Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp Signs Election Integrity Bill

tz620q said:

Laws can be enforced to cover the intention of the law.

Click to expand...

This is a stupid excuse for a poorly-written law. Laws can be enforced to cover the intent, but isn't it better to just write the law to explicitly cover the intent?

You are taking short term measures put in place for the pandemic and trying to make them the standard for all future elections. The wisdom of the many elections that we have had in this country has shown us that voting stations must be ran be principled and rigourous workers that know the requirements and will not relent on them. To add unregulated voting methods is to reduce the public's confidence in the honesty of an election.

Click to expand...

I missed that there was a requirement for precincts with long lines to take steps to reduce them, so that's fair. However, not wanting "band-aid" measures banned is not the same as wanting to make them the standard. Election officials should not be prevented from taking necessary measures to ensure that their constituents can vote. By all means, institute requirements for more training, more polling places, etc. But don't remove systems that allow citizens to vote.

And the systems that you're talking about are hardly "unregulated". Ballot drop boxes have been used across the country. So long as they're placed by the county, meet proper standards of security, and only election officials control access, I don't see a problem. Limiting the number of drop boxes arbitrarily serves no purpose. If there's a problem with the boxes being privately-funded, ban that. If there's a problem with their distribution, place regulations on how much they should be separated (whether that's by distance or by number of voters in a radius). But just saying that a county can only have 1 drop box per 100,000 people (which is not very good coverage when counties with a lower population than that had as many as five) is not a good solution.

The mobile voting stations are still staffed by trained poll workers and have all of the same security measures in place.

RocksInMyHead said:

This is a stupid excuse for a poorly-written law. Laws can be enforced to cover the intent, but isn't it better to just write the law to explicitly cover the intent?

Click to expand...

I don't like just stating opinion but working from fact (not inferring that your were). So I will try to unravel the exact wording of the law. It is rather complicated though in that Georgia SB202 is an amendment to sections of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated. SB202 begins with this:
"To comprehensively revise elections and voting; to amend Chapter 2 of Title 21 of the 2 Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to elections and primaries"

Here is the section of SB202 relating to food and water -
"SECTION 33.
1808 Said chapter is further amended by revising subsections (a) and (e) of Code
1809 Section 21-2-414, relating to restrictions on campaign activities and public opinion polling
1810 within the vicinity of a polling place, cellular phone use prohibited, prohibition of candidates 1811 from entering certain polling places, and penalty, as follows:
1812 "(a) No person shall solicit votes in any manner or by any means or method, nor shall any 1813 person distribute or display any campaign material, nor shall any person give, offer to give,
1814 or participate in the giving of any money or gifts, including, but not limited to, food and
1815 drink, to an elector, nor shall any person solicit signatures for any petition, nor shall any
1816 person, other than election officials discharging their duties, establish or set up any tables 1817 or booths on any day in which ballots are being cast:
1818 (1) Within 150 feet of the outer edge of any building within which a polling place is
1819 established;
1820 (2) Within any polling place; or
1821 (3) Within 25 feet of any voter standing in line to vote at any polling place.
1822 These restrictions shall not apply to conduct occurring in private offices or areas which
1823 cannot be seen or heard by such electors."

1824 "(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."

Here is subsection 21-2-414 a) as it appeared before:
"(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 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.

These restrictions shall not apply to conduct occurring in private offices or areas which cannot be seen or heard by such electors."

and subsection e)
"(e) This Code section shall not be construed to prohibit a poll officer from distributing materials, as required by law, which are necessary for the purpose of instructing electors or from distributing materials prepared by the Secretary of State which are designed solely for the purpose of encouraging voter participation in the election being conducted."

So the only addition to the old law is the words I bolded in SB202 specifically prohibiting food and water from being given within the line of waiting electors except by an unattended water station setup by the poll officer. I think you are right in saying that the law could have been worded to better show its intent of stopping gifts from campaign workers; but how do you know a campaign worker. They can look like anyone. It is a hard law; but most states have similar hard laws about campaigning within a certain distance from the polling place.

tz620q said:

but how do you know a campaign worker. They can look like anyone.

Click to expand...

So long as they aren't campaigning, there's no need to distinguish them. So no articles of clothing or accessories saying "Vote [candidate]," no discussing politics or the election, etc. If someone approaches you and offers you a bottle of water if you promise to vote for a certain candidate, you report them. If a random person offers you a bottle of water and leaves it at that, why should it matter if they're a worker for a campaign or just a charitable stranger (assuming that they are not a public representative of the campaign, such as the candidate, a member of their family, or a spokesperson, who might be recognized as such).

We should not prohibit actions that are otherwise admirable because of the chance that they might be abused. Rather, we should structure the law to punish those who commit those abuses.

RocksInMyHead said:

So long as they aren't campaigning, there's no need to distinguish them. So no articles of clothing or accessories saying "Vote [candidate]," no discussing politics or the election, etc. If someone approaches you and offers you a bottle of water if you promise to vote for a certain candidate, you report them. If a random person offers you a bottle of water and leaves it at that, why should it matter if they're a worker for a campaign or just a charitable stranger (assuming that they are not a public representative of the campaign, such as the candidate, a member of their family, or a spokesperson, who might be recognized as such).

We should not prohibit actions that are otherwise admirable because of the chance that they might be abused. Rather, we should structure the law to punish those who commit those abuses.

Click to expand...

I completely agree with your approach here. It is the type of common sense approach that we can only hope will be used in Georgia. Still it seems that a lot has been made of this part of the new law when common sense would tell you that it would happen the way you suggest here.

tz620q said:

I completely agree with your approach here. It is the type of common sense approach that we can only hope will be used in Georgia. Still it seems that a lot has been made of this part of the new law when common sense would tell you that it would happen the way you suggest here.

Click to expand...

Why would common sense suggest this? Common sense dictates that laws will be enforced as written.

ETA: And the reason why such a big deal is being made about it in this thread is that it's both a ridiculous law and people like you are putting in so much effort to defend it. It was only one of several problematic segments of the law pointed out, but it seems to be the only one that's really being defended.

RocksInMyHead said:

Why would common sense suggest this? Common sense dictates that laws will be enforced as written.

ETA: And the reason why such a big deal is being made about it in this thread is that it's both a ridiculous law and people like you are putting in so much effort to defend it. It was only one of several problematic segments of the law pointed out, but it seems to be the only one that's really being defended.

Click to expand...

As a Catholic apologist, I have found that defense is only needed when being attacked. You can call the law ridiculous; but it has been passed by the legislative body that gets to control these things. Let me ask you a question. Why is the President of the United States making inflammatory comments like "It is sick" about such a small part of a law in Georgia? Surely he had bigger things on his agenda. The only reason I can see is that they want to overturn state laws with the federal election law. How stupid is that? Think about what you vote for on a federal level. There is only one race that is federal and voted on by everyone and that is President (short of national constitutional amendments). Every other election is local or state. Elections need to stay in state control, ran by local election boards.

tz620q said:

As a Catholic apologist, I have found that defense is only needed when being attacked. You can call the law ridiculous; but it has been passed by the legislative body that gets to control these things.

Click to expand...

So? I'm not allowed to have an opinion on a law once it has passed? There are plenty of laws in this country that I think are ridiculous. This one just happens to be the focus of this thread.

Let me ask you a question. Why is the President of the United States making inflammatory comments like "It is sick" about such a small part of a law in Georgia? Surely he had bigger things on his agenda.

Click to expand...

1. Because he was asked for his opinion.
2. Because he doesn't like it.
3. I believe he was referring to more than just this one provision. As I said in my previous post, there are several problematic parts of the amendment.

I do think that he spoke a bit hastily on some aspects (and was rightfully fact-checked for it), but he's allowed to have an opinion too.

The only reason I can see is that they want to overturn state laws with the federal election law. How stupid is that? Think about what you vote for on a federal level. There is only one race that is federal and voted on by everyone and that is President (short of national constitutional amendments). Every other election is local or state. Elections need to stay in state control, ran by local election boards.

Click to expand...

Generally, I agree. But the federal government does have a mandate to step in if local laws violate broader federal statutes, especially relating to discrimination. As of yet, I've not seen a coherent justification for any of the problematic provisions that have been discussed in this thread. I've seen explanations of how they can't possibly be bad, or how I should ignore the actual wording of the law and focus on the intent behind them, but nothing about how they will increase confidence in the election system (which is the purpose of the bill, so stated in its text). Concerns about potential discriminatory elements have been brushed off or denied with no further explanation. This worries me.

RocksInMyHead said:

So? I'm not allowed to have an opinion on a law once it has passed? There are plenty of laws in this country that I think are ridiculous. This one just happens to be the focus of this thread.

Click to expand...

Fair enough; but I find it interesting that both sides (mainly in the media) uses such derogatory language. To me it is a defense mechanism to castigate something on which they don't want to really have a dialogue. I don't think you are that way and seem to want to do the work to look at the law and evaluate its merits. That is why I have kept up this discussion.

RocksInMyHead said:

1. Because he was asked for his opinion.
2. Because he doesn't like it.
3. I believe he was referring to more than just this one provision. As I said in my previous post, there are several problematic parts of the amendment.

I do think that he spoke a bit hastily on some aspects (and was rightfully fact-checked for it), but he's allowed to have an opinion too.

Click to expand...

I know after Donald Trump we might have gotten used to someone who spouts their opinion at every available opportunity; but I had hoped for better from President Biden. The office requires that someone weighs their personal opinions in light of their political office. So either Biden's comments (which were not a one off; but repeated several times) show a lack of proper understanding of how his opinion is amplified by his office or (as I believe) he is working from a political agenda to garner support for HR1/S1. By the way if you want some scary reading about election laws try going through the wording of HR1.

RocksInMyHead said:

Generally, I agree. But the federal government does have a mandate to step in if local laws violate broader federal statutes, especially relating to discrimination. As of yet, I've not seen a coherent justification for any of the problematic provisions that have been discussed in this thread. I've seen explanations of how they can't possibly be bad, or how I should ignore the actual wording of the law and focus on the intent behind them, but nothing about how they will increase confidence in the election system (which is the purpose of the bill, so stated in its text). Concerns about potential discriminatory elements have been brushed off or denied with no further explanation. This worries me.

Click to expand...

In general, since the Supreme Court decision in 2013 in "Shelby County v. Holder", there has been a decline in polling stations in predominantly black areas. This isn't just a Georgia issue. The new Georgia law tries to set a new standard for number of voter precincts based on population, not on the prior federal preclearance targets that were first set in 1965 and only dealt with predominantly black areas. In Georgia after Shelby County v. Holder, Secretary of State Kemp (now Governor Kemp) put more of the determination of number of voter precincts at the local county level after the federal preclearance was pulled. The new law pulls that back to state level and mandates a minimum number.

tz620q said:

Fair enough; but I find it interesting that both sides (mainly in the media) uses such derogatory language. To me it is a defense mechanism to castigate something on which they don't want to really have a dialogue. I don't think you are that way and seem to want to do the work to look at the law and evaluate its merits. That is why I have kept up this discussion.

Click to expand...

I think that if supporters of a measure are unable to articulate why it is a positive thing, it's appropriate to label that measure "ridiculous." Multiple people in this thread - yourself included - have been unable to say why this particular portion of the bill makes sense as worded, and yet, you (collectively) continue to defend it.

I know after Donald Trump we might have gotten used to someone who spouts their opinion at every available opportunity; but I had hoped for better from President Biden.

Click to expand...

As did I, but no one is perfect.

In general, since the Supreme Court decision in 2013 in "Shelby County v. Holder", there has been a decline in polling stations in predominantly black areas. This isn't just a Georgia issue. The new Georgia law tries to set a new standard for number of voter precincts based on population, not on the prior federal preclearance targets that were first set in 1965 and only dealt with predominantly black areas. In Georgia after Shelby County v. Holder, Secretary of State Kemp (now Governor Kemp) put more of the determination of number of voter precincts at the local county level after the federal preclearance was pulled. The new law pulls that back to state level and mandates a minimum number.

Click to expand...

And that's a good thing. I have never said that every part of the bill has issues. But the presence of good changes does not mean that we must accept the bad ones along with them.

RocksInMyHead said:

I think that if supporters of a measure are unable to articulate why it is a positive thing, it's appropriate to label that measure "ridiculous." Multiple people in this thread - yourself included - have been unable to say why this particular portion of the bill makes sense as worded, and yet, you (collectively) continue to defend it.

Click to expand...

I have tried to state the why for this new food and water addition. I grant you your opinion; but the law as written was passed and any defense for it will be in court. I have tried to restrict my opinion here to mostly stating facts as I could find them without a lot of rhetoric or opinions. Hopefully that will be enough for people to make an informed decision. Truthfully the food and water was just low hanging fruit for President Biden, whose attempts to say that the early voting hours were reduced proved false.
Maybe we should go to higher fruit. Is there another part of the law that you find troublesome?

tz620q said:

Is there another part of the law that you find troublesome?

Click to expand...

I've enumerated some of them in previous posts, but:

1. Restrictions on the number of ballot drop boxes. If you want to regulate where they can be placed, how far apart they have to be, security requirements, etc, that's reasonable. But given the variations in population distribution, limiting counties to one per 100,000 residents seems arbitrary and serves no purpose. A large rural county with 50,000 residents may want to place multiple drop boxes to ensure that all of its residents can easily access one, but under the new law, they would only be allowed to have one.

2. Restrictions in the use of mobile voting centers. So long as they meet security requirements and are staffed by trained workers, I don't see why these should not be allowed.

3. Reducing the time frame for absentee ballot requests. In addition to discouraging people from seeking out an absentee ballot, this also increases the load on county election boards who have less time to process those requests.

4. Prohibiting the practice of voting with a provisional ballot if you go to the wrong precinct (unless past 5 pm). For some context, Georgia has closed more than 200 voting precincts over the past 5-10 years, and it's relatively common for voters to be confused about where they're supposed to go. About 5,000 provisional ballots were cast by out-of-precinct voters in Georgia last year.

5. Moving power from the Secretary of State to the Legislature. Rather than the SoS being the chair of the state election board, the chair will instead be appointed by the legislature. He's supposed to be non-partisan, but as someone who works in state government, lolno. The election board (with it's legislature-appointed chairperson) is also now permitted to suspend and replace county election officials.

6. Shortening the runoff period. This limits access to early voting, as well as disadvantaging members of the military and other citizens overseas. It also creates a situation where election officials may still be dealing with a tightly-contested general election (*ahem*2020*ahem*) while trying to organize a runoff

There are a few others with a little more nuance, but these are the worst of the bunch IMO.

RocksInMyHead said:

I highly doubt that they would avoid it intentionally. But things get forgotten and there's nothing they can do if they aren't supplied with cups and water jugs or coolers and water bottles.


You're specifically defending this provision of the law though. Why?

Click to expand...

I think the intent of the law is good. I think the wording seems to be bad. We won't know I guess until next voting season on how the law is applied on a practical level.

If I hand a water bottle to my wife who is in line with me, will the police jump on me and arrest me? I suppose technically they could. But I highly doubt that's the intent if the law. The intent is pretty obvious by the context of the entire law. They didn't want politicians handing out gifts to people in line. I'm very skeptical that they wanted to deny me giving water to my wife or children etc.

It seems to me all this nitpicking is just a big nothing burger. But I guess we'll see.

rjs330 said:

I think the intent of the law is good. I think the wording seems to be bad. We won't know I guess until next voting season on how the law is applied on a practical level.

If I hand a water bottle to my wife who is in line with me, will the police jump on me and arrest me? I suppose technically they could. But I highly doubt that's the intent if the law. The intent is pretty obvious by the context of the entire law. They didn't want politicians handing out gifts to people in line. I'm very skeptical that they wanted to deny me giving water to my wife or children etc.

It seems to me all this nitpicking is just a big nothing burger. But I guess we'll see.

Click to expand...

The “intent” was to make sure that Democrats have a harder time winning elections in Russia Georgia.

rjs330 said:

I think the intent of the law is good. I think the wording seems to be bad. We won't know I guess until next voting season on how the law is applied on a practical level.

Click to expand...

The stated intent is good. But the wording does not match that intent. And application can vary widely when you rely on the discretion of officers/prosecutors to determine exactly what qualifies as a violation and what they have an interest in enforcing.

Of course, this could have been easily solved by just re-wording the statute so that it does what they claim it's supposed to do, but the legislature chose not to. That makes me question their motives, especially coupled with the other provisions that I listed in my previous post.

Pommer said:

The “intent” was to make sure that Democrats have a harder time winning elections in Russia Georgia.

Click to expand...

You have no evidence of that.

Aldebaran said:

And democrats would have a harder time winning because....

A. Democrats can't stand in line for as long as Republicans can.
B. Democrats aren't able to bring a water bottle with them if they think they'll get thirsty.
C. Democrats can't get to the polls in time like Republicans can.
D. All of the above.

Multiple answers are acceptable.

Click to expand...

That's just AWSOME!

RocksInMyHead said:

I've enumerated some of them in previous posts, but:

1. Restrictions on the number of ballot drop boxes. If you want to regulate where they can be placed, how far apart they have to be, security requirements, etc, that's reasonable. But given the variations in population distribution, limiting counties to one per 100,000 residents seems arbitrary and serves no purpose. A large rural county with 50,000 residents may want to place multiple drop boxes to ensure that all of its residents can easily access one, but under the new law, they would only be allowed to have one.

2. Restrictions in the use of mobile voting centers. So long as they meet security requirements and are staffed by trained workers, I don't see why these should not be allowed.

3. Reducing the time frame for absentee ballot requests. In addition to discouraging people from seeking out an absentee ballot, this also increases the load on county election boards who have less time to process those requests.

4. Prohibiting the practice of voting with a provisional ballot if you go to the wrong precinct (unless past 5 pm). For some context, Georgia has closed more than 200 voting precincts over the past 5-10 years, and it's relatively common for voters to be confused about where they're supposed to go. About 5,000 provisional ballots were cast by out-of-precinct voters in Georgia last year.

5. Moving power from the Secretary of State to the Legislature. Rather than the SoS being the chair of the state election board, the chair will instead be appointed by the legislature. He's supposed to be non-partisan, but as someone who works in state government, lolno. The election board (with it's legislature-appointed chairperson) is also now permitted to suspend and replace county election officials.

6. Shortening the runoff period. This limits access to early voting, as well as disadvantaging members of the military and other citizens overseas. It also creates a situation where election officials may still be dealing with a tightly-contested general election (*ahem*2020*ahem*) while trying to organize a runoff

There are a few others with a little more nuance, but these are the worst of the bunch IMO.

Click to expand...

1. Why do you need all these drop boxes. You know there are a LOT of mail boxes. Probably far more than drop boxes and most likely they are far easier accessed. There's probably one right outside your house. And mail in ballots don't cost anything. Before COVID they didn't even have drop boxes.

2. Mobile voting centers? I didn't actually find anything in the law on this. I might have missed it.

3. 78 days as opposed to 180 days? I'm not sure why this is such a big deal. People who want one can still get one. It doesn't stop one person. I mean that's two and a half months out. Plenty of time. Plenty of time to get a ballot, fill it out and send it in. It's also plenty of time to count the ballots. They don't start counting absentee ballots before the third Monday before the election anyway. Why on earth would you need a ballot 6 months in advance of an election? If you can't bother to get one 78 days early your really not that interest d in voting. The time to process the votes really doesn't change.

4. The legislature stated that people going to the wrong polls created hardships of the electors and the poll people. There is no prohibition on filling out provisional ballots. If an elector cannot get to the correct precinct all they have to do is fill out a form saying why and then go ahead and fill out a provisional ballot. So they still can vote, either where they should have gone and if they can't they can still vote where they showed up. Any elector can call or contact the office and find out where they need to go well in advance if the election.

Aldebaran said:

And democrats would have a harder time winning because....

A. Democrats can't stand in line for as long as Republicans can.
B. Democrats aren't able to bring a water bottle with them if they think they'll get thirsty.
C. Democrats can't get to the polls in time like Republicans can.
D. All of the above.

Multiple answers are acceptable.

Click to expand...

E. The bill's intent is to reduce turnout, which historically helps GOP. Perhaps because Democratic voters have jobs and family obligations which eat into their time which they'd otherwise spend waiting in longer lines due to the intent of this bill.

I mean, if we're just making up random poll answers to sell a partisan story to the credulous, no point in stopping at just 4 points.

rjs330 said:

1. Why do you need all these drop boxes. You know there are a LOT of mail boxes. Probably far more than drop boxes and most likely they are far easier accessed. There's probably one right outside your house. And mail in ballots don't cost anything. Before COVID they didn't even have drop boxes.

Click to expand...

Because mail takes time to arrive and can get lost. Dropping your ballot in a drop box ensures that it is picked up by an election official and goes directly to the elections office. If you get it to the box before polls close, it will be counted. No worries about whether or not you ballot will arrive within the allowed post-election day window (if there even is one). Plus some people have trust issues with the USPS at the moment.

My question to you is: why does there need to be a law limiting this? What purpose does it serve? How will it "restore confidence in the election system"?

2. Mobile voting centers? I didn't actually find anything in the law on this. I might have missed it.

Click to expand...

Fulton County used a couple of RVs set up with voting machines and staffed by trained poll workers to conduct early voting days in underserved areas. They would set up temporary sites at libraries and other similar county-level buildings. The law bans this practice unless the governor declares an emergency. They can still be used at pre-existing polling locations to supplement the machines there, but no more temporary early voting sites.

3. 78 days as opposed to 180 days? I'm not sure why this is such a big deal. People who want one can still get one. It doesn't stop one person. I mean that's two and a half months out. Plenty of time. Plenty of time to get a ballot, fill it out and send it in. It's also plenty of time to count the ballots. They don't start counting absentee ballots before the third Monday before the election anyway. Why on earth would you need a ballot 6 months in advance of an election? If you can't bother to get one 78 days early your really not that interest d in voting. The time to process the votes really doesn't change.

Click to expand...

I wasn't talking about counting the ballots. I was talking about processing the requests for ballots. So verifying that the person is a registered voter, etc. They weren't sending out ballots 6 months before the election, but you could submit your request for an absentee ballot that far out.

And again, what purpose does restricting this serve?

4. The legislature stated that people going to the wrong polls created hardships of the electors and the poll people. There is no prohibition on filling out provisional ballots. If an elector cannot get to the correct precinct all they have to do is fill out a form saying why and then go ahead and fill out a provisional ballot. So they still can vote, either where they should have gone and if they can't they can still vote where they showed up. Any elector can call or contact the office and find out where they need to go well in advance if the election.

Click to expand...

You've got it wrong - the law specifically prohibits what you just said, unless it is after 5 pm on election day. I agree, it does create hardship. But so did closing hundreds of polling locations, which is what has led to the confusion in the first place.

Once again, I see zero actual justification for these laws. Just declarations about how it couldn't possibly be an inconvenience.