c_hawkbob wrote: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.
Aseahawkfan wrote: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 wrote: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.
MackStrongIsMyHero wrote: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.
MackStrongIsMyHero wrote: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.
MackStrongIsMyHero wrote: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.
c_hawkbob wrote: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.
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.
c_hawkbob wrote: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.
MackStrongIsMyHero wrote: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 wrote: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.
Aseahawkfan wrote: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.
Aseahawkfan wrote: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 wrote: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 wrote: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.
RiverDog wrote: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 wrote:As with all things Trump, he did not start this crap. He merely pushed it to its most extreme.
RiverDog wrote: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.
mykc14 wrote: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.
RiverDog wrote:
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
RiverDog wrote: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 wrote: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 wrote:
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 wrote: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.
mykc14 wrote: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 wrote: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.
c_hawkbob wrote: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 wrote:
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".
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests