Georgia Voting Bill

[IndyIN]

I've sort of scanned this section to see if there was another thread discussing the Georgia voting bill, and I've not found one. If I've missed it, my apologies.

I see a number of folks in the media decrying the bill as completely evil and biased. There are articles advocating that industries boycott Georgia, but none (that I've read) go into any detail about why the bill is really bad.

Requiring proof of identity is bad? Only if you are not able to lawfully vote. Securing drop boxes is bad? Maybe we should just let folks tweet their vote, instead? I'm sure a lot of you feel the same way about this, and the same "orange man bad" tactic seems to largely be in use for this bill.

At a high level, these are the changes:

- The law allows the Legislature to appoint the chair of the State Election Board; previously, the board was chaired by the secretary of state.
- The law will require mail-in voters to include their driver's license numbers or other documentation to verify their identities, instead of using signature verification.
- Drop boxes can be located only inside election offices and early voting locations.
- Shortens the window to request absentee ballots.
- Prohibit the giving of food and water to those in line.

The details of the food and water prohibition are:

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

(1) Within 150 feet of the outer edge of any building within which a polling place is
established;
(2) Within any polling place; or
(3) Within 25 feet of any voter standing in line to vote at any polling place."

 

[JettaKnight]

I dunno. Politicians doing what they do best - fighting for themselves.

Really, both sides are fighting for things that statistically give them an edge at the polls.

 

[Ark]

The people pushing for a vaccine passport have absolutely no business whining about voter ID and signature verification. If I can't buy food at the store without government ID and snoop software on my phone, you can't vote without a damn ID.

Praise to Georgia for trying to fix their absolute ****show of an election.

 

[femurphy77]

Maybe if we compromised, you know, show your vaccine passport?

 

[IndyIN]

I dunno. Politicians doing what they do best - fighting for themselves.

Really, both sides are fighting for things that statistically give them an edge at the polls.

I find it hard to string together a valid argument against the provisions listed. Most of the media arguments are that it disadvantages certain populations based on race. Is one race more hungry/thirsty at the polls than another? Is it harder for one race to validate their identity than another?

To me, the bill seems like fairly reasonable steps to protect the integrity of an election. Maybe "I dunno" is the best answer

 

[JettaKnight]

I find it hard to string together a valid argument against the provisions listed. Most of the media arguments are that it disadvantages certain populations based on race. Is one race more hungry/thirsty at the polls than another? Is it harder for one race to validate their identity than another?

To me, the bill seems like fairly reasonable steps to protect the integrity of an election. Maybe "I dunno" is the best answer

I dunno, seems silly to me both ways. It is really hot down Georgia, so... and if someone is really that influenced to change their vote because they got a bottle of water, then God help us all.


And yes, statistically speaking it is harder for some races to validate their identity... which in this day and age seems hard to believe.

 

[KG1]

Where's the part about prohibiting promises of stimulus bucks if you vote a certain way?

 

[DoggyDaddy]

I dunno, seems silly to me both ways. It is really hot down Georgia, so... and if someone is really that influenced to change their vote because they got a bottle of water, then God help us all.


And yes, statistically speaking it is harder for some races to validate their identity... which in this day and age seems hard to believe.

It seems hard to believe because it's not believable. If they can buy booze or cigarettes (and have to prove their identity to do so), then they can prove their identity to vote. It really is that simple.

 

[IndyIN]

I dunno, seems silly to me both ways. It is really hot down Georgia, so... and if someone is really that influenced to change their vote because they got a bottle of water, then God help us all.


And yes, statistically speaking it is harder for some races to validate their identity... which in this day and age seems hard to believe.

I agree. God help us all.

The "other documentation" in the bill's text for identity verification is pretty broad. If you can supply it for tax purposes and to get stimulus payment, it seems like a pretty low barrier to providing it to vote.

I really am open to being convinced that these provisions are bad, but I need more than what is being broadcast on the news. I know that isn't the world we live in anymore, though.

 

[SumtnFancy]

Well one side of the aisle thinks there are several races who can't figure out how to get on the internets to sign up for a shot at the Walgreens. Of course they also think those people can't figure out how to get an I.D. The only reason to not have an ID is so you can remain anonymous, or if you do not have legal status. You can't vote anonymously or if you don't have legal status.

 

[JettaKnight]

Well one side of the aisle thinks there are several races who can't figure out how to get on the internets to sign up for a shot at the Walgreens. Of course they also think those people can't figure out how to get an I.D. The only reason to not have an ID is so you can remain anonymous, or if you do not have legal status. You can't vote anonymously or if you don't have legal status.

I volunteer to do taxes for those folks... they're right about some not being able to figure out how to sign up.

 

[BugI02]

Really, both sides are fighting for things that statistically give them an edge at the polls.

This is such BS. If ensuring that people who vote only vote once, are eligible to vote and should vote in the precinct they are attempting to use disadvantages some politician then that politicians electability is built on fraud

I have never understood the desire to distort the entire voting system to accomodate the ten 80 year old women who don't/can't drive or otherwise get to the polls and lack valid ID. The simplest solution would seem to be community outreach to those individuals when identified in order to help them acquire valid ID and schedule a ride to the polls

I can, however, see why people with wants and warrants or other paper ,or who are perhaps dodging financial issues like alimony or child support or court ordered repayments, would not want to have to prove their identity in a searchable database but I'm not sure how many of them are actually that concerned with voting

Do you perchance have links to how many people have been proven via research to be disenfranchised by the need to provide positive ID to vote. Statistical correlation between lax ID requirements and more people voting will not serve that purpose, as an alternate explaination for a rise in the voting rate could be a rise in fraudulent voting rather than legitimate voting

 

[BugI02]

I volunteer to do taxes for those folks... they're right about some not being able to figure out how to sign up.

Is this actually true, or is it that if someone else is available to do the work for them free of charge there is no incentive to learn?

If quality remodeling was available free of charge paid for by the taxes of others, would we ever learn to work on our own houses?

 

[JettaKnight]

This is such BS. If ensuring that people who vote only vote once, are eligible to vote and should vote in the precinct they are attempting to use disadvantages some politician then that politicians electability is built on fraud

I have never understood the desire to distort the entire voting system to accomodate the ten 80 year old women who don't/can't drive or otherwise get to the polls and lack valid ID. The simplest solution would seem to be community outreach to those individuals when identified in order to help them acquire valid ID and schedule a ride to the polls

I can, however, see why people with wants and warrants or other paper ,or who are perhaps dodging financial issues like alimony or child support or court ordered repayments, would not want to have to prove their identity in a searchable database but I'm not sure how many of them are actually that concerned with voting

Do you perchance have links to how many people have been proven via research to be disenfranchised by the need to provide positive ID to vote. Statistical correlation between lax ID requirements and more people voting will not serve that purpose, as an alternate explaination for a rise in the voting rate could be a rise in fraudulent voting rather than legitimate voting

It's cute that you don't think political parties have their own interest at heart.


Are you so blinded that you think Republicans only act on integrity? I fail to believe to one party magically defies human nature.

 

[JettaKnight]

Is this actually true, or is it that if someone else is available to do the work for them free of charge there is no incentive to learn?

If quality remodeling was available free of charge paid for by the taxes of others, would we ever learn to work on our own houses?

Anecdotally, a little of both.

Sadly, it seems that filling out a 1040 doesn't seem to be taught to people. (remind me to send a thank-you not to my dad)

 

[BugI02]

Are you on the hook as a preparer if they get audited? Is there some way to reliably tell that they're lying to you or prove that you were misled later?

Do you require secure voter taxpayer ID?

 

[BugI02]

It's cute that you don't think political parties have their own interest at heart.


Are you so blinded that you think Republicans only act on integrity? I fail to believe to one party magically defies human nature.

I am forced to wonder the same thing when you give the appearance of thinking that actions taken the other way, to ease voting restrictions, are somehow universally altruistic in nature

And are you saying that seeking to have everyone play by the same rules is bad if it benefits one side of a disagreement that has been previously disadvantaged by its lack? Are you saying that Republicans/conservartives in your belief system benefit equally from fraudulent voting as do Democrats/progressives?

Is it somehow self interest to expect people to respect and obey the law

 

[JettaKnight]

Are you on the hook as a preparer if they get audited? Is there some way to reliably tell that they're lying to you or prove that you were misled later?

Do you require secure voter taxpayer ID?

Nope. I'm not licensed, I'm not getting paid, I have no idea if they get audited or cheat. I do my due diligence and question things, and should it be really shady, then stop the process. (that hasn't happened to me)

We do require valid SSN card & DL. With EIC, there's a huge personal incentive to file under someone else's name. In voting, if I vote fraudulently, what happens? There's one (more) bad vote, but I get nothing other than a slight chance my preferred candidate wins.

 

[JettaKnight]

I am forced to wonder the same thing when you give the appearance of thinking that actions taken the other way, to ease voting restrictions, are somehow universally altruistic in nature

And are you saying that seeking to have everyone play by the same rules is bad if it benefits one side of a disagreement that has been previously disadvantaged by its lack? Are you saying that Republicans/conservartives in your belief system benefit equally from fraudulent voting as do Democrats/progressives?

Is it somehow self interest to expect people to respect and obey the law

Don't mislabel me, Bug - I never said I agree with easing restrictions. In fact, I really don't see much wrong with GA's changes.

I merely said both sides want rules that benefit them.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Only thing that seems off to me is the prohibition on handing out food and drink

Its already illegal to campaign near polling places, so they already can't say "here's some water, vote for X" or have a label saying "Water provided by X" on the bottle. The people handing it out can't were a campaign shirt or hat or pin while handing out water. So why the need to go a step further and totally prohibit it? Seems like its intended to discourage waiting in line to vote, which of course would disproportionately affect urban (heavily democratic) areas