Justice Department sues Georgia for voting laws that target black voters

[Swammerdami]

See In Suing Georgia, Justice Department Says State's New Voting Law Targets Black Voters. Assuming that this case reaches the Supreme Court, do you believe that the conservative majority will side with the DoJ or Georgia?

My opinion is that the conservative majority on the Supreme Court will uphold Georgia's discriminatory law, because it merely goes after likely Democratic voters, many of whom happen to be African American in the affected areas. This is a great example of how systemic racism works. By reducing ballot options, the legislature knew that densely populated urban and suburban neighborhoods would be negatively impacted. That is where most Democratic votes come from. Voters would end up standing in long lines, and they would not even be able to get food and water easily while waiting. Justice Roberts had already said that racism was no longer a problem in those southern states that had to get pre-approval for such laws under the Civil Rights Voting Act, and the majority gutted that law. It will be predisposed to turn a blind eye to the inherent racism here, because nobody who actually enforces the law will be taking race into account. They will just be doing what the system requires them to do. If people of color are disproportionately affected, too bad.

I agree with this. The way that a majority of Scotus just do whatever will help the GOP is absolutely sickening; it is a disgrace to the court, our country, and what's left of American democracy.

What makes it inexplicable is that these disgraceful Justices have lifetime tenure and (presumably) do not have secret bank accounts into which Charles Koch is shoveling money. Shouldn't they worry about how they go down in history? Do they care what their grandchildren and great-grandchildren will think of them?

That's why I didn't vote in the poll. There's a chance — perhaps just a small chance — that two of the right-wing Justices will finally embrace Good over Evil.

 

[crazyfingers]

I've never had to wait more than 5 minutes to get in and vote. The long lines I see in the news should be criminal. I believe that it should be criminal not to have enough poling places with the capacity to make sure that no one has more than a 30 minute wait.

As to DoJ vs Georgia, I believe that the conservative majority will twist strangle all logic to find a way to make it legal to suppress the black democratic vote.

When I was a kid growing up in the 1970's I saw the Supreme Court as the last protector of our rights. It's been a long time since that was the case.

 

[Shadowy Man]

It is nice to not being harassed on the way to cast my ballot.

That's why I was saying strict enforcement of no electioneering.

If they're harassing you about how to vote they are breaking that law.

If they can figure out how to enforce the no water law then they can figure out how to enforce the already existing laws that already address the concern that they claim is behind the no water law.

 

[laughing dog]

It is nice to not being harassed on the way to cast my ballot.

That's why I was saying strict enforcement of no electioneering.

If they're harassing you about how to vote they are breaking that law.

Having anyone give me anything about candidates while I am going to vote is harassment of me. You asked what was the problem - in my state, we think it is a problem.

 

[Metaphor]

Your argument is utterly absurd.

I didn't even make an argument.

 

[Copernicus]

Your argument is utterly absurd.

I didn't even make an argument.

I was feeling charitable.

 

[Metaphor]

Your argument is utterly absurd.

I didn't even make an argument.

I was feeling charitable.

Charitable? You were simply wrong to characterise what I wrote as an argument. I explained what the law allow and what it forbid.

 

[Toni]

I was feeling charitable.

Charitable? You were simply wrong to characterise what I wrote as an argument. I explained what the law allow and what it forbid.

You weren't correct about that, either.

 

[Metaphor]

I was feeling charitable.

Charitable? You were simply wrong to characterise what I wrote as an argument. I explained what the law allow and what it forbid.

You weren't correct about that, either.

Oh yes. In what way was I wrong?

 

[southernhybrid]

I am not convinced that SCOTUS will throw this bill out, considering that there is so much evidence supporting that the Georgia law is an attempt to suppress the vote of minorities. I'm not saying they will over turn the law, but this SCOTUS has surprised me several times with their decisions, so to me, the jury is still out. . Plus there are at least 6 other large organizations that are also suing over this law.

Someone mentioned that it will be easy to vote by mail because all you need to do is put the last 4 digits of your SS number on the ballot. What they missed is that in order to obtain a mail in ballot, one must have a driver's license or a state issued ID. There are supposedly about 200,000 Americans citizens who reside in Georgia, who lack either one of those IDs. That is why Democratic activists and politicians are trying to help all Georgians obtain one of these two IDs. I'm guessing that a lot of those who lack these IDs are poor, and lack transportation to the nearest office where these IDs are issued. Plus, one must have some other forms of ID, such as a birth certificate and another ID to obtain the state ID, assuming the law hasn't changed recently.

If someone is homebound, due to a disability, it could lt could be extremely difficult for that person to get to the office where such IDs are issued. It's very obvious to me that some aspects of this law are purposely making it more difficult for certain portions of citizens, who tend to vote for Democrats to vote without a lot of difficulty. I would assume that whoever takes this case to the courts will have very detailed arguments as to why these new laws are an attempt to keep people from voting.

I also read that we did have drop boxes prior to the last election. The new law insists that drop boxes only be available during voting hours, making is difficult for anyone who works 2nd or 3rd shift to use them. I put my ballot in a drop box during the last election. It was open at night, and there were lights and cameras in plain view, making it all but impossible for anyone to use those boxes improperly.

Georgia should be proud of how well our last election went, but of course, Republicans didn't like that making it easier for many to vote, meant that the Democrats won two Senate seats and Biden took the state as well.

 

[Toni]

You weren't correct about that, either.

Oh yes. In what way was I wrong?

You wrote:

This really is the politicalization of the DOJ. Here’s a CBS rundown of the Georgia law: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/georgia-voting-law-9-facts/#app

What’s the problem? The ballot box complaint is a canard; Georgia only first had those for 2020 due to Covid. The new rule says one per 100k people and it should be in an election office for security. The not giving water in line goes clearly to electioneering at the polls. The law allows the local election supervisor to set up water stations. And the Supreme Court already ruled that voter ID is constitutional.

So it's ok for the local election supervisor to electioneer. I mean if the act of handing out water is electioneering then it should be illegal across the board.

Not the act of handing out water. The act of handing out water, to voters waiting to vote, while in the role of somebody who is there to influence your vote.[/QUOTE]

What the law actually says is this:

"(e) This Code section shall not be construed to prohibit a poll officer from distributing
1825 materials, as required by law, which are necessary for the purpose of instructing electors
1826 or from distributing materials prepared by the Secretary of State which are designed solely
1827 for the purpose of encouraging voter participation in the election being conducted or from
1828 making available self-service water from an unattended receptacle to an elector waiting in
1829 line to vote

In other words, they can have drinking fountains or tables or coolers with bottled water---which is great, if the line is short enough that it isn't a big deal if you step out of line to get yourself a bottle of water. But it also sounds as though you cannot bring back, say five bottles of water to pass along to the people holding your place in line and the next few people because you're a nice person. Nor can non-partisan, non-political civic groups provide water to people standing in line. This would not be a problem at my polling place. There are never long lines. And better, I don't live in Georgia. But given that Georgia has restricted the number of polling places, it increases the chances that lines will be long. People often vote on the way to or from work or to or from picking up kids, etc. The weather can be harsh: hot, stormy, rain, snow, depending on which election. Again, for me, no problem. My polling place is short walking distance from my home. I can make it in 110 degree weather or in a whiteout blizzard, or anything except maybe a tornado, no problem. But I don't live in Georgia where polling places attract very long lines of voters because there are not enough polling places.

FWIW, while I've mentioned that I don't have to wait in line, I should also mention that my state has held one of the highest voter turnout records in the US for years and years. One of the powers of working to encourage voting, not suppress it.

 

[Metaphor]

But I don't live in Georgia where polling places attract very long lines of voters because there are not enough polling places.

From the article upthread:

The law also attempts to address long lines, demanding that counties with any precinct with over 2,000 voters in the last election or one that kept voters waiting for over an hour to vote must create an additional precinct or add more resources to reduce wait times.

 

[ZiprHead]

But I don't live in Georgia where polling places attract very long lines of voters because there are not enough polling places.

From the article upthread:

The law also attempts to address long lines, demanding that counties with any precinct with over 2,000 voters in the last election or one that kept voters waiting for over an hour to vote must create an additional precinct or add more resources to reduce wait times.

What are the penalties if that isn't done?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But I don't live in Georgia where polling places attract very long lines of voters because there are not enough polling places.

From the article upthread:

The law also attempts to address long lines, demanding that counties with any precinct with over 2,000 voters in the last election or one that kept voters waiting for over an hour to vote must create an additional precinct or add more resources to reduce wait times.

Fine to decree that but what it actually comes down to are the resources available--and the law doesn't mandate the resources be available. Thus it does nothing.

 

[Elixir]

But I don't live in Georgia where polling places attract very long lines of voters because there are not enough polling places.

From the article upthread:

The law also attempts to address long lines, demanding that counties with any precinct with over 2,000 voters in the last election or one that kept voters waiting for over an hour to vote must create an additional precinct or add more resources to reduce wait times.

What are the penalties if that isn't done?

So... the places where there were long lines will be given resources that would handle that volume of voters with expedience.
But only a small fraction of Dem voters were in those election day lines, and if they are forced to vote in person on election day per the Repug plan, there will be even longer lines than in 2020, despite a lower total number of votes cast.
Compliance with that provision isn't going to bother Republicans.

 

[laughing dog]

But I don't live in Georgia where polling places attract very long lines of voters because there are not enough polling places.

From the article upthread:

The law also attempts to address long lines, demanding that counties with any precinct with over 2,000 voters in the last election or one that kept voters waiting for over an hour to vote must create an additional precinct or add more resources to reduce wait times.

Fine to decree that but what it actually comes down to are the resources available--and the law doesn't mandate the resources be available. Thus it does nothing.

No resources available and no penalty- A law that will clearly achieve its intended goal and allow the GOP legislators and their dupes to blame others when it fails.

 

[Toni]

But I don't live in Georgia where polling places attract very long lines of voters because there are not enough polling places.

From the article upthread:

The law also attempts to address long lines, demanding that counties with any precinct with over 2,000 voters in the last election or one that kept voters waiting for over an hour to vote must create an additional precinct or add more resources to reduce wait times.

What are the penalties if that isn't done?

Aside from the penalties, the law, as written, would always be in arears. It would seek to prevent harm the way that harm was present in the election before. Given how important 2022 is for the Senate, just having the cushion for one year would be all it took. And honestly, all they'd have to do in any year which was less contentious was to ensure that there were sufficient polling places to hit the under 2,000 voters/ more than one hour wait time mark for that year--they could eliminate polling places during the year that was more important/more competitive and be on the right side of the letter of the law.

 

[Metaphor]

Fine to decree that but what it actually comes down to are the resources available--and the law doesn't mandate the resources be available. Thus it does nothing.

No resources available and no penalty- A law that will clearly achieve its intended goal and allow the GOP legislators and their dupes to blame others when it fails.

Is there a penalty for handing out water?

 

[Trausti]

Fine to decree that but what it actually comes down to are the resources available--and the law doesn't mandate the resources be available. Thus it does nothing.

No resources available and no penalty- A law that will clearly achieve its intended goal and allow the GOP legislators and their dupes to blame others when it fails.

Is there a penalty for handing out water?

Are people in Georgia too stupid to look at the daily weather report to see if they need to bring water? Especially if you think you may have to stand in line for awhile?

 

[laughing dog]

Is there a penalty for handing out water?

Are people in Georgia too stupid to look at the daily weather report to see if they need to bring water? Especially if you think you may have to stand in line for awhile?

You might not think you have stand in line for 2 to 5 hours. But more importantly, if it is that hot, why should people have to put their health at risk to vote? Really, wtf is wrong with the GOP and its defenders on this issue?