Fact check: What the new Georgia elections law actually does
The new Georgia elections law signed by Republican Gov. Brian Kemp last week has prompted lawsuits from civil rights groups, a sharp denunciation from President Joe Biden, and calls for businesses to take action against the state. © Alyssa Pointer/Atlanta Journal-Constitution/AP Ann White of Roswell holds protest signs on the North Wing stairs of the Georgia State Capitol building on day 38 of the legislative session in Atlanta, Thursday, March 25, 2021. "It ain't over yet," said White. "I look forward to going door-to-door working against everybody that voted for (SB 202).
The national debate over voting rights is now getting more than a little off-kilter, with Republicans infuriated by criticism of Georgia’s new election law complaining about “woke corporations” and whining about the persecution of those in their own ranks who just want to “address concerns” about the 2020 elections (which is code for Trumpian conspiracy theories). No voting system is perfect, and there are legitimate reasons to question some Democratic prescriptions (as reflected in the congressional For the People proposal). But Republicans need to come clean about the assumptions they bring to the discussion. The GOP’s current election-reform agenda relies on a set of basic premises, outlined below, which are either based on questionable facts or rooted in a disreputable if unacknowledged desire to suppress Democratic votes. If the Republican Party would abandon these ideas, we could have a civil conversation about how to manage elections without disenfranchising voters.
GOP voting restriction push grows: 361 bills in 47 states; at least 70 in Texas and Arizona
More than 100 bills that would restrict ballot access have been introduced — within just the past month Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick Lynda M.
© Elijah Nouvelage/Bloomberg via Getty Images These Georgia voters have been hassled enough. Elijah Nouvelage/Bloomberg via Getty Images
Assumption No. 1: Voting is a privilege, not a right
It’s not a sufficiently respectable position to be uttered plainly, but Republican voter-suppression schemes almost invariably reflect the belief that voting is a revocable privilege, which in turn means anyone unwilling to go to considerable trouble to exercise it should forfeit it. This is evident in, for example, voter-ID requirements: Shouldn’t anyone wanting the weighty prerogative to choose elected officials get themselves a driver’s license, and make multiple copies of it, and be willing to offer or mail in evidence repeatedly to verify their eligibility? Similarly, shouldn’t anyone who wants the convenience of voting by mail proactively apply for a ballot, and take the trouble to fill it out according to the exact instructions, and buy a stamp and mail in back, carefully counting off the days to make absolutely sure the Postal Service gets more than enough time to deliver it before Election Day? What’s the problem with those people who struggle with such requirements? If they don’t want to vote all that badly, why go to any extra trouble to count their votes? That’s the attitude.
RNC chair declares she's 'Not watching baseball!!!!" on Opening Day after MLB moves All-Stage Game from Atlanta
McDaniel said she wouldn’t be watching baseball after the MLB pulled the All-Star Game from Atlanta in response to Georgia's new election law."Guess what I am doing today?" McDaniel tweeted.
Now, it’s true there’s no single constitutional right to vote. But the Constitution has been amended on four occasions to ban specific restrictions on voting, and one of them (the 15th Amendment, banning racial discrimination in voting rights) is the most common basis for contemporary challenges to Republican voting and election provisions that somehow just happen to disproportionately affect Democratic-leaning minority racial and ethnic groups.
In evaluating voting procedures, the burden should be placed on authorities to justify voting restrictions and requirements, not on voters to prove themselves nimble enough to avoid the one and meet the other. A ballot is not a prize to be won or lost; it’s a right, and lawmakers or election officials who do not treat it as one cannot expect much respect from voters or their advocates.
Assumption No. 2: Making voting more convenient cheapens it and invites fraud
You have to really step back and consider the absurdity of forcing citizens to self-govern via an election held in the middle of the work week and mostly during working hours, often at inconvenient or even distant locales. So long as that is the assumed idea, offering alternative voting times and places may seem like some sort of borderline-shady enterprise designed to relax rigorous standards, as evidenced by the 2020 election’s high turnout levels.
Why some Democrats are quietly unhappy with the House’s big voting rights bill
There’s a debate over whether some of the For the People Act’s provisions are misconceived.Known as HR 1 in the House, where it passed in early March with only a single Democratic defection, and S 1 in the Senate, where it’s co-sponsored by every Democrat except West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin, it’s a bill that Democrats and allied outside advocates argue is urgently necessary to save the country not only from voter suppression, but also from gerrymandering and the malign influences of big and dark money in politics.
Actually, before 2020, and before anyone had ever heard of COVID-19, 34 states offered no-excuse voting by mail, five allowed voters who registered to do so the opportunity to cast ballots by mail without ever sending in an application, and five voted only by mail. While there was some scattered opposition to “convenience voting,” Republicans were as likely to support it — and perhaps more likely to take advantage of it — as Democrats. And in places where Election Day in-person voting had become less and less common, convenient ways to drop off mail ballots (e.g., via drop boxes or by third-party collection) became more common.
Did voting without an election official staring at you involve some loss of “security?” Perhaps, though that’s why ballot tracking and the sealing of ballots with external signatures verifiable against voter-registration records became ubiquitous, along with criminal penalties — often felonies with jail time — for ballot-tampering. The idea Donald Trump promoted of mail ballots being wafted into space, captured by party operatives, and then filled out and returned en masse once Democrats knew how many votes they needed, is entirely an evil fantasy.
What Georgia's new election law really does – 9 facts
The new law will offer some voters more opportunities for early voting, but it also puts some new restrictions on absentee voting.Democrats and voting rights groups were outraged by voter ID provisions and changes to mail voting that they believe will make more difficult for some minorities and poorer voters to cast a ballot. Within days, major corporations, including Georgia-based Coca-Cola and Delta, along with CBS News' parent company ViacomCBS, spoke out against the bill, and Major League Baseball pulled its All-Star Game out of Georgia a day after President Biden threw his support behind the idea.
Assumption No. 3: Inequities in election resources are just the product of federalism
As many military veterans like to point out, “Freedom isn’t free.” Nor, I would add, is democracy. Yet as New America’s Lee Drutman observed last year, even before the COVID-19 pandemic hit: “America’s elections are critically underfunded — and have been for decades.” They are most underfunded, of course, in low-income urban areas, particularly those where minority voting populations are at the mercy of hostile state legislators and election administrators. There is a one-word reason that long voting lines are common in many major urban centers: money. Underfunding produces fewer precincts, outdated registration data, poor staffing of county and precinct election operations, and inadequate voter education.
Loading already poorly staffed and resourced areas with new “election security” requirements without significant additional funding is a recipe — or perhaps in some places a deliberate prescription — for chaos and voter discouragement. Yet Republicans rarely support stronger state funding and typically oppose compensatory federal funding altogether — even during a pandemic.
Assumption No. 4: We can stop worrying about states with a history of racist voting-rights practices
Until a conservative U.S. Supreme Court majority in the 2013 Shelby County v. Holder decision gutted the formula for figuring out which jurisdictions deserved extra scrutiny for past Jim Crow practices as obsolete, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 required a Justice Department pre-clearance for the kinds of voting-law changes Georgia has enacted and other Republican-controlled states are considering. That was the situation as recently as 2006 when Congress (by a unanimous vote in the Senate and a near-unanimous vote in the House) passed and George W. Bush signed a 25-year extension of the VRA. Unfortunately, since 2013 there has been very little GOP support for updating the VRA formula, which means states (like Georgia) with a rich history of racist voter administration aren’t facing federal scrutiny on grounds that the bad old ways have gone away.
An under-the-radar voting rights bill in Congress could prevent the election fight in Georgia from happening again
The political battles over voting laws are at a new fever pitch, with Democrats accusing Republicans of trying to suppress participation by minority voters, and Republicans accusing Democrats of hyperbole and bad-faith objections. Voting experts say that there are ongoing attempts to enact voter suppression laws and that there is also overheated rhetoric that in some cases has exaggerated the perceived ills of a law passed in Georgia recently. Voting law expert Rick Hasen, author of “Election Meltdown,” said one of the reasons that the voting wars are so intense is because over the last eight years a key guardrail, which had prevented bad laws from being passed by
Now, obviously, most Republicans reject the idea the they and their elected officials are racist. But given racially driven voting patterns, it’s possible to favor racist election laws as a matter of practical politics.
So even if the states of the former Confederacy no longer have formal obstacles to overcome in changing voting laws in ways that typically have a discriminatory effect, that doesn’t mean their good faith should go unquestioned. To put it simply, Georgia Republicans and those following the same patterns of “voting reforms” aren’t entitled to a presumption of fairness and innocence, particularly when their “reforms” are explicitly motivated by Trump-campaign slurs about fraud in urban minority areas.
Assumption No. 5: There’s nothing wrong with partisan election administration
The Georgia Republicans who enacted a controversial election law must not see a problem with partisan elected officials being in charge of elections. In 2018, Republican Brian Kemp insisted on holding a tight grip over election administration as secretary of state even though he was running for governor at the time. So even as he was claiming to be an impartial arbiter of voting laws and procedures, he was cavorting around the state calling himself a “politically incorrect conservative” determined to own the libs and defy respectable opinion. And he was fresh from a massive purge of voter rolls that arguably made the difference in his narrow win over voting-rights champion Stacey Abrams.
How Georgia's new voting law compares to other states
Georgia's new voting law has sparked outrage from Democrats and even been called "Jim Crow on steroids" by President Joe Biden, but many of its provisions have governed elections in other states across the country for years. From voter ID requirements to ballot drop boxes, and early voting schedules to absentee ballot access, there is little new or unique in the freshly minted Georgia rules. In fact, many of the measures critics are attacking have long been in place in blue states, including Biden's home state of Delaware.
As it happens, Kemp and his Republican successor as secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, certified Joe Biden’s 2020 win in Georgia, earning the wrath of Donald Trump and a likely Trump-inspired primary purge effort in 2022 (Raffensperger already has multiple primary opponents). While they may have stored up treasure in heaven by resisting Trump’s threats and bribes, here on earth you have to assume both men may be backing voter-suppression efforts to mitigate the damage and appeal to the MAGA base. They certainly have the pedigree for it.
More generally, if Republicans want to be taken at their word in professing a desire to protect voting rights even as they “address” those bogus concerns about fraud, they should begin by supporting a shift to nonpartisan administration of election systems — and, for that matter, of redistricting.
Assumption No. 6: 2020 proves that voter fraud is a real threat to democracy
To come full circle, Republicans in Georgia and elsewhere need to acknowledge this whole “election integrity” drive in the states they control is wholly the product of Trump’s lies, whether or not they profess to share them. And it’s not as though we didn’t all see the lies and their poisonous fruit on January 6 coming from a great distance. Trump began setting up his attempted election coup early in 2020, when he began demonizing voting by mail and convincing his voters to insist on Election Day voting, knowing those votes would be counted first. As many of us predicted, he began claiming all mail ballots were fraudulent on Election Night, when he demanded the counting be stopped. And his eventual “stolen election” claims were dependent on the idea that his votes were legitimate while Biden’s — which took longer to count — were not.
All the “fraud” talk was a product of this series of falsehoods, which is why it had no traction in the federal courts and was only kept alive by MAGA agitation that fed on wild conspiracy theories. Even on January 6, most Republican members of Congress who supported challenges to Biden’s electoral votes hid behind the idea that they were “addressing concerns” expressed by their party’s rank and file without acknowledging the concerns were entirely, well, fraudulent.
Perhaps if more Republicans are forthright about Trump’s lies and their implications, they will not only be more credible as election “reformers” but will help rid themselves of his domination of their party going forward.
New York Times argues Georgia voting law won't shrink turnout — but what it does might be worse .
Voting rights groups push back against New York Times analysis downplaying the impact of Georgia's restrictions Georgia Gov.