Voting Rights

[RiverDog]

Georgia just passed into law some major changes in their voting rights. Some of them I can agree with, others are almost laughable.

I can agree with the section that requires some type of validation via a government issued ID in order to receive a mail in ballot, but it has to be completely free of charge and easily acquired. In WA, a standard, state issued photo ID costs $54. That doesn't sound like much, but there are people, such as nursing home residents, that have no other use for such an ID except for complying with a voting law. I'm also of the opinion that requiring a person possess something of value, even something as inconsequential as a $.50 postage stamp for a mail in ballot, in order to cast a vote to be the equivalent of a poll tax and a violation of the 14th Amendment.

A section of the Georgia law that I thought absurd was the part where it made it illegal to give someone standing in line to vote food and water. I haven't read the entire law to see if there's some sort of catch, such as selling stuff to awaiting voters, but it's hard to imagine why that would be a concern to the integrity of the process.

I'm also unclear as to why limiting the number of ballot drop boxes is a problem. If I had my druthers, I'd do away with using the USPS to deliver ballots and go exclusively to drop boxes except for areas of the country where it isn't a practical option. As a matter of fact, I could envision a law that requires a minimum number of ballot drop boxes based on population density and travel radius, that they have a certain degree of security, such as inside a WalMart or at a fire station, etc, that has 24/7 access.

Anyhow, I'm curious as to what everyone's take on this issue is.

[c_hawkbob]

It really is Jim Crow all over again. It's clearly targeted at minorities and poor demographics. It's disgusting in it's entirety and should be struck down as unconstitutional.

[NorthHawk]

It's blatant voter suppression and it shows some politicians would rather win power than remain a legitimate democracy.
If these types of laws are allowed to stand it's a frightening step towards autocracy.

[RiverDog]

It really is Jim Crow all over again. It's clearly targeted at minorities and poor demographics. It's disgusting in it's entirety and should be struck down as unconstitutional.

Some, if not most, of it, absolutely, and I think a lot of it will be struck down as unconstitutional. But I do think that there is merit to the voter ID part, especially being that it's mandatory for those voting in person (in GA, that is). So long as there is no cost to a government-issued ID and it's easily available, I see no logical reason why anyone would object.

As far as the ballot drop boxes goes, I would like to see more, not fewer, with the objective of getting the USPS out of the loop.

[Aseahawkfan]

Most of it seems dumb and unnecessary. When I heard the you can't bring someone water in the line, that was just ridiculous. Really? They're really criminalizing bringing water to someone in a voting line? That's not even racial, it's just stupid on a level I can't even imagine. Can you imagine standing in a voting line and your wife brings you some water and gets arrested? What idiot decided this should be a law? I really want to see the conversation that took place to include something this stupid in a law.

It should be an SNL sketch.

Some State Senator, "We need to make sure people standing in a voting line can't get water."

Another State Senator with a brain," But the majority of them are Republican since they're afraid to vote by mail due to Trump. If we don't let them get water, then they'll end up leaving before they vote to get water."

Some State Senator, "But if we let them drink water in line, they'll have to piss and leave their place in line. Then they might not come back to vote. We'll lose Republican votes. We gotta keep them poor dumb Republicans from drinking too much water and losing their place in line to vote like happened last time. They said Trump lost too many votes from them poor dumb Georgia Republicans afraid to vote by mail getting water and beer in the voting line, then leaving to piss and never coming back to vote. Probably cost us 12000 votes in total and the state of Georgia. So we gotta put a stop to that."

I mean really. It was clear last election the majority of people standing in the voting lines were Republican due to Trump scaring people off voting by mail. Now they can't get water while standing in line? It must be for some incredibly stupid reason like losing their place in line or what not.

I want to see this before the Supreme Court. I would think a unanimous ruling against would happen. I imagine most of the judges being in awe of the incredible stupidity inherent in this law.

[Aseahawkfan]

https://www.gpb.org/news/2021/03/27/what-does-georgias-new-voting-law-sb-202-do

Here's a more thorough breakdown of the law. Most of it is standard mundane administrative stuff. Then there is the food and water thing which I don't get the motivation for. Be nice if there was more clarity as to why anyone felt this was necessary.

All I know for sure is both sides think the other side is somehow cheating. And they're being sensationalistic about it. It's pretty damn stupid. We've been doing elections a long time and we have some of the most secure elections in the world. We are literally looked at worldwide as the nation most likely to have secure and competently handled elections. But everyone likes to think someone is cheating when they lose.

[MackStrongIsMyHero]

https://www.gpb.org/news/2021/03/27/what-does-georgias-new-voting-law-sb-202-do

Here's a more thorough breakdown of the law. Most of it is standard mundane administrative stuff. Then there is the food and water thing which I don't get the motivation for. Be nice if there was more clarity as to why anyone felt this was necessary.

All I know for sure is both sides think the other side is somehow cheating. And they're being sensationalistic about it. It's pretty damn stupid. We've been doing elections a long time and we have some of the most secure elections in the world. We are literally looked at worldwide as the nation most likely to have secure and competently handled elections. But everyone likes to think someone is cheating when they lose.

Per the article, poll workers are allowed to hand out water, but the rest of it doesn't make much sense to implement. Perhaps they believe food and water given out by 3rd parties kept voters around that would otherwise go home or, even less so, it incentivized voters to come out. No way to know that this specifically benefitted any particular voter (i.e. Democrat or Republican), but that should be the least of their concerns. The food and water is available to everyone there, so who cares?

As far as the rest of it, I didn't see it as unreasonable. Your normal absentee ballot procedures hasn't changed; the time frames for choosing to vote by mail are doable. If you want to vote bad enough, make it happen. I have no issue with requiring appropriate I.D., nor do I have an issue with citizens having to pay to acquire that I.D, so long as the cost isn't prohibitive. I haven't researched the cost across the country, but I can't imagine it is so expensive that we're comparable to the Jim Crow days where it was deliberately meant to be unattainable for some. There has to be some minimum costs to being a citizen of this country or any country.

I understand the reluctance against costs imposed on voters, but I also can't sit down at the poker table, play a hand, win and take the pot without having placed bets. I can't live under someone else's roof, not pay any of the bills, and then have a say in how the house is run. There has to be skin in the game.

[RiverDog]

Per the article, poll workers are allowed to hand out water, but the rest of it doesn't make much sense to implement. Perhaps they believe food and water given out by 3rd parties kept voters around that would otherwise go home or, even less so, it incentivized voters to come out. No way to know that this specifically benefitted any particular voter (i.e. Democrat or Republican), but that should be the least of their concerns. The food and water is available to everyone there, so who cares?

As far as the rest of it, I didn't see it as unreasonable. Your normal absentee ballot procedures hasn't changed; the time frames for choosing to vote by mail are doable. If you want to vote bad enough, make it happen. I have no issue with requiring appropriate I.D., nor do I have an issue with citizens having to pay to acquire that I.D, so long as the cost isn't prohibitive. I haven't researched the cost across the country, but I can't imagine it is so expensive that we're comparable to the Jim Crow days where it was deliberately meant to be unattainable for some. There has to be some minimum costs to being a citizen of this country or any country.

I understand the reluctance against costs imposed on voters, but I also can't sit down at the poker table, play a hand, win and take the pot without having placed bets. I can't live under someone else's roof, not pay any of the bills, and then have a say in how the house is run. There has to be skin in the game.

In Washington state, a standard ID..not a driver's license...costs $54. My wife used to work in nursing homes, and it was quite common for the nurses and aids to chip in to help pay for a resident to get a $20 hair cut. Asking them to fork out $54 for an ID that they will never use except to qualify to vote would almost certainly be an impediment for them. How in the heck can you justify $54 to cast a vote that won't make any practical difference anyway if you can't even afford to get your hair cut?

I'm 100% for voter ID, but acquiring acceptable documentation has to be free and relatively easy.

[MackStrongIsMyHero]

I wouldn’t be opposed to some exceptions and allowances for hardship, and it is not lost on me that the elderly have paid taxes their entire lives, but I wouldn’t be in favor of applying what you are suggesting to everyone based on that narrow set of circumstances. $54, and I would posit similar fees in other states, is attainable for the vast majority of people.

[RiverDog]

I wouldn’t be opposed to some exceptions and allowances for hardship, and it is not lost on me that the elderly have paid taxes their entire lives, but I wouldn’t be in favor of applying what you are suggesting to everyone based on that narrow set of circumstances. $54, and I would posit similar fees in other states, is attainable for the vast majority of people.

But that's not the only problem. IMO demanding that a person produce something of monetary value violates the 14th amendment that prohibits a poll tax. Even a $.55 postage stamp for a mail in ballot would be a violation if not for the option of ballot drop boxes.

Like I said, I'm four square behind efforts to prove voter eligibility if we can make acquiring acceptable documentation free and relatively easy for everyone, not just hardship cases. Proof of eligibility should be something that accompanies a voter registration. It ain't rocket science.

[MackStrongIsMyHero]

So through the wonders of internet research, the 14th Amendment is about reducing the representative apportionment if it is found that a state is denying the right to vote to its citizens. Clearly, Jim Crow Era laws did all sorts of things to disenfranchise voters, including a poll tax. So, now, requiring citizens to acquire a legally recognized form of identification at their cost fall under a form of disenfranchisement? I can see how the connection can be made, but I don't see that as the intent. It would make more sense to me if states were deliberately making forms of I.D. cost prohibitive to keep people from voting. That's not what is happening.

[RiverDog]

So through the wonders of internet research, the 14th Amendment is about reducing the representative apportionment if it is found that a state is denying the right to vote to its citizens. Clearly, Jim Crow Era laws did all sorts of things to disenfranchise voters, including a poll tax. So, now, requiring citizens to acquire a legally recognized form of identification at their cost fall under a form of disenfranchisement? I can see how the connection can be made, but I don't see that as the intent. It would make more sense to me if states were deliberately making forms of I.D. cost prohibitive to keep people from voting. That's not what is happening.

$54 is cost prohibitive for a number of citizens if the only use for it is to prove voter eligibility (nursing home residents are a prime example). Besides, who is to say what's cost prohibitive and what isn't? Where do you draw the line? $50? $100? $10?

You can't tell me that it costs $54 for the state to produce a photo ID that is not associated with any other government agency such as the DMV. They use it as a source of revenue to offset other aspects of government operations completely unrelated to the document, so essentially it is a tax, one that must be paid in order to vote.

How much is it going to cost the state to provide free photo ID's? How many people are there that don't already have a driver's license? It seems like a no brainer to me.

[MackStrongIsMyHero]

I can also see the merits of your suggestion. One side wants voter I.D., okay here you go. Other side says the cost isn't constitutional, okay it's free.

[RiverDog]

I can also see the merits of your suggestion. One side wants voter I.D., okay here you go. Other side says the cost isn't constitutional, okay it's free.

About 70-80% of the adult population already has a driver's license and many of those that don't drive have other acceptable forms of ID, such as passports and military ID's. How much is it going to cost states to demand that they provide free government issued ID's if they insist on them for validation of voting eligibility? It would be pretty easy to determine that a person applying for a free ID already has a driver's license or passport, so it's not like they're suddenly going to be wasting millions on unnecessary ID's.

[c_hawkbob]

As long as you are researching a specific amendment to bolster your argument you may want to research Supreme Court decision pertaining to that amendment and their application to the context of your argument rather than simply applying your own interpretation.

[RiverDog]

As long as you are researching a specific amendment to bolster your argument you may want to research Supreme Court decision pertaining to that amendment and their application to the context of your argument rather than simply applying your own interpretation.

If you have a particular SCOTUS decision in mind that pertains to the subject, then by all means, post it. I am simply expressing my opinion and what it would take to earn my support of a law requiring that voters acquire ID's.

[MackStrongIsMyHero]

Hey bob. It isn’t so much in support of my argument; it is more to raise the question is requiring a legally recognized form of identification paid for by the holder considered a deliberate act to disenfranchise voters. I will certainly dig more, but, for now, I am at work, but what I have read of the 14th and 15th amendments and the VRA suggests they are there to stop deliberate acts to disenfranchise voters. Jim Crow laws and any laws or acts that do that should be struck down. Does a postage stamp qualify? A paid for I.D.? A free I.D. (Depending on what qualifies one to obtain one)? Of course there are always exceptions (i.e. like River’s example of the indigent elderly who have no need and very little if any income to purchase a $54 I.d), and as I stated I am on board to make provisions to help those who need it, but, no, I don’t see requiring an I.D. nor having the person pay for it (entities make decisions all the time about what is and isn’t cost prohibitive) as an undue burden on the voter. If it is important enough, they’ll make it happen.

And furthermore, I am merely stating my opinion. My interpretation of voter requirements in relation to amendments and legislation is just that; my interpretation. Whatever decision congress or the supreme (edit: supremely) court makes regarding voter requirements, I’ll be more than happy to live by. I don’t have to agree with it or like it.

[c_hawkbob]

OK, I was speaking in a general sense, but here are two relevant cases (and actually the amendment in question is the 24th, not the 14th)"

After years of failed efforts and through some aggressive procedural wrangling, Congress passed the Twenty-Fourth Amendment in 1962, abolishing poll taxes in federal elections. ...

The Amendment was quickly adopted by the required three-fourths of the states and took effect in 1964, but not without resistance. Virginia attempted to circumvent this Amendment with a new version of the poll tax. The new Virginia law offered voters a choice: pay the tax, or file a notarized or witnessed certificate of residence at least six months before each election. In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court in Harman v. Forssenius (1965) concluded that the new law contravened the Twenty-Fourth Amendment. The certificate requirement placed a material burden exclusively on those who refused “to surrender their constitutional right to vote in federal elections without paying a poll tax.” In 1966, in Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, the Supreme Court would find that poll taxes in all state and local elections were prohibited under the Equal Protection Clause.

https://constitutioncenter.org/interact ... nterps/157

Those decisions (particularly the first) IMO would support your assertion that requiring a monetary outlay for a state ID would constitute a form of a poll tax.

[RiverDog]

OK, I was speaking in a general sense, but here are two relevant cases (and actually the amendment in question is the 24th, not the 14th)"

After years of failed efforts and through some aggressive procedural wrangling, Congress passed the Twenty-Fourth Amendment in 1962, abolishing poll taxes in federal elections. ...

The Amendment was quickly adopted by the required three-fourths of the states and took effect in 1964, but not without resistance. Virginia attempted to circumvent this Amendment with a new version of the poll tax. The new Virginia law offered voters a choice: pay the tax, or file a notarized or witnessed certificate of residence at least six months before each election. In a unanimous decision, the [i]Supreme Court in Harman v. Forssenius (1965) concluded that the new law contravened the Twenty-Fourth Amendment. The certificate requirement placed a material burden exclusively on those who refused “to surrender their constitutional right to vote in federal elections without paying a poll tax.” In 1966, in Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, the Supreme Court would find that poll taxes in all state and local elections were prohibited under the Equal Protection Clause.[/i]
https://constitutioncenter.org/interact ... nterps/157

Those decisions (particularly the first) IMO would support your assertion that requiring a monetary outlay for a state ID would constitute a form of a poll tax.

Interesting. Thanks for sharing it.

The cost of making government issued ID's free to any legal citizen that does not possess any other form of ID seems very inconsequential. In this state, for example, if you assume that Washington, a state of 7.6 million people, that there are 1 million eligible voters in WA without a driver's license, passport, or military ID, that's only $54 million dollars, a virtual drop in the bucket and much of which would be a one time cost. And there's no way it costs $54 per ID to produce those documents. It's not that big of an outlay.

Whether we like it or not, election reform is a big issue with a lot of people (thank you Donald Trump) and it's going to have to be addressed. It would seem to me that a very logical and painless compromise for the Democrats would be to give in on the issue of voter ID, which I consider to be a legitimate concern, in exchange for Republicans dropping some of what I consider to be absurd proposals, like fewer ballot boxes or denial of food/beverage handouts.

[MackStrongIsMyHero]

The very end of the article is asking the same question I did. Can the requirement to obtain a legally recognized form of identification (free or otherwise) be viewed as a poll tax? I don’t see where that has been answered by any preceding court decisions, yet.

[RiverDog]

The very end of the article is asking the same question I did. Can the requirement to obtain a legally recognized form of identification (free or otherwise) be viewed as a poll tax? I don’t see where that has been answered by any preceding court decisions, yet.

Here's an example:

Quoting a previous opinion in Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533, 377 U. S. 561-562, Justice Douglas opined, “A citizen, a qualified voter, is no more nor no less so because he lives in the city or on the farm... The Equal Protection Clause demands no less than substantially equal state legislative representation for all citizens, of all places as well as of all races.”

Specifically tackling the states’ argument that they should be allowed to fix voting requirements inside their own borders, Douglas disagreed, writing, “we must remember that the interest of the State, when it comes to voting, is limited to the power to fix qualifications. Wealth, like race, creed, or color, is not germane to one's ability to participate intelligently in the electoral process. Lines drawn on the basis of wealth or property, like those of race are traditionally disfavored. To introduce wealth or payment of a fee as a measure of a voter's qualifications is to introduce a capricious or irrelevant factor. The degree of the discrimination is irrelevant.”

He concluded, “[T]o repeat, wealth or fee paying has, in our view, no relation to voting qualifications; the right to vote is too precious, too fundamental to be so burdened or conditioned.”

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphill ... df7204e440

IMO the fee the state assesses on individuals to obtain a document for no other practical purpose other than to cast a vote qualifies as "payment of a fee" and "lines drawn on the basis of wealth or property" would seem to indicate that even a 55 cent postage stamp for a mail in ballot would amount to a poll tax.

[Aseahawkfan]

In Washington state, a standard ID..not a driver's license...costs $54. My wife used to work in nursing homes, and it was quite common for the nurses and aids to chip in to help pay for a resident to get a $20 hair cut. Asking them to fork out $54 for an ID that they will never use except to qualify to vote would almost certainly be an impediment for them. How in the heck can you justify $54 to cast a vote that won't make any practical difference anyway if you can't even afford to get your hair cut?

I'm 100% for voter ID, but acquiring acceptable documentation has to be free and relatively easy.

I'm not sure it is just driver's license or ID card. It sounds like any acceptable form of government ID. Birth certificate might be fine too.

I don't get the problem. It seems to me if either Party were cheating on a level to substantially affect elections, we would have clear and substantial evidence of each party doing so by now. Each Party has this view of the other as some kind of Empire-like group of powerful people doing all sorts of underhanded things to control America, wouldn't these dark Empire-like power parties have the means to get evidence to prove the other side is cheating on elections if it were happening on any substantial level?

I don't get the issue. How about both of these parties just offer better candidates with better ideas for governance, then they will win the vote. Not playing games like they're both some kind of evil villains to win votes on fear-mongering and falsehoods.

[c_hawkbob]

It's a totally manufactured issue brought to you by Trump in his effort to delegitimize his impending and eventual election loss. There is no evidence whatsoever of widespread voter fraud of any sort, never was.

[RiverDog]

I'm not sure it is just driver's license or ID card. It sounds like any acceptable form of government ID. Birth certificate might be fine too.

An ID card in WA costs $54, a standard driver's license costs $89 and an enhanced drivers license costs $113:

https://www.dol.wa.gov/driverslicense/fees.html

Birth certificates cost money, too. It's $25 just for a non certified informational copy.

I don't get the problem. It seems to me if either Party were cheating on a level to substantially affect elections, we would have clear and substantial evidence of each party doing so by now. Each Party has this view of the other as some kind of Empire-like group of powerful people doing all sorts of underhanded things to control America, wouldn't these dark Empire-like power parties have the means to get evidence to prove the other side is cheating on elections if it were happening on any substantial level?

I don't get the issue. How about both of these parties just offer better candidates with better ideas for governance, then they will win the vote. Not playing games like they're both some kind of evil villains to win votes on fear-mongering and falsehoods.

I don't see the problem, either. If anything, all the scrutiny during this past election revealed that the system is remarkably secure. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't make every reasonable effort to address potential problems, and illegitimate voting is an issue that has arisen a number of times in our history.

Donald Trump created the issue as a way to avoid facing the reality of losing an election, and he has half of his followers believing that the system is corrupt. The "problem" isn't going to go away. Might as well toss the other side a bone and agree to those things that make sense and do not disenfranchise anyone, and IMO voter ID should be something that both sides can agree on.

[RiverDog]

It's a totally manufactured issue brought to you by Trump in his effort to delegitimize his impending and eventual election loss. There is no evidence whatsoever of widespread voter fraud of any sort, never was.

I completely agree.

However, not everyone sees it the same way that you and I do. There's no harm in implementing something like voter ID to help restore at least a small degree of confidence in the system with some people so long as it's done right and that everyone that wants to vote can acquire an ID with a minimum amount of effort and at no expense.

[Aseahawkfan]

Well, I wish there was consistency in Democrat opinion. Because the Russian interference in 2016 was manufactured as well. Not that it occurred as I believe foreign interference occurs in nearly every election and has for a long time, but the extent of its effect on the election. That means the Democrats were also engaged in undermining our elections with claims of foreign interference having a substantial effect on elections. Then there was the hanging chads in 2000 when Gore lost and that rubbish. But Hilary Clinton in particular and the Clintons are very powerful, untrustworthy, and willing to engage in dirty tactics to win. And that's exactly what they did in 2016 whether it was torpedoing Sanders or manufacturing the Russian investigation. Yet Americans chose their view by their like or dislike of Trump versus the truth of the allegations and the character of the source which was the Clinton campaign to start the Russian investigation rubbish.

Both of these parties have to stop with the fear-mongering BS. It's not healthy for the country, our elections, or our governance.

I haven't seen a president since Reagan who wasn't the villain in the opposing party's story. It's grown tiresome and ridiculous. I wish more Americans would stop buying into the rubbish. Stop voting for people who are selling them ideology and vote for people with intelligent policies that will set the nation on a better path. Then maybe we don't end up with a narcissistic clown like Trump who preys on the worst fears and prejudices of American culture.

I'm not sure how to get to that point. I know how I get there, but I doubt many people will take the time to read that much. I try to encourage my friends to dig deeper, but they'd rather watch a news person telling them how to think and supporting their confirmation bias than dig deeper. I see the same thing from the Democrats who believe every sensationalistic headline tossed out there without digging very deeply into an issue. Americans should have to know more to govern than they do. And voting is governing. The news should only be a starting point for investigation, not an end point.

Americans need to take governing their nation more seriously than they do. They think casting their vote based on some emotional impulse driven by the media is enough and it isn't. Americans want better governance, they need to look in the mirror and start with themselves learning more and voting based on an understanding of policy and how it works. But as long as we're getting led around by sensationalistic BS, we're going to end up with this rubbish we have now.

[Aseahawkfan]

I completely agree.

However, not everyone sees it the same way that you and I do. There's no harm in implementing something like voter ID to help restore at least a small degree of confidence in the system with some people so long as it's done right and that everyone that wants to vote can acquire an ID with a minimum amount of effort and at no expense.

As with all things Trump, he did not start this crap. He merely pushed it to its most extreme.

[RiverDog]

I completely agree.

However, not everyone sees it the same way that you and I do. There's no harm in implementing something like voter ID to help restore at least a small degree of confidence in the system with some people so long as it's done right and that everyone that wants to vote can acquire an ID with a minimum amount of effort and at no expense.

As with all things Trump, he did not start this crap. He merely pushed it to its most extreme.

The voter ID issue has been around a long time, well before Trump. The other stuff is rather recent and a creation of Donald Trump and/or Trumpian Republicans.

This was a very unique election. A lot of states modified their voting laws due to the pandemic, so I think it only right that they go back and review what occurred. Do we want to be sending unrequested absentee ballots to voters? What role should the USPS play in our elections? How far in advance of the elections should people be allowed to cast their votes? If the Republicans would quit pushing some of these absurd proposals like no food/beverages and the Dems quit yelling Jim Crowe every time a Republican brings up an issue, they might be able to sit down and have a rational discussion.

[Hawktawk]

The trumplican party is so racist they don’t even care who knows it . Cant give someone a drink of water in a 4 hour long line . Outlawing early Sunday voting so god fearing blacks can’t vote before going to church . Then you have a candidate for sec of state who is a flat out big lie proponent . He will be responsible for voter registration. Shades of Brian Kemp sec of state suppressing voters to squeak out a win for governor . Racist pos party . They are doomed eventually .

[mykc14]

I agree that nobody should have to pay one cent for anything that has to do with voting. I think we need to do a better job as a country to make sure each citizen gets one vote and we close loopholes which allow voter fraud. As far as the food or drink goes I imagine it has to do with people trying to manipulate voters by offering them something, like food. In other words I can't give you money to vote a certain way. I can't give you a TV to vote a certain way. I can't give you food to vote a certain way. Maybe it's to curtail politicians or their associates from offering food to vote for a certain candidate. Maybe they had issues with people promising food if somebody came down and voted the way they wanted them to vote. I don't know for sure, but that's what I take from that aspect of the law.

[Aseahawkfan]

The voter ID issue has been around a long time, well before Trump. The other stuff is rather recent and a creation of Donald Trump and/or Trumpian Republicans.

This was a very unique election. A lot of states modified their voting laws due to the pandemic, so I think it only right that they go back and review what occurred. Do we want to be sending unrequested absentee ballots to voters? What role should the USPS play in our elections? How far in advance of the elections should people be allowed to cast their votes? If the Republicans would quit pushing some of these absurd proposals like no food/beverages and the Dems quit yelling Jim Crowe every time a Republican brings up an issue, they might be able to sit down and have a rational discussion.

I have heard all types of claims of election fraud well before Trump. Gore took it to court over hanging chads. Hilary Clinton pushed the Russian interference as to why she lost and continues to sell it as she and her corrupt team were the source of it. I've heard all types of talk of gerrymandering, mail voter fraud, dead people voting, and non-citizens voting.

The only thing Trump did was turn the dial to 11 and launch his Trumpbots on a crusade to overturn the election based his fraud claims. No one else attempted that, even though they quite clearly believed elections were stolen. Even many Republicans in Washington State believe Jay Inslee and the Washington Democrats engage in fraud to maintain power and have for years.

So I'm not sure what part you consider new save that Trump didn't concede the election at some point. That's the new part. He had no reason to. He's a 74 year old billionaire businessman who could care less about a long-term political career. As far as all his other arguments as to why the election was stolen, heard them call before on a local and national level.

[RiverDog]

I agree that nobody should have to pay one cent for anything that has to do with voting. I think we need to do a better job as a country to make sure each citizen gets one vote and we close loopholes which allow voter fraud. As far as the food or drink goes I imagine it has to do with people trying to manipulate voters by offering them something, like food. In other words I can't give you money to vote a certain way. I can't give you a TV to vote a certain way. I can't give you food to vote a certain way. Maybe it's to curtail politicians or their associates from offering food to vote for a certain candidate. Maybe they had issues with people promising food if somebody came down and voted the way they wanted them to vote. I don't know for sure, but that's what I take from that aspect of the law.

If they were worried about people trying to manipulate voters by giving them food and beverages, they could have worded the law to say no solicitation, in other words, no politicking or use of food/beverages as some form of enticement, handing out literature, etc.

Besides, most states, including Georgia, already have laws on the books that prevents campaigning within a certain distance of a polling place.

Each state has some form of restriction on political activities near polling places when voting is taking place.

These restrictions usually include limiting the display of signs, handing out campaign literature or soliciting votes within a pre-determined distance (typically 50 to 200 feet) of a polling place. Some states also address what apparel voters can wear within polling places

15 states prohibit campaign apparel/buttons/stickers/placards
37 states prohibit campaign materials/signs/banners/literature
28 States prohibit influencing voters/soliciting votes/political persuasion
17 states prohibit circulating petitions/soliciting signatures
9 states prohibit projecting sounds referring to candidates/issues
6 states prohibit polls/exit polls
9 states prohibit loitering
3 states prohibit peddling/advertising
10 states prohibit voter intimidation/interfering with voter
10 states prohibit obstructing entrance/hindering voter

Here's what's already illegal in the state of Georgia:

150 ft. of the outer edge of the building where a polling place is established, or within 25 feet of any voter standing in line

● Campaign Materials/Signs/Banners/Literature

● Influencing Voters/Soliciting Votes/Political Persuasion

● Circulating Petitions/Soliciting Signatures

● Polls/Exit Polls – Note: exit polls and opinion polls are prohibited within 25 ft. of the exit

https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections ... ering.aspx

[mykc14]

If they were worried about people trying to manipulate voters by giving them food and beverages, they could have worded the law to say no solicitation, in other words, no politicking or use of food/beverages as some form of enticement, handing out literature, etc.

Besides, most states, including Georgia, already have laws on the books that prevents campaigning within a certain distance of a polling place.

Each state has some form of restriction on political activities near polling places when voting is taking place.

These restrictions usually include limiting the display of signs, handing out campaign literature or soliciting votes within a pre-determined distance (typically 50 to 200 feet) of a polling place. Some states also address what apparel voters can wear within polling places

15 states prohibit campaign apparel/buttons/stickers/placards
37 states prohibit campaign materials/signs/banners/literature
28 States prohibit influencing voters/soliciting votes/political persuasion
17 states prohibit circulating petitions/soliciting signatures
9 states prohibit projecting sounds referring to candidates/issues
6 states prohibit polls/exit polls
9 states prohibit loitering
3 states prohibit peddling/advertising
10 states prohibit voter intimidation/interfering with voter
10 states prohibit obstructing entrance/hindering voter

Here's what's already illegal in the state of Georgia:

150 ft. of the outer edge of the building where a polling place is established, or within 25 feet of any voter standing in line

● Campaign Materials/Signs/Banners/Literature

● Influencing Voters/Soliciting Votes/Political Persuasion

● Circulating Petitions/Soliciting Signatures

● Polls/Exit Polls – Note: exit polls and opinion polls are prohibited within 25 ft. of the exit

https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections ... ering.aspx

So I did some research and here is how the law is worded.

"(a) No person shall solicit votes in any manner or by any means or method, nor shall any
person distribute or display any campaign material, nor shall any person give, offer to give,
or participate in the giving of any money or gifts, including, but not limited to, food and
drink, to an elector, nor shall any person solicit signatures for any petition, nor shall any
person, other than election officials discharging their duties, establish or set up any tables
or booths on any day in which ballots are being cast
(1) Within 150 feet of the outer edge of any building within which a polling place is established..."

It seems to me this is directly related to what I was talking about... solicitation of votes. I have no idea what happened in Georgia but whoever put this law together and whoever voted for it believes food/drinks were used to solicit votes. I don't know how wide spread this was or if it even happened but I have to agree that agencies shouldn't be soliciting votes by promising people a meal.

Also, the way I read it poll workers can have water accessible or possibly still bring water to people in line.

[RiverDog]

If they were worried about people trying to manipulate voters by giving them food and beverages, they could have worded the law to say no solicitation, in other words, no politicking or use of food/beverages as some form of enticement, handing out literature, etc.

Besides, most states, including Georgia, already have laws on the books that prevents campaigning within a certain distance of a polling place.

Each state has some form of restriction on political activities near polling places when voting is taking place.

These restrictions usually include limiting the display of signs, handing out campaign literature or soliciting votes within a pre-determined distance (typically 50 to 200 feet) of a polling place. Some states also address what apparel voters can wear within polling places

15 states prohibit campaign apparel/buttons/stickers/placards
37 states prohibit campaign materials/signs/banners/literature
28 States prohibit influencing voters/soliciting votes/political persuasion
17 states prohibit circulating petitions/soliciting signatures
9 states prohibit projecting sounds referring to candidates/issues
6 states prohibit polls/exit polls
9 states prohibit loitering
3 states prohibit peddling/advertising
10 states prohibit voter intimidation/interfering with voter
10 states prohibit obstructing entrance/hindering voter

Here's what's already illegal in the state of Georgia:

150 ft. of the outer edge of the building where a polling place is established, or within 25 feet of any voter standing in line

● Campaign Materials/Signs/Banners/Literature

● Influencing Voters/Soliciting Votes/Political Persuasion

● Circulating Petitions/Soliciting Signatures

● Polls/Exit Polls – Note: exit polls and opinion polls are prohibited within 25 ft. of the exit

https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections ... ering.aspx

So I did some research and here is how the law is worded.

"(a) No person shall solicit votes in any manner or by any means or method, nor shall any
person distribute or display any campaign material, nor shall any person give, offer to give,
or participate in the giving of any money or gifts, including, but not limited to, food and
drink, to an elector, nor shall any person solicit signatures for any petition, nor shall any
person, other than election officials discharging their duties, establish or set up any tables
or booths on any day in which ballots are being cast
(1) Within 150 feet of the outer edge of any building within which a polling place is established..."

It seems to me this is directly related to what I was talking about... solicitation of votes. I have no idea what happened in Georgia but whoever put this law together and whoever voted for it believes food/drinks were used to solicit votes. I don't know how wide spread this was or if it even happened but I have to agree that agencies shouldn't be soliciting votes by promising people a meal.

Also, the way I read it poll workers can have water accessible or possibly still bring water to people in line.

So how does that differ from the GA law already on the books that I quoted above, which includes " Influencing Voters/Soliciting Votes/Political Persuasion"?

Also, I'm not sure how you could read into the law that it is still OK for poll workers to bring voters standing in line a bottled water. It seems to me that there's not very much wiggle room in the way that law is written. Besides, the law itself would intimidate poll workers into not taking the chance of violating a law and placing themselves in legal jeopardy. If they hadn't specifically called out "drink", it wouldn't have caused so much consternation.

[mykc14]

So how does that differ from the GA law already on the books that I quoted above, which includes " Influencing Voters/Soliciting Votes/Political Persuasion"?

Also, I'm not sure how you could read into the law that it is still OK for poll workers to bring voters standing in line a bottled water. It seems to me that there's not very much wiggle room in the way that law is written. Besides, the law itself would intimidate poll workers into not taking the chance of violating a law and placing themselves in legal jeopardy. If they hadn't specifically called out "drink", it wouldn't have caused so much consternation.

It differs in that it specifically list food and drink. I assume it has to do with the fact that people were in some way soliciting votes using food and drink. I don't know what you are arguing exactly. Are you saying that my assumption- that the law was put in place because people were soliciting votes using food and drink- was inaccurate or are you saying that because there was already similar wording in previous laws that this is redundant? What exactly are you disagreeing with, because it seems very clear by the wording of the law this has to do with solicitation of votes.

As far as the poll workers being able to hand out drinks I'm not 100% sure about that but it is how I interpreted it when I read it. I'm not arguing that to be the case, but I'm not the only one who seems to inepter it this way:

Keith Williams, general counsel to Republican House Speaker David Ralston, "Any individual other than a worker at a polling place is prohibited from handing out water, etc., within 150 feet of a polling place or within 25 feet of the line."

Again, that was just a side thought I had while I was reading the law, it wasn't my main point.

[c_hawkbob]

If you're handing out water to anyone that needs it without asking them which way they're voting it is not in any way politicking or electioneering. This is strictly a punitive measure for standing lines too long. It makes no sense whatsoever other than a general suppression of the vote, which is supposed to benefit Republicans, which is why it's a Republican engineered bill. It shouldn't stand up in court.

[RiverDog]

It differs in that it (the new GA law) specifically list food and drink. I assume it has to do with the fact that people were in some way soliciting votes using food and drink. I don't know what you are arguing exactly. Are you saying that my assumption- that the law was put in place because people were soliciting votes using food and drink- was inaccurate or are you saying that because there was already similar wording in previous laws that this is redundant? What exactly are you disagreeing with, because it seems very clear by the wording of the law this has to do with solicitation of votes.

My point is that handing out food and drink to solicit votes was already prohibited under existing GA law and if your scenario is/was true, ie that people were in some way using food and drink to solicit votes, why weren't they dealt with at that time? It seems to me that your example is an enforcement issue, not one of how the law was written.

IMO there is another motivation for the new law other than solicitation. Could it be that the longest lines were in predominantly Democratic areas and that people were observed handing out bottled water to those waiting to vote and it was not able to be determined as soliciting? In order to convince me that my scenario is incorrect and yours more likely, you'll have to show me the difference between existing law and the new one with regard to using food and drink to solicit votes.

Also, if there was a specific incident or incidents in past elections that led to this new law, why hasn't it been brought out and used as an example of what the law is designed to prevent?

As far as the poll workers being able to hand out drinks I'm not 100% sure about that but it is how I interpreted it when I read it. I'm not arguing that to be the case, but I'm not the only one who seems to inepter it this way:

Keith Williams, general counsel to Republican House Speaker David Ralston, "Any individual other than a worker at a polling place is prohibited from handing out water, etc., within 150 feet of a polling place or within 25 feet of the line."

Again, that was just a side thought I had while I was reading the law, it wasn't my main point.

Understood. It's interesting that the quote you cited left out "to solicit votes".

[mykc14]

If you're handing out water to anyone that needs it without asking them which way they're voting it is not in any way politicking or electioneering. This is strictly a punitive measure for standing lines too long. It makes no sense whatsoever other than a general suppression of the vote, which is supposed to benefit Republicans, which is why it's a Republican engineered bill. It shouldn't stand up in court.

I'm not disagreeing with this at all. I'm just pointing out why the law was put in place and I don't personally know exactly what was happening at those polling stations. If any political party were promising food for a vote I think we would all agree that it should be regulated. If the law was passed just to suppress poor/minority votes than it is despicable. I have no idea- but personally I wouldn't put it past Democrats to try and get votes through promising food and I wouldn't put it past Republicans to suppress voters who typically vote democrat... or vise versa. That is why I believe voter manipulation is wide-spread.

[RiverDog]

If you're handing out water to anyone that needs it without asking them which way they're voting it is not in any way politicking or electioneering. This is strictly a punitive measure for standing lines too long. It makes no sense whatsoever other than a general suppression of the vote, which is supposed to benefit Republicans, which is why it's a Republican engineered bill. It shouldn't stand up in court.

Actually I wouldn't have a problem with the law if it weren't for two factors:

1. The new law is redundant. There are already laws on the books that cover the distribution food and drink in an effort to solicit votes, so why is the existing law insufficient?

2. The specific calling out of "food and drink" in the new law would tend to discourage any kind of act of generosity no matter how sincere or non political in nature.

[mykc14]

IMO there is another motivation for the new law other than solicitation. Could it be that the longest lines were in predominantly Democratic areas and that people were observed handing out bottled water to those waiting to vote and it was not able to be determined as soliciting? In order to convince me that my scenario is incorrect and yours more likely, you'll have to show me the difference between existing law and the new one with regard to using food and drink to solicit votes.

Also, if there was a specific incident or incidents in past elections that led to this new law, why hasn't it been brought out and used as an example of what the law is designed to prevent?



Understood. It's interesting that the quote you cited left out "to solicit votes".

Would it help you if I said that they put the "food and drink" part in there under the guise that it was about soliciting votes. To me it doesn't matter (it matters in the sense that it is despicable but not in the sense that I understand why it is there) all I was doing was explaining why it was there. It is definitely about soliciting votes via those means (handing out food and drink), I mean that is very clear in the wording of the law. All I was doing was addressing your OP where you said,

"A section of the Georgia law that I thought absurd was the part where it made it illegal to give someone standing in line to vote food and water. I haven't read the entire law to see if there's some sort of catch, such as selling stuff to awaiting voters, but it's hard to imagine why that would be a concern to the integrity of the process."

If people were giving away food for votes I think we both could agree that would be a 'concern to the integrity of the process.'

To me the fact that it is similar to previous Georgia law isn't relevant. Laws routinely get more specific over time if they aren't being enforced the way they were intended. Like you said maybe the law wasn't being enforced the way it was previously written so they wanted to get more specific, but like I said it really doesn't matter. I completely agree this main motivation behind the law probably is about voter suppression and if that is the case it is deplorable.