Georgia's SB 202 voting law really is that bad - Vox
By: Zack Beauchamp (Vox)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Georgia's new election law SB 202, which many experts decried as an attack on the fundamental fairness of the state's elections, was compared to Jim Crow by many leading Democrats. Now some observers are pushing back, arguing the bill falls well short of a democratic apocalyptic.
In the New York Times, Nate Cohn concluded that "the law's voting provisions are unlikely to significantly affect turnout or Democratic chances." Slate's Will Saletan notes that some provisions really are troubling, but that the bill also contains good provisions and that critics have "overhyped" their concerns. Brian Riedl, a senior fellow at the conservative Manhattan Institute, writes that "the idea this is an epic war on voting rights is simply absurd."
On one level, it's a fair topic of conversation, and the critics make some good points. Research on the effect of voter ID requirements often does find small or no effect on turnout; President Joe Biden's description of the bill as "Jim Crow on steroids" certainly overstates the case.
But at the same time, some of the policy conversation about the Georgia bill is deeply frustrating. The close reading often takes place in a vacuum, disconnected from the context that gave rise to the law in the first place.
The fundamental truth about SB 202 is this: Its very existence is predicated on a lie. The bill's passage was motivated by unfounded claims of fraud in the Georgia presidential elections — lies that Donald Trump spread and continues to spread, with the help of both state and national Republicans.
"President Biden, the left, and the national media are determined to destroy the sanctity and security of the ballot box," Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp said in a statement after the bill's signing.
The problem with discussing Georgia's law solely in the narrow terms of what this or that provision does is that it implicitly concedes that the law is a reasonable enterprise to begin with: that the rationale for its passage is legitimate rather than an effort to further a fraudulent and dangerous narrative.
"The conversation is something like the mid-2000s debate over whether torture works. It basically doesn't, but to even have that debate is to have surrendered something," writes Seth Masket, a political scientist at the University of Denver.
The Georgia bill is not merely the sum of its provisions in a country where 60 percent of Republicans believe the 2020 presidential election "was stolen" from Trump through voter fraud — it validates a lie that is corroding American democracy. It also extends and deepens a much older Republican campaign to rig the system in their favor.
The debate over the bill's provisions, briefly explained
Let's start by getting clear on what Georgia's new law actually does.
SB 202 is a big piece of legislation, containing a number of provisions touching on different aspects of election law. In his analysis, Cohn divides these provisions into four buckets: new regulations on absentee voting, new in-person voting rules, changes to runoff elections, and expansions of the state legislature's power over election administration.
Many critics of Georgia's law, myself included, have argued that this last set of provisions is the most troubling one. It gives Georgia's Republican-controlled General Assembly effective control over the State Board of Elections and empowers the state board to take over local county boards — functionally allowing Republicans to handpick the people in charge of disqualifying ballots in Democratic-leaning places like Atlanta.
Saletan argues that there are sufficient safeguards in the bill to prevent abuse of these powers, but this is a minority view. Voting rights advocates, experts I've spoken to, and even Cohn all think there's a serious potential for abuse here. "This represents an obvious threat to American democracy," he concludes after an in-depth analysis of the new provisions.
The more serious arguments that Georgia's law isn't so dangerous focus on Cohn's other three buckets, which include regulations that:
- Extend voter ID requirements to absentee ballots
- Sharply limit the use of ballot drop boxes
- Expand weekend voting during the early voting period
- Require large precincts to take steps to limit crowd length
- Criminalize giving voters with food and water while they wait in line (with an exception for poll workers)
- Shorten the time between Election Day and any subsequent runoff elections from nine weeks to four, sharply contracting the early voting period for runoffs
These provisions will clearly make it somewhat harder to vote by mail; the impact on in-person voting is harder to discern but could plausibly make it harder to vote in Democratic-leaning precincts and easier in Republican ones.
But here's the surprising thing: There's some decent political science research that making voting marginally easier or harder, through policies like voter ID laws or expanding the use of drop boxes, doesn't really affect turnout all that much.
"In the contemporary United States, with such wide and ready access to the ballot, changes around the edges don't disenfranchise people," Rich Lowry writes in National Review. "It's hard to believe that one real voter is going to be kept from voting by the new [Georgia] rules."
Lowry is overstating the case. Experts like Charlotte Hill, a PhD candidate at UC-Berkeley who studies elections, cited research suggesting that so-called "convenience" reforms making voting easier really do matter for turnout.
The likely effect of Georgia's ballot access provisions is the sort of thing that reasonable people can disagree about. The evidence on their effects is genuinely mixed; it's fair, even important, to try to pinpoint exactly what effects certain provisions of the bill are likely to have.
But it's not the most helpful way to think, and frame the conversation, about the Georgia bill.
The Georgia bill validates Trump's big lie
Policies are enacted to solve problems. In the case of SB 202, the alleged "problem" is simple: that voters have had a crisis of confidence in the results of the 2020 vote and the integrity of Georgia's elections.
"The way we begin to restore confidence in our voting system is by passing this bill," Georgia Rep. Barry Fleming, the bill's sponsor, said during a floor debate on his proposal.
But this is a problem entirely of Republicans' own making. From Trump on down, key party leaders and operatives have worked to sow doubt in the validity of the 2020 results. By passing SB 202, Georgia's Republicans are merely ratifying their own lie.
Think about this from the point of view of someone who believes the Trump story of the 2020 election: that mail-in ballots were fraudulent, that in-person votes are the only reliable ones, that local election officials in heavily Democratic areas like Atlanta cheated, and that feckless state-level Republicans like Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger refused to intervene to stop them out of cowardice.
Trump supporters rallying in Washington, DC, on January 6.Getty Images
This is all a ludicrous fantasy, of course. But if you really believed it and wanted to prevent it in the future, then you would have designed a bill like SB 202: one that makes mail-in voting harder and takes power away from voting officials who failed to "stop the steal" in 2020.
And that, in fact, appears to have been what was on state legislators' minds when they wrote the bill. Stephen Fowler, a Georgia reporter who covers elections, writes that "the vast majority of Georgia's rank and file Republican elected officials jumped on board a series of hare-brained lawsuits and schemes to try and overthrow the state's elections." In December, Georgia House Republicans held a series of hearings in which speakers like Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani were invited to spout theories about how the election was stolen from Trump.
"Democrats are relying on the always-suspect absentee balloting process to inch ahead in Georgia and other close states," Fleming wrote in December. "If elections were like coastal cities, absentee balloting would be the shady part of town down near the docks you do not want to wander into because the chance of being shanghaied is significant."
Josh McLaurin, a Democrat in Georgia's House, told me that the state GOP is "a party whose election policy is driven by Trump's 'big lie'" — reverse-engineering SB 202 to solve the wholly fictitious problems invented by Trump and his allies.
The new rules aren't just premised on a lie. Their enactment also validates that lie.
The successes and failures of the GOP's anti-democratic agenda
Here's another piece of context the debate over SB 202's provisions is missing: The GOP has been working to fix state election rules across the country in its favor for years now, a campaign that's accelerating in the wake of Trump's claims of a stolen election.
According to the Brennan Center, a nonpartisan institute that studies voting rights, there are currently 361 bills in 47 statehouses around the country that would restrict the franchise — most of which attempt to put limits on absentee votes. These bills, according to Brennan, are "a backlash to 2020's historic voter turnout" being pushed "under the pretense of responding to baseless and racist allegations of voter fraud and election irregularities."
So far, these bills have only passed in Republican-controlled state governments like Georgia's — and recent history suggests they're only likely to pass in such governments. A new working paper by the University of Washington's Jake Grumbach attempted to measure the health of democracy in all 50 states between 2000 and 2018. The findings were unambiguous: Republican control over state government was correlated with large and measurable declines in the health of a state's democracy.
It's fair to say, at this point, that the Republican Party is engaged in a long-running, at times systematic attempt to change the rules in their favor. Not every tactic they've used in the fight has been equally effective; gerrymandering, at both the state and national level, has a much clearer partisan effect than voter ID laws.
But the fact that some of these laws don't end up being effective at suppressing turnout isn't a defense of the GOP. Attempted murder is still a crime. And focusing too heavily on the details of any one bill not only misses this overall context, but also serves to normalize the GOP's anti-democratic project.
Of course Democrats shouldn't lie, or even exaggerate, about Georgia's law. But they're right that the bill contains several extremely dangerous new provisions, and they're also right that the broader context suggests the stakes of our current fight over voting really are existential.
"We're so obsessed with estimating causal effects of suppression efforts we have ceded important normative ground," writes Hakeem Jefferson, a political scientist at Stanford. "The right to vote is sacred. Access to the ballot should be expanded, not burdened."
There's only one party in modern history whose presidential candidate refused to concede when they lost a national election. It's the party whose candidate is still insisting that he won the 2020 election, whose partisans violently attacked the US Capitol on January 6 in a last-ditch effort to keep their man in power. Now, that party is using its fantasies of fraud to justify legislation like what passed in Georgia.
And we can expect more attacks on election integrity in the coming months from GOP-controlled statehouses — because the Republican Party, as an institution, seems perfectly willing to use Trump's big lie as a pretext to seize more power.
Tags
Who is online
122 visitors
So spread a lie and start fear, repeat said lie, enact legislation to fix said lie...
it's basically legislation designed to let white supremacists change election results they don't like if restricting specific voters access to the polls doesn't work.
Yep. Don't like the way it is handled? Replace the election officials with ones who will.
That isn't how [deleted You should read it.]
So the new law says the legislature can replace election officials and you say no?
Maybe you should read it.
[deleted] I admit I am wrong.
[deleted laughably so.]
From your provided source:
[deleted]
Read it again. It says they can put them on suspension while they do an investigation.
So yes, suspension first.
And yes, it is about how an election is ran.....
It isn't about anyone's feelings about how the election is run. It is about standards being adhered to.
Why would you wish to keep incompetent people in charge?
[deleted]
It is about the legislature 'elected officials' putting people in charge of their choosing.
Conflate all you want, try to sidestep all you want, it is what is.
The standards will be the legislative choosing. They will decide.
Idiotic at least.
Change your mod. he is lazy and dishonest. Not a good combination,.
Laughable considering...
Stop spamming.
So no reply on the fact that the whole of the republican 'election reform' was based on a lie?
[deleted]
[deleted]
Nope he represents his own.
[deleted]
I love your style!
Good to know that Georgia turned their ''gold standard'' to the pig iron standard.
When conservative Republicans proclaim that the election must have been rigged simply because they lost, what they are really saying is that their own years of election rigging must have been countered somehow by their opponents and therefore "it was rigged". They have been working tirelessly to disenfranchise and discourage eligible voters adding hurdle after hurdle for those they know tend to vote Democrat for years. For them to lose just doesn't make sense to them so they have to proclaim it was rigged, then work at rigging it more in their favor once again. I've no doubt many of these conservative Republicans believe in their heart of hearts that poor and minority voters just don't know what's best for themselves which is how they justify making it as hard as possible for them to vote. They think everyone will be better off if they would just listen to the white "adults" in the room and vote for the conservative Republican candidate in every election and that anyone voting for their opponents are voting for their States decline and destruction. They are so wrapped up in their pompous arrogance they refuse to accept that anyone else might actually have a better idea for how State and local government should be run which is why they show no hesitancy in crafting these onerous voting laws that specifically target minority communities with, as one recent court case found "surgical precision".
It's the republican way. If you can't win fairly, change the rules
And lie, cheat, and steal . . .
So totally ignore what the seed is about....
Contrary to how some believe, if a republican gave me a bottle of water, I am not going to magically decide to vote that way.
So your response to long lines is well, they should have voted earlier?
I noticed you also left out the part of the legislature being in charge.
Deflection, projection, denial has become the gqp mantra
Except that I used the bullet points of the article.
That's quite immaterial. It's still considered electioneering and is illegal in I believe all states.
Utilize the early voting possibilities, which were actually expanded by this law, or have more ability to handle the volume of voters at polling places. It's really not rocket science for people to comprehend.
Maybe you're not aware, but the legislature IS in charge of voting laws in all states. What the legislature wants to accomplish is eliminate the future possibility of the Secretary of State usurping the legislature by agreeing to a consent decree negating the laws as written.
The premise of the article is that the 300+ bills being run through state houses are all based on a lie made by said republicans.
.
I would hardly call handing someone a bottle of water 'electioneering'.
A stretch.
.
And now the legislature has the ability to get rid of people they deem insufficient.
Also made the secretary of state moot in anything.
So get real.
I simply responded to the bullet points. But go with whatever floats your boat.
Hardly a stretch. It's nothing but a simple fact.
noun
Only if they are not adheering to the law as written. Local polling workers don't get to change the rules to suit their desire.
Hardly. Simply requires any change to existing law be made by the legislature and not the SoS and a consent decree right before an election.
I am quite real and I will further advise you to do the same.
Handing out water is not exactly an activity of an election campaign.
No you are not being real. The new law says the SOS does not even have a vote any longer.
When has a poll worker ever changer the law?
And yet you still cannot bring yourself to talk about why all these laws are running through state houses...
Poll workers are permitted to. Any others are not as no one has any idea who they work for or what their intention is.
The legislature makes the law. The Secretary of State does not. That's basic civics.
When they've disregarded existing laws.
Other states simply want to ensure that their voting laws are as iron clad as possible.
Maybe you'd be happier if Georgia made it's law as restrictive as, say New York or Delaware.
You think a poll worker cannot be partisan?
.
They still stripped the SOS of any power.
.
When has a poll worker disregarded law? Examples would be nice...
.
Iron clad? Oh yeah, all the existing laws were shit...Uh huh.
They are still all being run through based on lies.
I never made that claim, but they've agreed to leave their political coats at the door and be fair to everyone.
When did the Secretary of State have the authority to write and enact any law.
I admit a poor choice of words. Workers at counting locations even went as far as denying access to the counting location (Philadelphia) by people presenting a court order to do so.
They're doing their best.
If that's what you believe, who am I to question it?
Yet you will trust a poll worker to leave their partisanship at the door yet not someone handing out water...
If a SOS did something wrong, take it to court...
There were also a bunch of idiots claiming having to be six foot away was harming their ability. I think a judge told them to pound sand.
If the previous existing laws were doing their best, why the need for new ones?
So yes, you are going to be a denier that these 300+ laws being run through are based on the republican/trump lie that there was widespread fraud.
That they needed to bring back the faith of the electorate after they tried to bring the disfaith to begin with.
[deleted]
Except handing out food or water to a voter in line at a polling station is considered electioneering. Most states have restrictions around it. While I can agree that GA went a little far in it , its not that far off. In New York state you can hand out a small bottle of water to someone standing in line provided you are not wearing anything that identifies you with a political party or person and what you are handing out values less than $1. Anything over that $1 amount is illegal.
I feel that it's kind of dishonest the way this is being pushed. A person can donate water to a polling station and the people working the site can hand it out or set it up, provided it's not labeled as coming from any politican or political party. A polling station can set up a self-server water service. People in line can call to have food and drink delivered to them. So like all political discussions, this is not as bad as some would make it out to be and is not as harmless as others would make it out to be. In the big scope of things, this is actually a very small matter. People in line can still get water or drink, it just restricts who can actually hand it out. As I read it, a political party could set up a booth to give away water so long as they are 150 feet away from the building which holds the polling station and at least 25 feet away from any person in line. The person in line could leave the line to walk to them to get water. That would be legal under this new law.
As to why these laws are being pushed, IMO it's the same reason why the House passed HR1 and is pushing the Senate to pass S1. It's partisan politics trying to tip the balance of the system to favor them. Kind of like partisan politics has been working for a very long time.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
Sorry, busy so coming and going.
I still do not see an unnamed, unmarked person handing out water as electioneering.
Imo it is just stupid overreach to negate a non existent problem.
I think the house passed their bill after all the bills being pushed in states.
So both of my comments were off topic, but this reply from Snuffy is not? Interesting.
actually it is
Thanks.
It all depends on location. So long as you are outside the restricted area (which in Georgia is 150 of the building and 25 feet away from any line) you are ok. If you walk up to the line of people waiting to go in to vote and give them a bottle of water, that is the very definition of electioneering.
An unnamed unmarked person handing out water could easily whisper a candidates name as they handed you that bottle. A lot of states have similar laws. In New York State it's illegal to give anything of value over $1. I really think you are focusing on the wrong thing. It's not the water, it's the action itself.
The action itself is benign, Imo.
Anyone could whisper anything, even the person standing next to you.
Aren't you the guy who said handing out water to thirsty people was electioneering? Let me refresh your memory:
Ender said this:
...and you responded with this:
Hardly a stretch. It's nothing but a simple fact.
noun
If voters cannot tell who the water people work for, or what their intention is, then how can their actions be construed as electioneering? Good grief, Mary, have a word with yourself.
I think Bugsy said that, gave me a good laugh.
In Georgia and probably other states the SoS is the chief elections officer. That's why Kemp not recusing himself during his governor race was pure corruption.
not to mention wiping all the state election records of his win.
All of that is true, doesn't change things however. Electioneering should be discouraged in order to help cement free elections. Anything that presents the suggestion of electioneering should be avoided. You want to set up a booth and give away burgers and water, do it outside the restricted zones and you're fine.
This is where you and I differ. The action itself is benign, but if the action is performed within the restricted zones around a polling station then the action is wrong and should not be allowed.
You believe wrong.
How hilariously ridiculous!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"I really think you are focusing on the wrong thing. It's not the water, it's the action itself."
When there is no evidence of widespread voter fraud adding additional requirements forcing someone to prove they requested the absentee ballot is simply an added hurdle that disenfranchises eligible voters without valid ID's for one reason or another (unpaid parking tickets, moving violations, elderly or infirm and let their license lapse etc.). If Republicans had evidence of widespread absentee ballot fraud then they might have a reason to add those restriction, but they don't. The only reason they have is that they know that those most like to not have valid photo ID's are poor, minority and disabled groups who are also most likely to vote Democrat.
" Ballot drop boxes have been in use for about two decades , said Amber McReynolds, CEO of the National Vote at Home Institute and the former head of elections in Denver. The boxes are commonly used in states where generally all voting is by mail, including in Republican-led Utah."
Right, because soooo many voters will change their vote because someone gave them bottled water while they waited in line to vote. That's utterly ridiculous.
Some of the new rules I have no real objection with, they're no doubt intended to be mixed in with the obviously disenfranchising rules so as to make the overall rules less offensive, but it's obvious what these slimy Republican legislators are doing by mixing in intentionally disenfranchising rules that tilt the elections in their favor along with ones that make little to no difference.
"Widespread" fraud is not the point, except for some who have an issue with the United States to require what even Mexico requires for citizens to vote. That requirement is valid photo ID.
Never before in Georgia.
Ridiculous or not, it is illegal. Take it up with the people that write the laws.
Exactly what "disenfranchising rules" are you referring to?
Some folks just make it up as they go along.
OMG! Someone gave me water and I don't know who they could represent....
Good for you. Did you use it or give it to another who was thirsty?
Sarcasm not a strong point in some...
This is concerning:
So all of you who claim to be for states rights (you know who you are), apparently don't think that states' rights' extend to counties and municipalities...you know...where real government works.
Just admit you all want to take over and make us your bitches
First and foremost, 'states rights' are a Constitutional right. You know that 10th Amendment thing.
Counties and municipalities are subject to the laws of the state they are contained in and the 10th Amendment does not confer any special benefit to them. Further, if the state election board believes the local precincts are violating the law or usurping state law, they have a legal obligation to assume control and bring the locality into compliance.
So you are going to tell me that the state did not have that ability before?
I have no idea. But they have codified it to eliminate any ambiguity now.
Yeah, I don't read this as allowing the Board to simply step in and remove people they don't like, as is being portrayed here. The decision can be made after 1) a petition, 2) an investigation of the petition, 3) preliminary hearing, and 4) full hearing. Any removal has to meet the requirements set forth in lines 306-312. I read this as people are upset that someone might be able to get rid of superintendents that are actively violating election laws. Hell, this requires multiple violations of the law, or clear convincing evidence of malfeasance for at least two years. This is clearly targeting bad actors, not people that are not well liked, or may have messed up on a minor thing. What's the clamor for? Are we afraid that we might root out bad actors?
Not sure why the double column of numbers appears. The Left side is what NT added when I pasted. The Right column is the actual line number from the Bill.
That salty language is not directed at you Trout. I just have a hard time seeing the establishment of a procedure to remove bad actors as a negative. Certainly can't see such a provision being cause for our president to call for the MLB to remove the summer classic.
I don't have a hard time with that, either. I say remove all corrupt officials. But I don't see anything in there about petitions (your first comment). But you did explain it a bit better so I thank you for that.
p.s. What salty language?
Our President didn't call for them to do it. The decision was made by the MLB themselves. All our President did was support their decision. And that was done well after the MLB had announced their own decision to move it out of Atlanta.
It's possible I could have taken another's words there. I thought that I saw where he was pushing for that to happen. Thanks for pointing that out.
You're very welcome.
Again with the double numbering! The decision to petition the board is left to the local or county governing authority.
I'm generally pretty salty, and I've been making an effort to tone it down, as I appreciate that not everyone is as thick skinned as I am. Didn't want you to think the above was me getting animated toward you.
The double numbering is probably something in the code. I have that problem when writing letters in Word and I using bullet statements.
Ok. Thanks for showing me that. I usually don't think people are directing things toward me
The bill also changes the composition of the Board, now the 'at least three' are all seated by the GOP legislature.
Also, the bill remove Judicial review which allows the stacked Board to do it's will without due process.
I'm not sure what the "at least three" is that you are referring to. I'm guessing where the bill defines quorum. If not, feel free to paste the language you are referring to.
So, the composition change is only that the Secretary of State is no longer the chair, but a person elected by the general assembly. All off the other electors are appointed exactly how they were.
Odd to have a reference to judicial review if there is no judicial review.
It's in your block quote of the bill:
So the three SEB members seated by the GOP in Georgia constitute a quadrium and can suspend a superintendent. Those three can ALSO replace an county board with a single individual.
'ONLY'? Since the Georgia general assembly is overwhelmingly GOP, that gives the legislature partisan control over the SEB TOO.
Oh and yes I know that the bill gives lip service to the Chair being non-partisan. No one believes that for a minute.
Review section 6. Georgia code 21-2-32 ALREADY set out a JUDICIAL process for suspending a superintendent. They repealed that statute and made the SEB the SOLE authority for such a suspension. No Judicial review and no way to get an injunction.
The Judicial appeal you speak of is in section 7 for a superintendent that is requesting reinstatement.
When was code section 21-2-32 repealed?
Right. You alleged the bill removed judicial review. Section 7, as you have apparently read, adds 21-2-33.2. 21-2-33.1 already provides for the board to take action without resorting to the court. It also provides that the Board can submit a complaint to the AG who can bring a cause of action in the name of the board. 21-2-33.2 provides for further procedures for actions taken by the agency, and identifies the final agency decision on which the suspended super can appeal the agency action of suspension. 22-2-33.1 is still on the books, and not repealed by 202.
202 doesn't change anything on the composition of the board, other than replacing the Sec. of State with a chair person elected by the General Assembly. Your argument assumes the General Assembly appoints a conservative as chair, and further assumes that the conservative appointed will vote to suspend a superintendent on an unfounded and unsubstantiated claim. Of course, it also assumes the other 2 members would follow suit.
Prior to AMENDMENT, 21-2-33-1 had NOTHING to do with county or municipal superintendents of elections.
21-2-33-2 is ALL about the 'at least three' acting against county or municipal superintendents of elections.
It is not transparent.
You seem to be positing that THAT ain't no big deal. It IS. The Sec. of State is elected by the full population of the state. Changing ONE member out of five to an unelected official, appointed by a partisan general assembly IS a big deal.
Yes it does. Since the GOP made no effort whatsoever to make the bill bi-partisan, I presume that it's provisions are indeed partisan and that the GOP does indeed expect their appointees to act on a partisan basis.
deliberations are not open.
No different than a jury trial. The jury doesn't deliberate in the court room, in front of everyone. The jury retires to the jury room for deliberation. However, the testimony and vote are had in an open meeting. In other words, this is as transparent as a jury trial.
Wrong. 21-2-33.1 plainly provides as follows:
(a) The State Election Board is vested with the power to issue orders, after the completion of appropriate proceedings, directing compliance with this chapter or prohibiting the actual or threatened commission of any conduct constituting a violation, which order may include a provision requiring the violator...
"This chapter" refers to Chapter 2, which also covers county and local superintendents. The Board has always had the ability to bring action against supers. 202 did not change that. 202 adds subpart (f), but leaves the remainder of 21-2-33.1 intact. That makes sense, since a position of a chair was created, and specific language regarding suspension of supers was added.
Apparently I have a little more faith in my fellow man, which is odd, because I'm generally the cynical one. First, is the general assembly not a representative body of the people of the state of Georgia? Second, although I sometimes question this, I'm confident the members of the house and senate are aware that an abuse of this will most definitely come back to bite them. Meaning, it behooves both parties to put someone in the chair that is truly non-partisan. Both sides would benefit from such choice. The Sec. of State, however, is not necessarily a non-partisan.
I'm not arguing this is the greatest piece of legislation ever. It's damn sure not the demon piece of shit the liberals are trying to paint it as though, and I have yet to see something in the bill that is sufficient grounds or cause for the boycotts and other cry baby crap liberals are screaming for. Again I ask, what is the issue with suspending a super that has committed at least 2 proven violations of the law? From what I can understand from all of the liberal bitching, the real reason its not liked is because it creates the ability to immediately remove a bad actor, instead of letting them continue to break the voting laws during an ongoing election.
The SEB has been given the authority of Judge AND Jury.
Not until subpart 3 of that chapter.
Please cite the part or subpart of 21-2 that you base your claim on?
21-2-33-1 is all about the punitive action allowed AFTER the 21-2-32 hearing.
Note that NONE of those punitive actions allowed for suspensions or removal of superintendents.
The SoS was the Chair of the SEB before passage, the position wasn't 'created, it was TAKEN from the SoS, IMHO as a punitive action against him for not doing what Trump wanted.
Yes, all of whom are elected by a PORTION of the states population based on district, NOT by all of the voters of the state.
We will see just how 'non-partisan' the choice will be soon enough.
Yet he was answerable to the entire electorate. Who is the new chair answerable to?
Again, due process and a lack of transparency. The issue is WHO is judging the 'proof' of violations and WHAT evidence will be 'deliberated' during the closed door hearing.
Are you basing your scenario on any evidence that any such 'bad actor' has been identified in the 2020 election in Georgia? If they have always had the authority to 'bring action against superintendents', why hasn't that been done? It's been 5 MONTHS.
Where does the law say anything about an ongoing election? Based on the newly passed law, what is keeping them from 'suspending' superintendents and inserting ONE person in their stead to run an upcoming election in that district/precinct?
No offense Dulay, I did, and your last reply is in response to a post containing the quoted language. 21-2-33.1 is not new, its been around and plainly provides for the ability to bring an action or enforce the rules against supers.
Again, no offense, but I think your desire to find fault in 202 is triggering you on all things. To your question, it doesn't specifically. Thus, it goes without saying that a superintendent could be suspended during the course of an ongoing election.
If a super is removed, said super is replaced by a temporary super. I don't read 202 to allow several to be removed and replaced by ONE. The Board can't simply remove a super without cause, but must find by a preponderance of the evidence that the county or municipal super has violated the voting and election laws at least three times over the course of the last two general election cycles, or finds, by clear and convincing evidence, demonstrated nonfeasance, malfeasance or gross negligence in the administration of elections, for at least 2 elections. Note also that the board can only suspend 4 superintendents. I'm not saying it can't be taken advantage of. As they say, what goes around comes around, and such a play would eventually bite the other party in the butt.
No, its based on a plain reading of the statute. Malfeasance...pretty clear on its face. At least 3 violations of the law...again...seems clear. That's leaving out the fact that the law recognizes the opportunity for a super to remedy violations. To me its seems clear. The law recognizes that people may make mistakes. Intentional bad conduct or gross negligence will get you removed. Missteps that can be remedied apparently is not cause for immediate removal, unless the super doesn't remedy them.
Where is the potential due process violation you are reading into this? Feel free to quote the language you are relying on in your claim that this is providing for a "closed door hearing." I appreciate the fact that you don't trust the conservatives, which you have admitted, and I appreciate your candor. But, the only thing closed, as far as I can see, is deliberations. I can't tell you what the board would consider or discuss at deliberations. For all anyone knows, they would discuss how butt ugly Vanderbilt's baseball uni's are, but how good of a starting rotation they have. The evidence, however, is open. Thus, any bullshit decision resulting in suspension would be open to scrutiny and appeal.
Your concern is not who, it is how 1 of the 5 of the who is seated. Maybe I'm wrong, but, by the way you are arguing this, I'm assuming you believe a 5 member board that includes the current Sec. of State would determine the matter differently than a 5 member board that includes a chair chosen by the general assembly.
I tend to agree with you on this point. I'm not a fan of the headless fourth branch type. That said, maybe the general assembly is wise enough to appoint a real non-partisan.
Perhaps I misspoke a bit, but I think you understand what I was referring to. Who knows, the intent may be to punish the sitting SoS. It may be to get the general assembly to put someone in place that is not bickering with or afraid of action from the Governor.
AGAIN, 21-2-33-1 did NOT provide for ANY actions against superintendents. Repeating that falsehood doesn't make it any less false.
Please stop implying that pointing out FLAWS in and FACTS about 202 in any way evidences being 'triggered'.
So your claim about 'during an ongoing election' was hyperbole.
From 202:
Note that is PLURAL superintendents....
Note that an individual is SINGULAR and that NOWHERE in the law does it state that SEB SHALL or WILL appoint an individual for EACH superintendent suspended. 202 DOES however state that the SEB can suspend up to 4 superintendents at a time, thereby giving the SEB the authority to purge a local election board enmasse.
So after a closed door hearing the SEB can SUSPEND Superintendents and replace them 'temporarily' with ONE individual. Of course, they WOULD have to appoint at least 2 so the SEB can have a quorum and make decisions contrary to the superintendents that were suspended.
Which YOU claimed included the authority to take action against Superintendents BEFORE it was amended yet everything you cite is in the AMENDED law.
What part of 'not open to the public' don't you get?
Any cogent reader of 21-2-33-2 section 1 should recognize that at NO time during the 'preliminary hearing' does the law give a superintendent the right to participate. That CLOSED preliminary hearing is the ONLY action the SEB needs prior to suspension. Any petition [section 2] for reinstatement could take MONTHS. In those MONTHS an election could come and go while the APPOINTED Chair and 2 APPOINTED 'temporary' superintendents took actions favored, no doubt, by those who APPOINTED them.
YES and I think that is the laws INTENT. Again, 5 members is irrelevant since it only takes THREE to make a ruling ONE of whom is appointed by the Legislature and TWO of whom are appointed by the majority party of that same legislature. 1+2=3.
That is one hell of a big MAYBE.
A 'bit'.
Well the SoS believes that to be true, he said so.
Which is all the more reason for someone who is gains some independence and is answerable to the voters, instead being behooving to the majority in the legislature.
Clearly it did. It is not a falsehood. The board has the authority to enforce the rules against superintendents.
(a) The State Election Board is vested with the power to issue orders, after the completion of appropriate proceedings, directing compliance with this chapter or prohibiting the actual or threatened commission of any conduct constituting a violation, which order may include a provision requiring the violator..
AGAIN, rinsing and repeating the same falsehood does not make it any less false Rex.
There is NOTHING about taking actions against supervisors in 21-2-33. NOTHING. Just stop.
I won't stop, because 21-2-33.1 plainly and expressly gives the board authority to issue orders directing compliance with the Chapter, which orders may include:
(1) To cease and desist from committing further violations;
(2) To pay a civil penalty not to exceed $5,000.00 for each violation of this chapter or for each failure to comply with any provision of this chapter or of any rule or regulation promulgated under this chapter. Such penalty may be assessed against any violator as the State Election Board deems appropriate;
(3) To publicly reprimand any violator found to have committed a violation;
(4) To require that restitution be paid by any violator to a state, county, or city governing authority when it has suffered a monetary loss or damage as the result of a violation;
(5) To require violators to attend training as specified by the board; and
(6) To assess investigative costs incurred by the board against any violator found to have committed a violation.
That is called action. That action includes the ability to call superintends on the carpet for violating the rules of the Chapter...the entire chapter. Your disingenuous reading, apparently requiring a specific provision directed at supers, does not change the fact that the board has been vested with the authority to take action against anyone that violates the Chapter, supers included.
Feel free to, instead of simply claiming that 21-2-33.1 does not provide for such authority, support your position based on an analysis.
Rinse and repeated BS.
Thanks for the analysis. Slow clap all you want, but you cannot demonstrate how the plain language vesting the authority in the board to take action on everyone, somehow excludes superintendents.
Actually, I did, you just refuse to acknowledge it.
Carry on.
You have not made an analysis. You have claimed the entire time that the cited or referenced sections are in the AMENDED law, which is totally and absolutely wrong. The above quoted portion of 21-2-33.1 is as it has been since 2013. So yes, carry on...with your bald assertions.
Rinse and repeat Rex.
The sections are clearly cited in the thread
Legalese seems to escape you.
Other members can read our prior comments and decide for themselves.
In reality, the more a state tries to suppress voting, the more resilient the voters will become. You could have a mile long line at the poll where everyone is wearing a plain white tee shirt and orange pants (because another law gets passed requiring that of voters), and everyone brought a sack lunch and enough water for themselves, and there’s no slouching in line (because another law gets passed requiring that of voters), and every two minutes everyone pats their head and rubs their belly at the same time (because another law gets passed requiring that of voters) - and it would not stop people from showing up. It’s the expansions of the state legislature's power over election administration that is the wolf in sheep’s clothing here. This just paves the way to actual voter fraud at the government level.
"It’s the expansions of the state legislature's power over election administration that is the wolf in sheep’s clothing here. This just paves the way to actual voter fraud at the government level."
They have shown us time and time again (the so-called conservatives/republicans) that they can only win when they lie, cheat, and steal, SUPPRESS VOTES
This has now been followed by the latest Republican destruction of American exceptionalism - De Santis signed a drakonian bill that eclipses the Hong Kong controls over protesters.
in what specific ways does it do that?
I should have said "mimics" rather than "eclipses" because I see the very same prohibitions, but this is a new one:
I think that would encourage drivers to smash their vehicles into protesters, notwithstanding the possibility of criminal liability.
By the way, how would you feel about Matthew McCaughnehy as your Governor. LOL Personally, I was present to watch Ann Richards speak in Dallas, and I thought she was fantastic.
so how does that compare to Hong Kong laws?
I don't think people should run others over, and I also think protesters should not impede traffic on streets taxpayers paid for.
if the monuments, even confederate ones, aren't theirs then it should be a crime to destroy or deface them .
too early to say if he is serious or not about running, but I figure he will do about what anyone else elected would do.
Most of these look pretty familiar to me....
I don't see anything wrong with those provisions, except the holding them until a court date.
those are Florida laws, right?
how does Hong Kong's compare?
I'm not familiar enough with them to comment on the specific laws, but I do know this - there had been occasional peaceful protests in Hong Kong for a while, until more recently, when with the encouragement of American officials and government resolutions of support those peaceful protests, that had previously been tolerated, turned into violence and destruction that made the Portland protests and the January 6th insurrection look like kindergarten play - I saw it, I watched on TV as the protestors rioted, threw molotov cocktails, set fires, smashed windows, destroyed train and subway ticket machines, fought with police trying to preserve order, destroyed traffic lights, threw bricks (at least one person killed by a thrown brick and others injured), so the government cracked down, and I don't blame it. It is just a matter of limited years when Hong Kong will become in every respect part of the mainland government, ruled by the CCP, so all of that was just useless, totally useless, and it has cost the protesters the limited freedom that they had - the fools just threw it all away.
Fair enough.
I thought you were familiar with the Hong Kong laws based on your earlier comments. I don't have a clue about Hong Kong laws myself.
Sounds like HK police were justified in cracking down on the protesters once they stopped being peaceful.