Have to respectfully disagree with you about the Georgia voting law changes. Yes, the draft legislation was much worse. Yes, voting is up. But, just because people are able to effectively jump over the new legislation’s hurtles — and spend a tremendous amount of resources organizing to do so— does not mean the legislation did not make…
Have to respectfully disagree with you about the Georgia voting law changes. Yes, the draft legislation was much worse. Yes, voting is up. But, just because people are able to effectively jump over the new legislation’s hurtles — and spend a tremendous amount of resources organizing to do so— does not mean the legislation did not make voting harder. Voting should be as easy as possible. Yes, we don’t want fraud, but, as you know, fraud has historically not been an issue in US elections.
Karen, this is so not true. You know I actually read the bill that actually passed and wrote about it. Democrats went way overboard in their criticism, to say the least. It just didn't make voting more difficult. And there were many changes that were in fact quite good. They made ballot drop boxes permanent. They put into place a way of monitoring delays at polling places and to ship off more voting equipment to those places when there are backups. They required early voting across the state and standardized it. The new legislation did require some identification to request a mail-in ballot, but that was a change long overdue and which hasn't proven to be an obstacle in those jurisdictions that have adopted the policy. They shortened the time frame to get mail-in ballots in, but that was because they didn't want a long post-election delay in counting those votes that people like Trump exploited. (I so wish PA would also do that.)
The problem with the GA bill had nothing to do with voting, but rather provisions taking away power from the Secretary of State and giving that power to the legislature. Also, the bill gives state officials extraordinary power to go in and take over the running of elections from local county election boards that the don't believe are performing their jobs competently. Now those are changes to be alarmed about. Not the fake "voter suppression" nonsense.
I've said this a million times. Democrats need to stop claiming, falsely, that every voting change is "voter suppression." They lose their credibility when they do that. Instead, Democrats need to be a lot more worried about the counting and certification of the votes. That's how Trump and his minions tried to steal the 2020 election and how they will try to steal it in 2024 if changes aren't made. (Bipartisan Electoral Count Act reform....why won't Dems support it?)
Appreciate your comments. That said, a few points.
It's hard to square some of the provisions with your claim "It just didn't make voting more difficult". For example, the food and water bit. It may incidentally turn out that this provision doesn't happen to suppress votes, but it sure seems to be the intention. (And, no, claims about limiting special interest groups, etc., don't fly. If that was the intent, then write it that way.)
My guess is that folks consider the phrase "voter suppression" an umbrella term. Thus, provisions to interfere in local election boards (as you note) or even to completely override (as some legislatures are considering) probably count as voter suppression to many people.
But, anyhow, yes, who counts the votes and what they are permitted to do about them should concern everyone.
I think the Democrats are far too fond of ‘umbrella terms’ (to say nothing of their ‘umbrella approaches’), which is why their messaging consistently fails and they aren’t getting much accomplished. When everything is a crisis, nothing is.
It is still remarkable that voting in a midterm primary has thus far outpaced 2020 primary voting after the law's passage. I don't know any details about polling locations on the local level, and how accessible they are based on local demographics, but Georgia still has more days of early voting than blue states like NY and Delaware. The worst of the bill just didn't make it into the version that passed, and for that, Georgia Republican lawmakers were rewarded with Joe Biden referring to the bill as Jim Crow 2.0, and MLB relocating the All-Star game.
Granted, it was a bill meant to address a problem that didn't really exist, and was purely chum thrown at the GOP base, but Democrats didn't do themselves any favors with exaggerated rhetoric after the scaled-down version passed.
I think it definitely helped, and that's a very good thing. The problem is the rhetoric didn't change when the bill changed, so when they attacked the bill, they were attacking a different bill. So, instead of just Republicans looking bad, Democrats look bad, too.
I'm curious, though.... does the fact that 'The worst of the bill just didn't make it into the version that passed' still make it a good, or non-voter-suppressing, bill?
Also, I think that people voting in primaries are the more motivated subset of voters. Hurdles in voting would have a larger effect in the general elections.
Have to respectfully disagree with you about the Georgia voting law changes. Yes, the draft legislation was much worse. Yes, voting is up. But, just because people are able to effectively jump over the new legislation’s hurtles — and spend a tremendous amount of resources organizing to do so— does not mean the legislation did not make voting harder. Voting should be as easy as possible. Yes, we don’t want fraud, but, as you know, fraud has historically not been an issue in US elections.
Karen, this is so not true. You know I actually read the bill that actually passed and wrote about it. Democrats went way overboard in their criticism, to say the least. It just didn't make voting more difficult. And there were many changes that were in fact quite good. They made ballot drop boxes permanent. They put into place a way of monitoring delays at polling places and to ship off more voting equipment to those places when there are backups. They required early voting across the state and standardized it. The new legislation did require some identification to request a mail-in ballot, but that was a change long overdue and which hasn't proven to be an obstacle in those jurisdictions that have adopted the policy. They shortened the time frame to get mail-in ballots in, but that was because they didn't want a long post-election delay in counting those votes that people like Trump exploited. (I so wish PA would also do that.)
The problem with the GA bill had nothing to do with voting, but rather provisions taking away power from the Secretary of State and giving that power to the legislature. Also, the bill gives state officials extraordinary power to go in and take over the running of elections from local county election boards that the don't believe are performing their jobs competently. Now those are changes to be alarmed about. Not the fake "voter suppression" nonsense.
I've said this a million times. Democrats need to stop claiming, falsely, that every voting change is "voter suppression." They lose their credibility when they do that. Instead, Democrats need to be a lot more worried about the counting and certification of the votes. That's how Trump and his minions tried to steal the 2020 election and how they will try to steal it in 2024 if changes aren't made. (Bipartisan Electoral Count Act reform....why won't Dems support it?)
Appreciate your comments. That said, a few points.
It's hard to square some of the provisions with your claim "It just didn't make voting more difficult". For example, the food and water bit. It may incidentally turn out that this provision doesn't happen to suppress votes, but it sure seems to be the intention. (And, no, claims about limiting special interest groups, etc., don't fly. If that was the intent, then write it that way.)
My guess is that folks consider the phrase "voter suppression" an umbrella term. Thus, provisions to interfere in local election boards (as you note) or even to completely override (as some legislatures are considering) probably count as voter suppression to many people.
But, anyhow, yes, who counts the votes and what they are permitted to do about them should concern everyone.
I think the Democrats are far too fond of ‘umbrella terms’ (to say nothing of their ‘umbrella approaches’), which is why their messaging consistently fails and they aren’t getting much accomplished. When everything is a crisis, nothing is.
It is still remarkable that voting in a midterm primary has thus far outpaced 2020 primary voting after the law's passage. I don't know any details about polling locations on the local level, and how accessible they are based on local demographics, but Georgia still has more days of early voting than blue states like NY and Delaware. The worst of the bill just didn't make it into the version that passed, and for that, Georgia Republican lawmakers were rewarded with Joe Biden referring to the bill as Jim Crow 2.0, and MLB relocating the All-Star game.
Granted, it was a bill meant to address a problem that didn't really exist, and was purely chum thrown at the GOP base, but Democrats didn't do themselves any favors with exaggerated rhetoric after the scaled-down version passed.
Maybe it was the Democratic rhetoric that got the bill watered down?
I think it definitely helped, and that's a very good thing. The problem is the rhetoric didn't change when the bill changed, so when they attacked the bill, they were attacking a different bill. So, instead of just Republicans looking bad, Democrats look bad, too.
I'm curious, though.... does the fact that 'The worst of the bill just didn't make it into the version that passed' still make it a good, or non-voter-suppressing, bill?
I came here to make a similar comment. Increased voting doesn't mean there was no voter suppression.
Also, I think that people voting in primaries are the more motivated subset of voters. Hurdles in voting would have a larger effect in the general elections.