chase: all of these proposed restrictions are about one thing: a growing fear among a certain percentage of white people that, within a short period of time, whites will be the minority in this country. It was this same fear that led to the election of Donald Trump, the same fear that has turned the GOP into a nativist party, amd the same fear that is the cause of the new round of Jim Crow type voter suppression laws. I want to defeat these fears whenever they emerge. 

So Colorado requiring an ID is okay because it's primarily white but Georgia is racist because they aren't?   Stop mashing the keyboard and listen to yourself.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

I believe that you believe that, because you tend to pick up narratives from talk radio and cable news and buy into them fervently, right up until somebody on talk radio changes that narrative, at which point you triumphantly announce that you've changed your mind.  That's going to happen here too.  After a week-long freak-out, most people seem to be willing to acknowledge that the Georgia law ended up as much ado about nothing.  That narrative just hasn't made it to cable yet.

You know, sometimes, not all the time certainly, but sometimes I’m able to think for myself. On rare occasions. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, AAABatteries said:

My serious answer is similar to what fatguy said earlier in the thread.  The GOP was butt hurt that they lost GA so they designed some laws that when taken individually can seem like no big deal and definitely not worthy of the Jim Crow talk.  But when taken at aggregate are obvious to me that they are trying to make it harder for metro Atlanta voters to vote.  We should be making it easier for everyone to vote.

See, this is probably where we have a fundamental disagreement.   IMO we shouldn't be framing things in this way.  We should make it as easy as possible for any eligible person to vote.  That would be a policy that balances the right to vote with the right of the rest of the electorate to be sure that the person voting is eligible to do so.  The bolded should be our standard.  Are we there yet?  I don't know.  But when a legislature passes a law we should be evaluating the law on it's own merits and against that standard, not relative to the previous law, other states laws, or our own opinions. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, FairWarning said:

Anyone consider that the Georgia republicans are just trying to fortify the next election?

I'll bite.

 

What problem(s) were they trying to solve with a 90+ page bill?  (I am assuming there are actually parts of the bill that are reasonably designed to address legitimate novel issues - but I don't know what those parts are.)

 

Because from where I sit - individual fraud is a complete non-issue, and a non-threat to the integrity of an election.  There are already laws in place to deal with any that do happen to occur.

 

I go back to the notion that this was simply bad optics - even if it was not the underlying cause.  GOP lost elections, and immediately decided to enact voter reform laws in response.  That suggests that the GOP led legislature saw voter fraud as one of the reasons they lost the elections.

 

  • Like 1
  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

Those differences definitely don't amount to Jim Crow On Steroids.  

I always enjoy reading IK's posts even when we disagree because he makes his views clear and attempts to explain them in a compelling way.  Here are the two reasons I think he and I see things so differently:

1) The role of a government in democratic society -- The way I read IK, it seems like his view is that democratic governments only have an obligation to make voting reasonably accessible so that it isn't "too hard" for people to vote.  Obviously people can disagree about where that threshold line is. But my reading of IK is that governments are free to monkey around with voting requirements for basically any reason as long as they stay above that threshold line.

I view it differently.  My perspective is that democratic governments have an obligation to make it as easy as possible for people to vote, subject to considerations regarding voter security and resources.  If a government makes it more difficult for certain people to vote, and there are no compelling security or resource reasons for doing so, I see that as a betrayal of democratic principles by the government.  And in the case of the Georgia law, there do not appear to have been any compelling reasons to make these changes.  

2) Context -- IK seems to just want to talk about these laws in the abstract, without really discussing intent.  As long as a law doesn't make it "too hard" to vote it's fine, and the Georgia law doesn't make it too hard to vote in his estimation.  So it doesn't really matter why Georgia did this, as long as the final law is generally OK.

But in my view that misses the entire story.  In 2020, due to the pandemic, voting restrictions were relaxed.  As a result of these changes, voter turnout went up by A LOT, especially in the runoff Senate elections.  In addition, the pandemic changes do not appear to have been particularly costly, and investigations turned up no evidence of fraud. This should have been greeted by a pro-democracy government as GOOD news.  Somehow, Georgia had figured out a way to get more people to vote and it didn't cost much and it didn't appear to contribute to fraud.  A well-meaning government should lean into that success to try to see if it can make it even easier for people to vote without the state spending a lot or inviting fraud.

But of course Georgia is a state that has been dominated by Republicans for decades, although it has been getting closer and closer.  And in 2020 the Democrats finally won statewide elections there under the new voting rules, but by very small margins.  So the Republican government chose to try to make it harder for certain people to vote, the exact opposite of what a well-meaning government should do in that instance.  There does not seem to be any reasonable explanation for most of these changes other than partisanship.  And due to the tiny margins in these Georgia elections, even slight changes to make voting harder can swing the state.

This context is why I don't think the "Jim Crow" comparison is so off the mark.  Sure, the law here isn't as onerous as old-timey literacy tests or poll taxes.  But it has the exact same intent (suppressing votes from certain populations) and has a reasonable chance of having the same impact (creating a mismatch between the preferences of eligible voters and the preferences of those that actually cast a ballot so that the party with less support can stay in power). 

  • Like 8
  • Thanks 2
  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Ramblin Wreck said:

So Colorado requiring an ID is okay because it's primarily white but Georgia is racist because they aren't?   Stop mashing the keyboard and listen to yourself.

Guys.  Tim is an outlier.   Please recognize that.  His positions thankfully are viewed as extreme and un popular.  If you just stop engaging the guy we might be able to have honest discussions about these things.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, John123 said:

See, this is probably where we have a fundamental disagreement.   IMO we shouldn't be framing things in this way.  We should make it as easy as possible for any eligible person to vote.  That would be a policy that balances the right to vote with the right of the rest of the electorate to be sure that the person voting is eligible to do so.  The bolded should be our standard.  Are we there yet?  I don't know.  But when a legislature passes a law we should be evaluating the law on it's own merits and against that standard, not relative to the previous law, other states laws, or our own opinions. 

Change it to "We should make it as easy as possible for any eligible person to get registered AND vote" and you have me on board.

36 minutes ago, FairWarning said:

Anyone consider that the Georgia republicans are just trying to fortify the next election?

This thought occured to me initially...before I read the legislation.  After reading it, I was left trying to figure out what documented "problem" they were trying to fix with the new rules and I drew a blank. :shrug: 

I was left with a similar feeling when the head of the Florida GOP was on the state NPR program a couple weeks ago saying that there were no issues with the state's 2020 election and that our process was the "gold standard" that everybody should be trying to model....yet, the same guy feels all these other changes are necessary.  It made no sense. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, The Commish said:

Change it to "We should make it as easy as possible for any eligible person to get registered AND vote" and you have me on board.

I'm fine with that amendment. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, sho nuff said:

On ID stuff alone...I have disagreements with requirements if the state is not ensuring a good way for those without ID to obtain one.  I have not looked into the numbers in GA to know how many may not have ID...if the state or local offices have limited places to get one in certain areas (that we have seen elsewhere in the past).  Or made requirements to obtain one quite prohibitive to some.  So I have not even commented much on their law there.  

The new law allows people to use the last 4 of their social if they do not have a valid ID, so it's a moot point.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, knowledge dropper said:

There aren’t any.  Just talking points, hyperbole, race baiting and falsehoods.  

Well, when you start from the fact there is no evidence of voter fraud after countless attempts to find it, and no non-political justification at all to support that 250 new state bills are seeking to restrict voting, it is what it is. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Hoodoo said:

I simply don't see how allowing partisan politicians even within breathing distance of the polls is acceptable by any party. Honestly,  if I'm having to wait long periods at a poll, which I have, the last thing I want is someone handing out buttons with a cookie saying "vote for...."

 

As long at the polling place has water or whatever available,  and mine has, I don't understand the huge issue with not allowing votee reps handing out waters, food or whatever. That honestly makes sense to me because I don't want people trying to influence or pressure me or anyone else as we're going into the poll. 

Again, already illegal prior to these changes.   

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, The Commish said:
18 minutes ago, John123 said:

I'm fine with that amendment. 

:hifive:  Let's get it done.

You guys think you're in agreement but my guess is that you aren't.

Imagine a hypothetical new law that makes voting and registration easier.  Because I can see into the future with perfect accuracy, I know that this new law will result in 100 additional eligible voters who will now register and vote.  But it will also result in one fraudulent vote cast by an illegal voter.

To me, it still seems obvious that the law is a positive change.  The fraudulent vote is unfortunate but the 100 new voters justifies the change.

But to a lot of folks, that's a negative change.  The 100 new voters could theoretically have voted in the old system, they just weren't willing to jump through all the necessary hoops to do it.  We've now introduced a fraudulent vote into the system just to save some people a little inconvenience. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ramblin Wreck said:

It's about moving it from a primarily black city to a primarily white one?

A very inconvenient fact that many will ignore now that the trenches have been dug. 

Atlanta population 51% Black 41% White

Denver population 69% white, 10% black

Oops.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, timschochet said:

Demanding Voter ID is unnecessary because there’s no problem to solve. It’s racist ONLY when it’s promulgated in battleground states with large minority urban populations. Unfortunately that’s where Republican legislators have tended to push it the most in recent years. 
Look, we can argue all day about the specifics regarding this in each state but instead I prefer to cut to the chase: all of these proposed restrictions are about one thing: a growing fear among a certain percentage of white people that, within a short period of time, whites will be the minority in this country. It was this same fear that led to the election of Donald Trump, the same fear that has turned the GOP into a nativist party, amd the same fear that is the cause of the new round of Jim Crow type voter suppression laws. I want to defeat these fears whenever they emerge. 

FEDERAL Law requires identification when a person registers to vote: Help America Vote Act of 2002

(b) REQUIREMENTS FOR VOTERS WHO REGISTER BY MAIL.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding section 6(c) of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 1973gg– 4(c)) and subject to paragraph (3), a State shall, in a uniform and nondiscriminatory manner, require an individual to meet the requirements of paragraph (2) if— (A) the individual registered to vote in a jurisdiction by mail; and (B)(i) the individual has not previously voted in an election for Federal office in the State; or (ii) the individual has not previously voted in such an election in the jurisdiction and the jurisdiction is located in a State that does not have a computerized list that complies with the requirements of subsection (a).

(2) REQUIREMENTS.— (A) IN GENERAL.—An individual meets the requirements of this paragraph if the individual— (i) in the case of an individual who votes in person— (I) presents to the appropriate State or local election official a current and valid photo identification; or (II) presents to the appropriate State or local election official a copy of a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other government document that shows the name and address of the voter; or (ii) in the case of an individual who votes by mail, submits with the ballot— (I) a copy of a current and valid photo identification; or (II) a copy of a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other government document that shows the name and address of the voter. (B) FAIL-SAFE VOTING.— (i) IN PERSON.—An individual who desires to vote in person, but who does not meet the requirements of subparagraph (A)(i), may cast a provisional ballot under section 302(a). (ii) BY MAIL.—An individual who desires to vote by mail but who does not meet the requirements of subparagraph (A)(ii) may cast such a ballot by mail and the ballot shall be counted as a provisional ballot in accordance with section 302(a). (3) INAPPLICABILITY.—Paragraph (1) shall not apply in the case of a person— VerDate 11-MAY-2000 20:06 Oct 31, 2002 Jkt 019139 PO 00252 Frm 00048 Fmt 6580 Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL252.107 APPS31 PsN: PUBL252 PUBLIC LAW 107–252—OCT. 29, 2002 116 STAT. 1713

(A) who registers to vote by mail under section 6 of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 1973gg–4) and submits as part of such registration either— (i) a copy of a current and valid photo identification; or (ii) a copy of a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or government document that shows the name and address of the voter; (B)(i) who registers to vote by mail under section 6 of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 1973gg–4) and submits with such registration either— (I) a driver’s license number; or (II) at least the last 4 digits of the individual’s social security number; and (ii) with respect to whom a State or local election official matches the information submitted under clause (i) with an existing State identification record bearing the same number, name and date of birth as provided in such registration; or (C) who is— (i) entitled to vote by absentee ballot under the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (42 U.S.C. 1973ff–1 et seq.); (ii) provided the right to vote otherwise than in person under section 3(b)(2)(B)(ii) of the Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act (42 U.S.C. 1973ee–1(b)(2)(B)(ii)); or (iii) entitled to vote otherwise than in person under any other Federal law.

Requiring the same identifying information that you used to register to vote to actually verify you are the person casting the vote either in-person or absentee isn't racist.  My goodness, people will call anything racist these days.       

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, djmich said:

I don’t think it changes many minds.  What I think is more likely is intimidation and actual violence if we allow partisans to interact with voters on the voting line.  Not sure if folks been paying attention but elections are emotional?

I also think Nate Cohen @NYT is right that the sum total of the GA laws won’t impact votes either (although I do agree maybe a few folks will be thirsty if they don’t bring water)

How about we fix the problems that’s creating 11 hour lines and not focus on the possibility that maybe there might be some violence at some point.  And again as I was saying if that was the true intent of the GOP I could get on board. We all know it’s not.  

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sinn Fein said:

I'll bite.

 

What problem(s) were they trying to solve with a 90+ page bill?  (I am assuming there are actually parts of the bill that are reasonably designed to address legitimate novel issues - but I don't know what those parts are.)

 

Because from where I sit - individual fraud is a complete non-issue, and a non-threat to the integrity of an election.  There are already laws in place to deal with any that do happen to occur.

 

I go back to the notion that this was simply bad optics - even if it was not the underlying cause.  GOP lost elections, and immediately decided to enact voter reform laws in response.  That suggests that the GOP led legislature saw voter fraud as one of the reasons they lost the elections.

 

I have no idea why they felt there was a problem that had to be solved now.  It’s blown up in everyone’s faces though.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, FairWarning said:

Georgia doesn’t need water at these, they need more places to vote.  That is what they should demand.  

100%. And this law moved it the other direction by removing drop boxes. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, dkp993 said:

How about we fix the problems that’s creating 11 hour lines and not focus on the possibility that maybe there might be some violence at some point.  And again as I was saying if that was the true intent of the GOP I could get on board. We all know it’s not.  

Weren't there only 11 hour lines for early voting?

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, dkp993 said:

How about we fix the problems that’s creating 11 hour lines and not focus on the possibility that maybe there might be some violence at some point.  And again as I was saying if that was the true intent of the GOP I could get on board. We all know it’s not.  

I think the new law attempted to do that.  They added three additional early voting days on the weekends.  This should allow people to vote earlier and not wait until the last minute.  We'll see if Georgians take advantage of that.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, dkp993 said:

100%. And this law moved it the other direction by removing drop boxes. 

Was there an 11 hour wait to drop off an absentee ballot?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, dkp993 said:

How about we fix the problems that’s creating 11 hour lines and not focus on the possibility that maybe there might be some violence at some point.  And again as I was saying if that was the true intent of the GOP I could get on board. We all know it’s not.  

I saw somewhere that the bill included a provision to either add additional polling stations and/or address the long lines.  I can’t find it because when doing a google search everything comes back either partisan source titled Jim Crow or behind a paywall.

And there’s this to increase early voting accessibility, which should help decrease day of election lines.


“One of the biggest changes in the bill would expand early voting access for most counties, adding an additional mandatory Saturday and formally codifying Sunday voting hours as optional,” Stephen Fowler of Georgia Public Broadcasting said. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

I always enjoy reading IK's posts even when we disagree because he makes his views clear and attempts to explain them in a compelling way.  Here are the two reasons I think he and I see things so differently:

1) The role of a government in democratic society -- The way I read IK, it seems like his view is that democratic governments only have an obligation to make voting reasonably accessible so that it isn't "too hard" for people to vote.  Obviously people can disagree about where that threshold line is. But my reading of IK is that governments are free to monkey around with voting requirements for basically any reason as long as they stay above that threshold line.

I view it differently.  My perspective is that democratic governments have an obligation to make it as easy as possible for people to vote, subject to considerations regarding voter security and resources.  If a government makes it more difficult for certain people to vote, and there are no compelling security or resource reasons for doing so, I see that as a betrayal of democratic principles by the government.  And in the case of the Georgia law, there do not appear to have been any compelling reasons to make these changes.  

2) Context -- IK seems to just want to talk about these laws in the abstract, without really discussing intent.  As long as a law doesn't make it "too hard" to vote it's fine, and the Georgia law doesn't make it too hard to vote in his estimation.  So it doesn't really matter why Georgia did this, as long as the final law is generally OK.

But in my view that misses the entire story.  In 2020, due to the pandemic, voting restrictions were relaxed.  As a result of these changes, voter turnout went up by A LOT, especially in the runoff Senate elections.  In addition, the pandemic changes do not appear to have been particularly costly, and investigations turned up no evidence of fraud. This should have been greeted by a pro-democracy government as GOOD news.  Somehow, Georgia had figured out a way to get more people to vote and it didn't cost much and it didn't appear to contribute to fraud.  A well-meaning government should lean into that success to try to see if it can make it even easier for people to vote without the state spending a lot or inviting fraud.

But of course Georgia is a state that has been dominated by Republicans for decades, although it has been getting closer and closer.  And in 2020 the Democrats finally won statewide elections there under the new voting rules, but by very small margins.  So the Republican government chose to try to make it harder for certain people to vote, the exact opposite of what a well-meaning government should do in that instance.  There does not seem to be any reasonable explanation for most of these changes other than partisanship.  And due to the tiny margins in these Georgia elections, even slight changes to make voting harder can swing the state.

This context is why I don't think the "Jim Crow" comparison is so off the mark.  Sure, the law here isn't as onerous as old-timey literacy tests or poll taxes.  But it has the exact same intent (suppressing votes from certain populations) and has a reasonable chance of having the same impact (creating a mismatch between the preferences of eligible voters and the preferences of those that actually cast a ballot so that the party with less support can stay in power). 

Wow. This post, particularly the second half about context, is everything I have been trying to get across but not nearly as eloquently as you have. Tremendous job, thanks. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, djmich said:

I saw somewhere that the bill included a provision to either add additional polling stations and/or address the long lines.  I can’t find it because when doing a google search everything comes back either partisan source titled Jim Crow or behind a paywall.

And there’s this to increase early voting accessibility, which should help decrease day of election lines.


“One of the biggest changes in the bill would expand early voting access for most counties, adding an additional mandatory Saturday and formally codifying Sunday voting hours as optional,” Stephen Fowler of Georgia Public Broadcasting said. 

Like you I was unable to find that. If it did include that it would be the first thing from the bill I think makes sense.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, FairWarning said:

Georgia doesn’t need water at these, they need more places to vote.  That is what they should demand.  

This is a better point than you'll get credit for.

People aren't supposed to wait hours in line to vote (IMHO, it should be more like 20-30 minutes max). If multi-hour waits are commonplace in your state, it's being done wrong.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:

I have not heard this yet. If this is true then this whole thing is insane. 

As per the CNN article I read:

Quote

The law also does away with the signature-matching system Georgia used to use to check the identities of absentee voters. Instead, voters will have to provide their Georgia driver's license number, the number on their state identification card, or the last four digits of their Social Security number.

In addition to that:

Quote

If they don't have any of that, they can provide one of several alternative forms of identification, such as a copy of a utility bill, bank statement or government check. Advocates of the change say that this identification system is more precise than subjective attempts to try to match handwriting, while critics note that the new requirements are disproportionately likely to burden Black voters.

So, yeah, I completely miss how that is "disproportionately likely to burden Black voters."

 

This whole thing seems to me to be much less about Jim Crow on steroids and way more about partisan virtue signalling on steroids.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, djmich said:

I saw somewhere that the bill included a provision to either add additional polling stations and/or address the long lines.  I can’t find it because when doing a google search everything comes back either partisan source titled Jim Crow or behind a paywall.

And there’s this to increase early voting accessibility, which should help decrease day of election lines.


“One of the biggest changes in the bill would expand early voting access for most counties, adding an additional mandatory Saturday and formally codifying Sunday voting hours as optional,” Stephen Fowler of Georgia Public Broadcasting said. 

 

14 minutes ago, dkp993 said:

Like you I was unable to find that. If it did include that it would be the first thing from the bill I think makes sense.  

This is true:

Quote

 

S.B. 202 actually takes steps to fix those long lines. Georgia law previously allowed the state to override local election officials and require them to add more precincts or voting machines if people were left standing on line for an hour after the polls closed. S.B. 202 expands that authority, so that the state can step in and require more polling places or voting machines if voters in overcrowded precincts face lines of an hour or more at any of three measured intervals during the day. Read the new section for yourself:

If, at the previous general election, a precinct contained more than 2,000 electors and if [voters] desiring to vote on the day of the election had to wait in line for more than one hour before checking in to vote, the superintendent shall either reduce the size of such precinct so that it shall contain not more than 2,000 electors…or provide additional voting equipment or poll workers, or both, before the next general election….The chief manager of a precinct which contained more than 2,000 electors at the previous general election shall submit a report thereof to the superintendent of the reported time from entering the line to checking in to vote. Such wait time shall be measured no fewer than three different times throughout the day (in the morning, at midday, and prior to the close of polls) and such results shall be recorded on a form provided by the Secretary of State.

That quote is from a seemingly partisan web site, so I'll not link it here, but what is quoted is accurate. I provided the pertinent part and only left off the political slant. If anyone would like to check the validity I'd be happy to provide the link then.

Edited by Hoodoo
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

So language to address long polling lines, extending early voting days and you can use anything as an ID short of a stick figure drawing.

Travesty

  • Like 1
  • Laughing 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

You guys think you're in agreement but my guess is that you aren't.

Imagine a hypothetical new law that makes voting and registration easier.  Because I can see into the future with perfect accuracy, I know that this new law will result in 100 additional eligible voters who will now register and vote.  But it will also result in one fraudulent vote cast by an illegal voter.

To me, it still seems obvious that the law is a positive change.  The fraudulent vote is unfortunate but the 100 new voters justifies the change.

But to a lot of folks, that's a negative change.  The 100 new voters could theoretically have voted in the old system, they just weren't willing to jump through all the necessary hoops to do it.  We've now introduced a fraudulent vote into the system just to save some people a little inconvenience. 

Not sure where you're going GB.  I am perfectly fine knowing that we will always have that 3-5% margin of error for a myriad of reasons.  Systems aren't perfect, including this one.  We stay in that long accepted range and I'm good :oldunsure: 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ramblin Wreck said:

So Colorado requiring an ID is okay because it's primarily white but Georgia is racist because they aren't?   Stop mashing the keyboard and listen to yourself.

The ID required to vote in Colorado and the one in Georgia are significantly different, right?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, whoknew said:

The ID required to vote in Colorado and the one in Georgia are significantly different, right?

Yes Colorado is more restrictive 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...