Georgia's SB 202 voting law really is that bad - Vox

  
Via:  Ender  •  one week ago  •  85 comments

By:   Zack Beauchamp (Vox)

Georgia's SB 202 voting law really is that bad - Vox
The debate over whether Georgia's law really suppresses voting reveals just how imperiled American democracy is.

Sponsored by group The Reality Show

The Reality Show


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

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
[]
 
Ender
PhD Principal
1  seeder  Ender    one week ago

So spread a lie and start fear, repeat said lie, enact legislation to fix said lie...

 
 
 
devangelical
PhD Principal
1.1  devangelical  replied to  Ender @1    one week ago

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.

 
 
 
Ender
PhD Principal
1.1.1  seeder  Ender  replied to  devangelical @1.1    one week ago

Yep. Don't like the way it is handled? Replace the election officials with ones who will.

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
1.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  Ender @1.1.1    one week ago

That isn't how   [deleted   You should read it.]

 
 
 
Ender
PhD Principal
1.1.3  seeder  Ender  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.2    one week ago

So the new law says the legislature can replace election officials and you say no?

Maybe you should read it.

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
1.1.4  Texan1211  replied to  Ender @1.1.3    one week ago

[deleted]  I admit I am wrong.

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
1.1.5  Texan1211  replied to  devangelical @1.1    one week ago
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.

[deleted  laughably so.]

 
 
 
Ender
PhD Principal
1.1.6  seeder  Ender  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.4    one week ago
The law allows the Board to appoint temporary replacements pending formal reviews and hearings investigating the superintendent's conduct.
 
 
 
Ender
PhD Principal
1.1.7  seeder  Ender  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.4    one week ago
The legislation authorizes the Republican-majority legislature to appoint the state election board’s majority while demoting the elected secretary of state, Georgia’s top election official, to a non-voting position.

It also allows the state board to remove local supervisors it deems derelict and replace them with individuals of its choosing.

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
1.1.8  Texan1211  replied to  Ender @1.1.6    one week ago

From your provided source:

  • The Board also has more power to temporarily suspend local election superintendents for repeated violations of the law or "nonfeasance, malfeasance, or gross negligence" over a period of two years. The law allows the Board to appoint temporary replacements pending formal reviews and hearings investigating the superintendent's conduct. 

[deleted]

 
 
 
Ender
PhD Principal
1.1.9  seeder  Ender  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.8    one week ago

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.....

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
1.1.10  Texan1211  replied to  Ender @1.1.9    one week ago

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?

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
1.1.11  Texan1211  replied to  Ender @1.1.9    one week ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Ender
PhD Principal
1.1.12  seeder  Ender  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.10    one week ago

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.

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
1.1.13  Texan1211  replied to  Ender @1.1.12    one week ago

Change your mod. he is lazy and dishonest. Not a good combination,.

 
 
 
Ender
PhD Principal
1.1.14  seeder  Ender  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.11    one week ago

Laughable considering...

 
 
 
Ender
PhD Principal
1.1.15  seeder  Ender  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.13    one week ago

Stop spamming.

So no reply on the fact that the whole of the republican 'election reform' was based on a lie?

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
1.1.16  Texan1211  replied to  Ender @1.1.14    one week ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
1.1.17  Texan1211  replied to  Ender @1.1.15    one week ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Ender
PhD Principal
1.1.18  seeder  Ender  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.16    one week ago

Nope he represents his own.

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
1.1.19  Texan1211  replied to  Ender @1.1.18    one week ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.20  Tessylo  replied to  Ender @1.1.15    one week ago

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.21  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @1.1    one week ago
[deleted]  I admit I am wrong.

I love your style!

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
2  Kavika     one week ago

Good to know that Georgia turned their ''gold standard'' to the pig iron standard.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
PhD Guide
2.1  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Kavika @2    one week ago
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".

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
3  Trout Giggles    one week ago

It's the republican way. If you can't win fairly, change the rules

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.1  Tessylo  replied to  Trout Giggles @3    one week ago

And lie, cheat, and steal . . .

 
 
 
expatingb
Freshman Quiet
4  expatingb    one week ago
  • Extend voter ID requirements to absentee ballots

And what may I ask is the problem with that?  Should Auntie Emm be required to prove that it was she that requested the absentee ballot and not the Cowardly Lion?  Rational people would applaud that requirement.

  • Sharply limit the use of ballot drop boxes

Excellent.  Limit the use of drop boxes which did not even exist prior to the 2020 election.

  • Expand weekend voting during the early voting period

Another excellent idea.

  • Require large precincts to take steps to limit crowd length

Would that not be a logical response to help eliminate long lines?  If the precinct has a large number of voters, does it not behoove them to help the people living in that precinct to vote as quickly as possible?  Or is the intention of select precincts to limit voting by making it intolerable for people to wait to vote?

  • Criminalize giving voters with food and water while they wait in line (with an exception for poll workers)

Much like in all other states.  It's known as electioneering and is an illegal activity.  There is nothing in the law that precludes an individual from bringing their own food or water, or even having poll workers distribute food or water as long as it's not emblazoned with any candidates name or political party.   

However, if large precincts expanded voting booths the requirement to stand on line for hours would be eliminated.

  • Shorten the time between Election Day and any subsequent runoff elections from nine weeks to four, sharply contracting the early voting period for runoffs
What exactly is the problem with that?  It allows for KNOWN candidates to campaign and provides the candidates and voters with a degree of certainty exactly who the winning candidate is which then also allows for recounts and potential legal challenges.
 
 
 
Ender
PhD Principal
4.1  seeder  Ender  replied to  expatingb @4    one week ago

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.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.1.1  Tessylo  replied to  Ender @4.1    one week ago

Deflection, projection, denial has become the gqp mantra

 
 
 
expatingb
Freshman Quiet
4.1.2  expatingb  replied to  Ender @4.1    one week ago
So totally ignore what the seed is about....

Except that I used the bullet points of the article.

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.

That's quite immaterial.  It's still considered electioneering and is illegal in I believe all states.   

So your response to long lines is well, they should have voted earlier?

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.

I noticed you also left out the part of the legislature being in charge.

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.

 
 
 
Ender
PhD Principal
4.1.3  seeder  Ender  replied to  expatingb @4.1.2    one week ago

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.

 
 
 
expatingb
Freshman Quiet
4.1.4  expatingb  replied to  Ender @4.1.3    one week ago
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 simply responded to the bullet points.  But go with whatever floats your boat.

.

I would hardly call handing someone a bottle of water 'electioneering'.

A stretch.

Hardly a stretch.  It's nothing but a simple fact.

electioneering
/iˌlekSHəˈniriNG/

noun

  • 1. active and energetic participation in the activities of an election campaign: "many states ban   electioneering   near physical polling places"

. And now the legislature has the ability to get rid of people they deem insufficient.

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.

Also made the secretary of state moot in anything.

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.

So get real.

I am quite real and I will further advise you to do the same.

 
 
 
Ender
PhD Principal
4.1.5  seeder  Ender  replied to  expatingb @4.1.4    one week ago

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...

 
 
 
expatingb
Freshman Quiet
4.1.6  expatingb  replied to  Ender @4.1.5    one week ago
Handing out water is not exactly an activity of an election campaign.

Poll workers are permitted to.  Any others are not as no one has any idea who they work for or what their intention is.   

No you are not being real. The new law says the SOS does not even have a vote any longer.

The legislature makes the law.  The Secretary of State does not.  That's basic civics.

When has a poll worker ever changer the law?

When they've disregarded existing laws.

And yet you still cannot bring yourself to talk about why all these laws are running through state houses...

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.

 
 
 
Ender
PhD Principal
4.1.7  seeder  Ender  replied to  expatingb @4.1.6    one week ago

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.

 
 
 
expatingb
Freshman Quiet
4.1.8  expatingb  replied to  Ender @4.1.7    one week ago
You think a poll worker cannot be partisan?

I never made that claim, but they've agreed to leave their political coats at the door and be fair to everyone.

. They still stripped the SOS of any power.

When did the Secretary of State have the authority to write and enact any law.

. When has a poll worker disregarded law? Examples would be nice...

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.  

. Iron clad? Oh yeah, all the existing laws were shit...Uh huh.

They're doing their best.

They are still all being run through based on lies.

If that's what you believe, who am I to question it?

 
 
 
Ender
PhD Principal
4.1.9  seeder  Ender  replied to  expatingb @4.1.8    one week ago

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.

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
4.1.10  Texan1211  replied to  Ender @4.1.9    one week ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Snuffy
Sophomore Participates
4.1.11  Snuffy  replied to  Ender @4.1.5    one week ago
Handing out water is not exactly an activity of an election campaign.

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.

 
 
 
MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)
Sophomore Principal
4.1.12  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)  replied to  Snuffy @4.1.11    one week ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Snuffy
Sophomore Participates
4.1.13  Snuffy  replied to  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka) @4.1.12    one week ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)
Sophomore Principal
4.1.14  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)  replied to  Snuffy @4.1.13    one week ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Ender
PhD Principal
4.1.15  seeder  Ender  replied to  Snuffy @4.1.11    one week ago

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.

 
 
 
MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)
Sophomore Principal
4.1.16  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)  replied to  Snuffy @4.1.13    one week ago

So both of my comments were off topic, but this reply from Snuffy is not? Interesting.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
4.1.17  Trout Giggles  replied to  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka) @4.1.16    one week ago

actually it is

 
 
 
MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)
Sophomore Principal
4.1.18  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)  replied to  Trout Giggles @4.1.17    one week ago

Thanks.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Sophomore Participates
4.1.19  Snuffy  replied to  Ender @4.1.15    one week ago
I still do not see an unnamed, unmarked person handing out water as electioneering.

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.

The term “electioneering” refers to the act of campaigning to influence the result of an election in favor of a particular candidate or party.

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.

 
 
 
Ender
PhD Principal
4.1.20  seeder  Ender  replied to  Snuffy @4.1.19    one week ago

The action itself is benign, Imo.

Anyone could whisper anything, even the person standing next to you.

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
Professor Guide
4.1.21  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  expatingb @4.1.6    one week ago
Poll workers are permitted to.  Any others are not as no one has any idea who they work for or what their intention is. 

Aren't you the guy who said handing out water to thirsty people was electioneering?  Let me refresh your memory:

Ender said this:

I would hardly call handing someone a bottle of water 'electioneering'. A stretch.

...and you responded with this:

Hardly a stretch.  It's nothing but a simple fact.

electioneering
/iˌlekSHəˈniriNG/

noun

  • active and energetic participation in the activities of an election campaign: "many states ban   electioneering   near physical polling places".    

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.  

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Guide
4.1.22  pat wilson  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @4.1.21    one week ago
Aren't you the guy who said handing out water to thirsty people was electioneering?

I think Bugsy said that, gave me a good laugh.

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Guide
4.1.23  pat wilson  replied to  expatingb @4.1.6    one week ago
The legislature makes the law.  The Secretary of State does not.  That's basic civics.

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.

 
 
 
devangelical
PhD Principal
4.1.24  devangelical  replied to  pat wilson @4.1.23    one week ago

not to mention wiping all the state election records of his win.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Sophomore Participates
4.1.25  Snuffy  replied to  Ender @4.1.20    one week ago

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.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
4.1.26  Dulay  replied to  expatingb @4.1.2    one week ago
I believe all states. 

You believe wrong. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.1.27  Tessylo  replied to  Snuffy @4.1.19    one week ago
"An unnamed unmarked person handing out water could easily whisper a candidates name as they handed you that bottle."

How hilariously ridiculous!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"I really think you are focusing on the wrong thing.  It's not the water, it's the action itself."

jrSmiley_80_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
PhD Guide
4.2  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  expatingb @4    one week ago
And what may I ask is the problem with that?

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.

Limit the use of drop boxes which did not even exist prior to the 2020 election.

" 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."

It's known as electioneering and is an illegal activity.

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.

 
 
 
expatingb
Freshman Quiet
4.2.1  expatingb  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @4.2    one week ago
And what may I ask is the problem with that?
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.

"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.

Limit the use of drop boxes which did not even exist prior to the 2020 election.
" 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."

Never before in Georgia.

It's known as electioneering and is an illegal activity.
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.

Ridiculous or not, it is illegal.  Take it up with the people that write the laws.

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.

Exactly what "disenfranchising rules" are you referring to?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.2.2  Tessylo  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @4.2    one week ago
"Limit the use of drop boxes which did not even exist prior to the 2020 election."

" 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."

jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

Some folks just make it up as they go along.  

 
 
 
Ender
PhD Principal
4.2.3  seeder  Ender  replied to  expatingb @4.2.1    one week ago

OMG! Someone gave me water and I don't know who they could represent....

 
 
 
expatingb
Freshman Quiet
4.2.4  expatingb  replied to  Ender @4.2.3    one week ago
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?

 
 
 
Ender
PhD Principal
4.2.5  seeder  Ender  replied to  expatingb @4.2.4    one week ago

Sarcasm not a strong point in some...

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
5  Trout Giggles    one week ago

This is concerning:

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.

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

 
 
 
expatingb
Freshman Quiet
5.1  expatingb  replied to  Trout Giggles @5    one week ago
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.

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.

 
 
 
Ender
PhD Principal
5.1.1  seeder  Ender  replied to  expatingb @5.1    one week ago

So you are going to tell me that the state did not have that ability before?

 
 
 
expatingb
Freshman Quiet
5.1.2  expatingb  replied to  Ender @5.1.1    one week ago
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.

 
 
 
Transyferous Rex
Freshman Participates
5.2  Transyferous Rex  replied to  Trout Giggles @5    one week ago
  1. 303  (c) Following the preliminary hearing described in subsection (b) of this Code section, the

  2. 304  State Election Board may suspend a county or municipal superintendent pursuant to this

  3. 305  Code section if at least three members of the board find, after notice and hearing, that:

  4. 306  (1) By a preponderance of the evidence, a county or municipal superintendent has

  5. 307  committed at least three violations of this title or of State Election Board rules and

  6. 308  regulations, in the last two general election cycles; and the county or municipal

  7. 309  superintendent has not sufficiently remedied the violations; or

  8. 310  (2) By clear and convincing evidence, the county or municipal superintendent has, for

  9. 311  at least two elections within a two-year period, demonstrated nonfeasance, malfeasance,

  10. 312  or gross negligence in the administration of the elections.

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.  

 
 
 
Transyferous Rex
Freshman Participates
5.2.1  Transyferous Rex  replied to  Transyferous Rex @5.2    one week ago

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. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
5.2.2  Trout Giggles  replied to  Transyferous Rex @5.2.1    one week ago
I just have a hard time seeing the establishment of a procedure to remove bad actors as a negative.

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?

 
 
 
Raven Wing
Professor Principal
5.2.3  Raven Wing  replied to  Transyferous Rex @5.2.1    one week ago
being cause for our president to call for the MLB to remove the summer classic. 

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. 

 
 
 
Transyferous Rex
Freshman Participates
5.2.4  Transyferous Rex  replied to  Raven Wing @5.2.3    one week ago

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.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
Professor Principal
5.2.5  Raven Wing  replied to  Transyferous Rex @5.2.4    one week ago
Thanks for pointing that out.

You're very welcome. 

 
 
 
Transyferous Rex
Freshman Participates
5.2.6  Transyferous Rex  replied to  Trout Giggles @5.2.2    one week ago
  1. 286  (a) The governing authority of a county or municipality, as applicable, following a

  2. 287  recommendation based on an investigation by a performance review board pursuant to

  3. 288  Code Section 21-2-106 may petition the State Election Board, through the Secretary of

  4. 289  State, for extraordinary relief pursuant to this Code section.

Again with the double numbering! The decision to petition the board is left to the local or county governing authority. 

Hell, this requires multiple violations of the law, or clear convincing evidence of malfeasance for at least two years.

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.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
5.2.7  Trout Giggles  replied to  Transyferous Rex @5.2.6    one week ago

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

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
5.2.8  Dulay  replied to  Transyferous Rex @5.2    one week ago
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 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. 

 
 
 
Transyferous Rex
Freshman Participates
5.2.9  Transyferous Rex  replied to  Dulay @5.2.8    6 days ago
The bill also changes the composition of the Board, now the 'at least three' are all seated by the GOP legislature. 

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.

184 (a) There is created a state board to be known as the State Election Board, to be composed

185 of the Secretary of State a chairperson elected by the General Assembly, an elector to be

186 elected by a majority vote of the Senate of the General Assembly at its regular session held

187 in each odd-numbered year, an elector to be elected by a majority vote of the House of

188 Representatives of the General Assembly at its regular session held in each odd-numbered

189 year, and a member of each political party to be nominated and appointed in the manner

190 provided in this Code section. No person while a member of the General Assembly shall

191 serve as a member of the board.

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.

354 and it may be appealed in a manner consistent with Code Section 50-13-19. The Attorney

355 General or his or her designee shall represent the interests of the State Election Board in

356 any such judicial review.

Odd to have a reference to judicial review if there is no judicial review.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
5.2.10  Dulay  replied to  Transyferous Rex @5.2.9    6 days ago
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.

It's in your block quote of the bill:

(c) Following the preliminary hearing described in subsection (b) of this Code section, the State Election Board may suspend a county or municipal superintendent pursuant to this Code section if at least three members of the board find, after notice and hearing, that:

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. 

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.

'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. 

Odd to have a reference to judicial review if there is no judicial review.

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. 

 
 
 
Transyferous Rex
Freshman Participates
5.2.11  Transyferous Rex  replied to  Dulay @5.2.10    6 days ago

When was code section 21-2-32 repealed?

The Judicial appeal you speak of is in section 7 for a superintendent that is requesting reinstatement. 

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. 

So the three SEB members seated by the GOP

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.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
5.2.12  Dulay  replied to  Transyferous Rex @5.2.11    6 days ago
21-2-33.1 already provides for the board to take action without resorting to the court.

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. 

Upon a showing of good cause, the State Election Board may in its sound discretion continue any such hearing. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, deliberations held on such petition by the State Election Board shall not be open to the public; provided, however, that testimony shall be taken in an open meeting and a vote on the recommendation shall be taken in an open meeting following the hearing or at the next regularly scheduled meeting.

It is not transparent.

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.

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.  

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.

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. 

 

 
 
 
Transyferous Rex
Freshman Participates
5.2.13  Transyferous Rex  replied to  Dulay @5.2.12    3 days ago
deliberations held on such petition by the State Election Board shall not be open to the public

deliberations are not open. 

however, that testimony shall be taken in an open meeting and a vote on the recommendation shall be taken in an open meeting

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. 

Prior to AMENDMENT, 21-2-33-1 had NOTHING to do with county or municipal superintendents of elections.

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. 

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. 

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. 

Since the GOP made no effort whatsoever to make the bill bi-partisan, I presume that it's provisions are indeed 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. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
5.2.14  Dulay  replied to  Transyferous Rex @5.2.13    3 days ago
No different than a jury trial. The jury doesn't deliberate in the court room, in front of everyone. 

The SEB has been given the authority of Judge AND Jury. 

"This chapter" refers to Chapter 2, which also covers county and local superintendents.

Not until subpart 3 of that chapter. 

The Board has always had the ability to bring action against supers. 202 did not change that. 

Please cite the part or subpart of 21-2 that you base your claim on? 

202 adds subpart (f), but leaves the remainder of 21-2-33.1 intact.

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. 

That makes sense, since a position of a chair was created, and specific language regarding suspension of supers was added. 

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. 

First, is the general assembly not a representative body of the people of the state of Georgia?

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. 

Meaning, it behooves both parties to put someone in the chair that is truly non-partisan. Both sides would benefit from such choice.

We will see just how 'non-partisan' the choice will be soon enough. 

The Sec. of State, however, is not necessarily a non-partisan.

Yet he was answerable to the entire electorate. Who is the new chair answerable to? 

Again I ask, what is the issue with suspending a super that has committed at least 2 proven violations of the law?

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. 

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. 

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? 

 
 
 
Transyferous Rex
Freshman Participates
5.2.15  Transyferous Rex  replied to  Dulay @5.2.14    3 days ago
Please cite the part or subpart of 21-2 that you base your claim on? 

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. 

Where does the law say anything about an ongoing election?

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. 

what is keeping them from 'suspending' superintendents and inserting ONE person in their stead to run an upcoming election in that district/precinct? 

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.

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.

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.

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. 

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. 

Yet he was answerable to the entire electorate. Who is the new chair answerable to? 

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. 

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.

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. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
5.2.16  Dulay  replied to  Transyferous Rex @5.2.15    yesterday
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, 21-2-33-1 did NOT provide for ANY actions against superintendents. Repeating that falsehood doesn't make it any less false. 

Again, no offense, but I think your desire to find fault in 202 is triggering you on all things.

Please stop implying that pointing out FLAWS in and FACTS about 202 in any way evidences being 'triggered'. 

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. 

So your claim about 'during an ongoing election' was hyperbole. 

I don't read 202 to allow several to be removed and replaced by ONE.

From 202:

"(f) After following the procedures set forth in Code Section 21-2-33.2, the State Election Board may suspend county or municipal superintendents

Note that is PLURAL superintendents....

and appoint an individual to serve as the temporary superintendent in a jurisdiction. Such individual shall exercise all the powers and duties of a superintendent as provided by law

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. 

No, its based on a plain reading of the statute.

Which YOU claimed included the authority to take action against Superintendents BEFORE it was amended yet everything you cite is in the AMENDED law. 

Where is the potential due process violation you are reading into this?

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

That is one hell of a big MAYBE. 

Perhaps I misspoke a bit, but I think you understand what I was referring to.

A 'bit'. 

Who knows, the intent may be to punish the sitting SoS.

Well the SoS believes that to be true, he said so. 

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. 

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. 

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Principal
6  Hal A. Lujah    5 days ago

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.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.1  Tessylo  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @6    3 days ago

"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."

jrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gif

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

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

gooseisgone
Thrawn 31
Ozzwald
Hallux
r.t..b...
bugsy
Colour Me Free
evilgenius
Snuffy
Vic Eldred


Gordy327
Greg Jones
FLYNAVY1


52 visitors