Justice Department sues Georgia for voting laws that target black voters

[Trausti]

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?

Yeah. Government also needs to help people wipe their butts. Come on, GOP. You've gotta take the Dem view that people are helpless idiots.

 

[laughing dog]

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?

Yeah. Government also needs to help people wipe their butts. Come on, GOP. You've gotta take the Dem view that people are helpless idiots.

Whether it should illegal or legal for people to give water to those standing in line waiting to vote has nothing to do with helpless idiots. Are you simply showing everyone what the fuck is wrong with the Georgia GOP and its defenders on this issue with that response?

 

[Trausti]

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?

Yeah. Government also needs to help people wipe their butts. Come on, GOP. You've gotta take the Dem view that people are helpless idiots.

Whether it should illegal or legal for people to give water to those standing in line waiting to vote has nothing to do with helpless idiots. Are you simply showing everyone what the fuck is wrong with the Georgia GOP and its defenders on this issue with that response?

No. I'm pointing out that the Dem line for nearly all of this is that people are helpless and stupid. Too stupid to get IDs. To stupid to check the weather. To stupid to request an absentee ballot in time. To stupid to know where to vote. Perhaps that speaks more to the typical Dem voter than anything else.

 

[Toni]

Whether it should illegal or legal for people to give water to those standing in line waiting to vote has nothing to do with helpless idiots. Are you simply showing everyone what the fuck is wrong with the Georgia GOP and its defenders on this issue with that response?

No. I'm pointing out that the Dem line for nearly all of this is that people are helpless and stupid. Too stupid to get IDs. To stupid to check the weather. To stupid to request an absentee ballot in time. To stupid to know where to vote. Perhaps that speaks more to the typical Dem voter than anything else.

Your answer to ld's question reads more like a yes to me.

 

[Patooka]

No. I'm pointing out that the Dem line for nearly all of this is that people are helpless and stupid. Too stupid to get IDs. To stupid to check the weather. To stupid to request an absentee ballot in time. To stupid to know where to vote. Perhaps that speaks more to the typical Dem voter than anything else.

You're absolutely right. I certainly don't remember Republicans trying to disparage voting by mail, reducing the amount of voting stations during a pandemic in very specific districts or performing other shitty disenfranchising tactics.

 

[laughing dog]

Whether it should illegal or legal for people to give water to those standing in line waiting to vote has nothing to do with helpless idiots. Are you simply showing everyone what the fuck is wrong with the Georgia GOP and its defenders on this issue with that response?

No. I'm pointing out that the Dem line for nearly all of this is that people are helpless and stupid. Too stupid to get IDs. To stupid to check the weather. To stupid to request an absentee ballot in time. To stupid to know where to vote. Perhaps that speaks more to the typical Dem voter than anything else.

Except the argument against IDs is not about stupidity - it is about a solution in search of a problem that imposes costs on potential voters. The argument against forbidding the provision of water and food to people standing in lines for hours is humanitarian not about stupidity. As for not knowing where to vote, I know from personal experience, that a locality can make it difficult to find out if you do not have access to the internet. During the pandemic, with libraries and gov't offices closed, it could be difficult for those with internet access to find out where to vote. So, while it is true that are stupid voters (evidence - the 70million plus who voted to return Trump to the Presidency), intelligence is not a requirement to vote. Which makes me conclude your response is pretty much an implicit acknowledgement of what the fuck is wrong with the GA GOP and the defenders of this bill.

All of that aside, what did you any of that or the protest against the bill have to do with government needing to help people?

 

[KeepTalking]

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?

Yes, some people are that stupid. Others end up in the position of needing water for other reasons. Guess what? They should all be allowed to vote without having to risk dehydration to do it.

 

[KeepTalking]

Whether it should illegal or legal for people to give water to those standing in line waiting to vote has nothing to do with helpless idiots. Are you simply showing everyone what the fuck is wrong with the Georgia GOP and its defenders on this issue with that response?

No. I'm pointing out that the Dem line for nearly all of this is that people are helpless and stupid. Too stupid to get IDs. To stupid to check the weather. To stupid to request an absentee ballot in time. To stupid to know where to vote. Perhaps that speaks more to the typical Dem voter than anything else.

So fucking what? Even helpless and stupid people in this Country have the right to vote. They should be accommodated, not turned away.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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?

The issue isn't a matter of looking at the weather report, but finding lines like that. I've never once wanted water while waiting to vote--because there's never been a line long enough for that to be an issue.

 

[ZiprHead]

Some people in Georgia waited 11 hours to vote

 

[crazyfingers]

Some people in Georgia waited 11 hours to vote

It's difficult for me to believe that this isn't the plan. It should be illegal for states and localities to lack the capacity to get people in and out in more than 30 minutes. I suggest criminal offenses for election authorities not to have that capacity.

 

[Patooka]

Some people in Georgia waited 11 hours to vote

Wow. Afghans don't have to wait that long.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Some people in Georgia waited 11 hours to vote

It's difficult for me to believe that this isn't the plan. It should be illegal for states and localities to lack the capacity to get people in and out in more than 30 minutes. I suggest criminal offenses for election authorities not to have that capacity.

But who do you punish? The people who don't deploy enough capacity have no control over the capacity available to deploy. The blame ultimately goes back to the legislature--and they're never going to throw themselves in jail.

 

[southernhybrid]

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/01/us/supreme-court-arizona-voting-restrictions.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

The decision, a test of what remains of the Voting Rights Act, suggested that challenges to many new measures making it harder to vote may not be successful.

The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld voting restrictions in Arizona and signaled that challenges to new state laws making it harder to vote would face a hostile reception from a majority of the justices.

The vote was 6 to 3, with the court’s three liberal members in dissent.

The decision was the court’s first consideration of how a crucial part of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 applies to voting restrictions that have a disproportionate impact on members of minority groups, and it was issued as disputes over voting rights have taken center stage in American politics.

As Republican-controlled state legislatures increasingly seek to impose restrictive new voting rules, Democrats and civil rights groups have turned to the courts to argue that Republicans are trying to suppress the vote, thwart the will of the majority and deny equal access to minority voters. The decision suggested that Supreme Court would not be inclined to strike down many of the measures.

The larger message of the ruling was that the Voting Rights Act of 1965, hobbled after the Supreme Court in 2013 effectively struck down its central provision, retains only limited power to combat voting restrictions said to disproportionately affect minority voters’ access to the polls.

That doesn't look good for the Georgia challenge. Congress needs to take action, but I'm not optimistic that will happen.

I'm more concerned about the laws that allow government officials to take over or negate the results of an election. Those are the biggest threat to holding a fair election.

 

[Gospel]

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.

Then why the ban on handing out water while NOT in the role of somebody who is there to influence your vote?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/01/...tion=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage

The decision, a test of what remains of the Voting Rights Act, suggested that challenges to many new measures making it harder to vote may not be successful.

The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld voting restrictions in Arizona and signaled that challenges to new state laws making it harder to vote would face a hostile reception from a majority of the justices.

The vote was 6 to 3, with the court’s three liberal members in dissent.

The decision was the court’s first consideration of how a crucial part of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 applies to voting restrictions that have a disproportionate impact on members of minority groups, and it was issued as disputes over voting rights have taken center stage in American politics.

As Republican-controlled state legislatures increasingly seek to impose restrictive new voting rules, Democrats and civil rights groups have turned to the courts to argue that Republicans are trying to suppress the vote, thwart the will of the majority and deny equal access to minority voters. The decision suggested that Supreme Court would not be inclined to strike down many of the measures.

The larger message of the ruling was that the Voting Rights Act of 1965, hobbled after the Supreme Court in 2013 effectively struck down its central provision, retains only limited power to combat voting restrictions said to disproportionately affect minority voters’ access to the polls.

That doesn't look good for the Georgia challenge. Congress needs to take action, but I'm not optimistic that will happen.

I'm more concerned about the laws that allow government officials to take over or negate the results of an election. Those are the biggest threat to holding a fair election.

Unless the law explicitly calls out racial obstruction, it is going to be extremely hard to reverse these laws now. It'll require scouring Jim Crow laws that don't specifically call out race as well as statistical analyses that prove disproportionate impact on minorities. And even then, it might not be enough, as the reverse of the Voting Rights Act modified it to watch over premeditated racism in voting laws. Which honestly, why even bother?

 

[Copernicus]

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.

Then why the ban on handing out water while NOT in the role of somebody who is there to influence your vote?

Gospel's question makes it clear why this law is considered a voter suppression tactic. If the concern were electioneering then the law would simply make it illegal for people to hand out water in connection with electioneering activities--e.g. if a Democratic candidate had organized the operation and sent campaign workers to dole out water. But the law makes it illegal for anyone but the polling station itself to hand out water, and they are not required to do so. With no resources allocated to supply water or reduce wait times, it won't happen. Everyone knows that except those duped into buying the argument that this is only about stopping people from electioneering. The law was passed after news stories highlighted the fact that people were voluntarily bringing food and water to people in order to help them satisfy their desire to get into a voting booth and cast a ballot. The law is intended to thwart that desire.

 

[Metaphor]

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.

Then why the ban on handing out water while NOT in the role of somebody who is there to influence your vote?

Because there is no practical way to distinguish the two I imagine.

EDIT: I mean, it would be like driving laws that ban learner drivers (L or P platers in Australia) from touching their mobile phone while driving. The law is meant to cover dangerous behaviour like texting or reading the web while driving, but it's a strict liability offence. If a camera snaps someone with a mobile in their hands while they are in the driver's seat, they're fined.

 

[Toni]

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.

Then why the ban on handing out water while NOT in the role of somebody who is there to influence your vote?

Because there is no practical way to distinguish the two I imagine.

EDIT: I mean, it would be like driving laws that ban learner drivers (L or P platers in Australia) from touching their mobile phone while driving. The law is meant to cover dangerous behaviour like texting or reading the web while driving, but it's a strict liability offence. If a camera snaps someone with a mobile in their hands while they are in the driver's seat, they're fined.

Of course there are ways to ensure that! Church and non-partisan civics groups such as League of Women Voters, etc.

Most states have rules about electioneering within certain distances of polling places —and it’s enforced. I cannot walk into my polling place with a campaign button or t-shirt or other swag proclaiming my support for any candidate or question on the ballot. It’s not hard.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

Then why the ban on handing out water while NOT in the role of somebody who is there to influence your vote?

Because there is no practical way to distinguish the two I imagine.

Then there must be no way to practically enforce the no water law at all. Wait, of course, it is called observation!