Justice Department sues Georgia for voting laws that target black voters

[crazyfingers]

The water issue would be moot if these polling places were required to have the capacity to get people through the line in 30 minutes or less. THAT is the problem; intentionally making voting as hard as possible.

 

[Metaphor]

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!

Yes: observing someone handing over water is exactly as subjective as determining the motives of the person doing the handing over.

 

[Toni]

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!

Yes: observing someone handing over water is exactly as subjective as determining the motives of the person doing the handing over.

The motives do not matter. What matters is if the persons handing out water are promoting a candidate/party/issue up for vote. Such promotion would be indicated by campaign buttons, t-shirts, other paraphernalia associated with the campaign, speaking in favor of a candidate or issue, or attempting to hand out campaign literature or anything else associated with the campaign/cause being supported by the person handing out water.

As long as they say nothing, wear nothing, do nothing to attempt to influence you to do anything other that cast your vote, it doesn't really matter what is in their heart or mind.

 

[Metaphor]

Yes: observing someone handing over water is exactly as subjective as determining the motives of the person doing the handing over.

The motives do not matter. What matters is if the persons handing out water are promoting a candidate/party/issue up for vote. Such promotion would be indicated by campaign buttons, t-shirts, other paraphernalia associated with the campaign, speaking in favor of a candidate or issue, or attempting to hand out campaign literature or anything else associated with the campaign/cause being supported by the person handing out water.

As long as they say nothing, wear nothing, do nothing to attempt to influence you to do anything other that cast your vote, it doesn't really matter what is in their heart or mind.

And I'm sure polling officials are the best-placed to police the 'say nothing, wear nothing, do nothing' guidelines, and will enforce everything fairly and evenly, and all disputes will be dealt with swiftly and fairly.

Here's the deal. Unlike you, I don't automatically assume everything a right-wing person does or thinks is engineered to be as cruel as humanly possible to humans for no reasons, other than sadism or grasping of power.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The water issue would be moot if these polling places were required to have the capacity to get people through the line in 30 minutes or less. THAT is the problem; intentionally making voting as hard as possible.

But how do you enforce this requirement?

 

[laughing dog]

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!

Yes: observing someone handing over water is exactly as subjective as determining the motives of the person doing the handing over.

Really this is not rocket science. You observe what is actually happening. If someone wearing a VOTE FOR _____, or is talking about a candidate, etc.., then it is a violation. If someone who is dressed like a regular person and says nothing but hands a bottle of water, then it is fine.

 

[Toni]

Yes: observing someone handing over water is exactly as subjective as determining the motives of the person doing the handing over.

The motives do not matter. What matters is if the persons handing out water are promoting a candidate/party/issue up for vote. Such promotion would be indicated by campaign buttons, t-shirts, other paraphernalia associated with the campaign, speaking in favor of a candidate or issue, or attempting to hand out campaign literature or anything else associated with the campaign/cause being supported by the person handing out water.

As long as they say nothing, wear nothing, do nothing to attempt to influence you to do anything other that cast your vote, it doesn't really matter what is in their heart or mind.

And I'm sure polling officials are the best-placed to police the 'say nothing, wear nothing, do nothing' guidelines, and will enforce everything fairly and evenly, and all disputes will be dealt with swiftly and fairly.

Actually, yes. That's been my experience. In fact, I was once accidentally guilty myself. I forgot to remove a button supporting a local referendum from my jacket before entering my polling place--and was promptly reminded and admonished. I removed the button, with some embarrassment and went in to vote.

Here's the deal. Unlike you, I don't automatically assume everything a right-wing person does or thinks is engineered to be as cruel as humanly possible to humans for no reasons, other than sadism or grasping of power.

I don't do that, either.

Unlike you, I do not continue to assert that I know more about local laws than people who actually live in the country with the laws. You are certain that people do not take their duties as election officials seriously. They do. I certainly did when I served as an election official. I certainly did when I served on someone's campaign for a local office and when I was the official representative of that campaign at a recount (very close election. My candidate won by a hair).

I realize that the actual logistics of voting in the US in various localities may seem anything but obvious or sensible to you or anyone else from another country. You don't live here, you've never visited and as far as I can tell, you get all of your news of the US from online right wing rags.

That doesn't mean that you can't have opinions or share those opinions. But sometimes you are really off the mark of reality--which is fine. You don't live here, you have never visited here and you get your information from some sketchy sources. I certainly don't know the ins and outs of the governmental systems in Australia or how you vote, or any of the nitty gritty. Why would I?

But unlike you, if I made wrong assumptions or incorrect statements as though they were fact and an actual Australian told me I was wrong, I'd probably listen and not make stupid accusations about their motives.

But that's me.

 

[Metaphor]

Yes: observing someone handing over water is exactly as subjective as determining the motives of the person doing the handing over.

Really this is not rocket science. You observe what is actually happening. If someone wearing a VOTE FOR _____, or is talking about a candidate, etc.., then it is a violation. If someone who is dressed like a regular person and says nothing but hands a bottle of water, then it is fine.

How do you know what two people are talking about? I often see people talking without hearing them.

 

[Metaphor]

Unlike you, I do not continue to assert that I know more about local laws than people who actually live in the country with the laws.

I have never asserted that I know 'more' about 'local laws'. I have rejected your claims of epistemic privilege.

You are certain that people do not take their duties as election officials seriously.

I did not say or imply it. Next.

I realize that the actual logistics of voting in the US in various localities may seem anything but obvious or sensible to you or anyone else from another country. You don't live here, you've never visited and as far as I can tell, you get all of your news of the US from online right wing rags.

Of course. All people to the right of you are mindless and bloodthirsty automatons, are they not?

That doesn't mean that you can't have opinions or share those opinions. But sometimes you are really off the mark of reality--which is fine. You don't live here, you have never visited here and you get your information from some sketchy sources. I certainly don't know the ins and outs of the governmental systems in Australia or how you vote, or any of the nitty gritty. Why would I?

You could if you read about it. You might not be able to claim personal experience of them, but I hardly think that precludes your participation.

 

[Toni]

I have never asserted that I know 'more' about 'local laws'. I have rejected your claims of epistemic privilege.



I did not say or imply it. Next.

I realize that the actual logistics of voting in the US in various localities may seem anything but obvious or sensible to you or anyone else from another country. You don't live here, you've never visited and as far as I can tell, you get all of your news of the US from online right wing rags.

Of course. All people to the right of you are mindless and bloodthirsty automatons, are they not?

That doesn't mean that you can't have opinions or share those opinions. But sometimes you are really off the mark of reality--which is fine. You don't live here, you have never visited here and you get your information from some sketchy sources. I certainly don't know the ins and outs of the governmental systems in Australia or how you vote, or any of the nitty gritty. Why would I?

You could if you read about it. You might not be able to claim personal experience of them, but I hardly think that precludes your participation.

Oh, get off it. I have NEVER claimed or implied that anyone to the right of me is anything other than to the right of me. But you've brought over some pretty sketchily sourced articles here--and I am not the only one who has pointed it out.

I certainly do think that you can participate in this or any discussion you like. But sometimes, you simply don't understand what you are arguing about--which is fine. Why would you? But when people try to explain where you have gaps in your understanding or information, you are extremely inclined to assert that they politically motivated blah blah blah plus they hate you.

 

[Metaphor]

Oh, get off it. I have NEVER claimed or implied that anyone to the right of me is anything other than to the right of me. But you've brought over some pretty sketchily sourced articles here--and I am not the only one who has pointed it out.

Non. You asserted it. You didn't point it out.

I certainly do think that you can participate in this or any discussion you like. But sometimes, you simply don't understand what you are arguing about--which is fine. Why would you? But when people try to explain where you have gaps in your understanding or information, you are extremely inclined to assert that they politically motivated blah blah blah plus they hate you.

You don't try to explain 'gaps', Toni. You are relentless with your claims of epistemic privilege. For fuck's sake, you even started an entire thread "asking" why non-Americans were so interested in American politics.

 

[Toni]

Oh, get off it. I have NEVER claimed or implied that anyone to the right of me is anything other than to the right of me. But you've brought over some pretty sketchily sourced articles here--and I am not the only one who has pointed it out.

Non. You asserted it. You didn't point it out.

I certainly do think that you can participate in this or any discussion you like. But sometimes, you simply don't understand what you are arguing about--which is fine. Why would you? But when people try to explain where you have gaps in your understanding or information, you are extremely inclined to assert that they politically motivated blah blah blah plus they hate you.

You don't try to explain 'gaps', Toni. You are relentless with your claims of epistemic privilege. For fuck's sake, you even started an entire thread "asking" why non-Americans were so interested in American politics.

Did I? I just did a quick search and cannot find any such thread that I started.

I think I have asked a similar question in general in some thread or another but I'm almost certain that I didn't start such a thread.

I am not the only person who has questioned the quality of your sources of information.

 

[Derec]

Which provisions of the law specifically target black voters?
I am not asking whether the provisions are a good idea or not. I am also not asking whether some provisions have a differential impact on different groups of people - after all, most laws will somehow affect one group more than some other group.
I am asking what specific provisions of the Georgia (and Arizona, for that matter) law are alleged by the DOJ to target black voters.

 

[Derec]

At the very least, the provisions outlawing providing food and/or water to people standing in long lines seems like a pretty blatant attempt to reduce the number of voters,

The claim by the DOJ is that Georgia law targets black voters. Are non-black people somehow less in need of food and water?
And the problem with providing food and water by outside groups is that it can be seen as electioneering, as has been pointed out.

which is especially onerous as along with some other states has dramatically reduced the number of polling places.

As far as I know, the polling places are determined by county, not state.

https://www.npr.org/2020/10/17/9245...-to-wait-in-line-for-hours-too-few-polling-pl

So black voters are more likely to vote in person and voter turnout increased across the board in 2020.
Note, however the racist author capitalizing only "black" but not "white".

Since the U.S. Supreme Court's Shelby v. Holder decision in 2013 eliminated key federal oversight of election decisions in states with histories of discrimination,

Shelby was a correct decision. The Voting Rights Act used a formula that by then was 40 years old. Of course, Congress has the option to apply a new formula and resurrect preclearance, but it has not done so.

I always vote. Always. But I must admit that it is exceptionally easy for me to vote in my small town with plenty of polling places, and my polling place in easy walking distance. I don't generally have to wait in line or not for very long, and I get to chat with neighbors and friends while waiting to cast my ballot. I like to think I would still vote if the lines were hours long and the weather horrible but maybe not. I can see how long lines would be a big deterrence if I had to try to vote after working a long shift (or before a long shift) and I didn't have a supportive employer.

Obviously polling places and machines should be sufficient to ensure that people can vote without waiting in line a long time. What the author fails to acknowledge is that a major part of the problem for us in 2020 was the transition to new voting machines. From pure touch screen to touch screen with printout that is scanned at another machine. That system caused some hiccups.

Georgia Havoc Raises New Doubts on Pricey Voting Machines

Of course, just like the provisions of the Georgia law, the machines have not been targeting any particular racial or ethnic group.

 

[Derec]

Some people in Georgia waited 11 hours to vote

This was first day of early voting. Early voting is spread over many days but has few polling places. In addition to technical problems with new voting machines, there was extra turnout for the first day. Some people treated the first day of early voting like the opening day of a Star Wars movie or something, when the rational thing to do would have been to assess the line and come back maybe in the 2nd week of early voting. I did the same. I drove past the early polling place in the first week, saw the line wrapping around and noped out. Came back in a week and waited 10 minutes.

 

[Derec]

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

Too bad we don't have the purple finger technology.

 

[Derec]

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

Churches are usually EXTREMELY partisan.
I mean the sitting pastor of a Baptist church in Atlanta is also a sitting US senator from the Democratic party.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Here's the deal. Unlike you, I don't automatically assume everything a right-wing person does or thinks is engineered to be as cruel as humanly possible to humans for no reasons, other than sadism or grasping of power.

Power grab? This should be fun.

Regarding making Election Day a Federal Holiday. (2019)

“So this is the Democrats’ plan to ‘restore democracy,’” McConnell said, describing the legislation as “a political power grab that’s smelling more and more like what it is.”

Regarding DC Statehood (2021)

Statehood “is nothing more than an unconstitutional power grab by Democrats to gain two ultra-progressive D.C Senate seats [and] enforce radical, far-left policies on the American people,” Rep. Guy Reschenthaler, R-Pa., said on the House floor.

Regarding Voting Rights Bill (2021)

But McConnell on "Ruthless" Tuesday framed it as a partisan power grab.

"We had record turnouts last year... So this is not to drive up turnout, turnout's already driven up," McConnell said. "It's to take over the Federal Election Commission so it can be a prosecutor. It's to provide public funding for elections. It's to provide the same-day registration, which I just looked at a survey that said something 81% of the Amerian people are concerned about something like that leading to vote fraud."

 

[Gospel]

Which provisions of the law specifically target black voters?
I am not asking whether the provisions are a good idea or not. I am also not asking whether some provisions have a differential impact on different groups of people - after all, most laws will somehow affect one group more than some other group.
I am asking what specific provisions of the Georgia (and Arizona, for that matter) law are alleged by the DOJ to target black voters.

Remember how gun laws only affect law-abiding citizens? Well, it's similar in this case; there is no widespread voter fraud that this law is put in place to curtail. In other words, it's an unnecessary checkpoint that affects voters in hopes to protect them from a nonexistent threat.

 

[Gospel]

Some people in Georgia waited 11 hours to vote

This was first day of early voting. Early voting is spread over many days but has few polling places. In addition to technical problems with new voting machines, there was extra turnout for the first day. Some people treated the first day of early voting like the opening day of a Star Wars movie or something, when the rational thing to do would have been to assess the line and come back maybe in the 2nd week of early voting. I did the same. I drove past the early polling place in the first week, saw the line wrapping around and noped out. Came back in a week and waited 10 minutes.

This has been mentioned so many times. You bore me Derec. Not everyone has the privilege of visiting the poles multiple times. You may work hours that benefit you, or your job is flexible and understanding. You also have your own transportation to just nope and come back another time while they don't. I know, it sounds like whining and a boot strap moment to you but it's a reality to others.