Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp Signs Election Integrity Bill

[NightHawkeye]

From the "Abuses beget backlash", files: Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp Signs Election Integrity Bill

The legislation, Senate Bill 202, was passed along party lines by Georgia’s General Assembly with votes of 100-75 in the House and 34-20 in the Senate. It aims to enhance voting rules to ensure more fair and safe elections.

As reported by the Hill, the bill will “require voters to provide a driver’s license or state-issued ID card number to request and submit absentee ballots, and it would curtail the use of ballot drop boxes ...​

 

[Speedwell]

Well, that will be a nuisance for some voters, but the problem will be gotten around. The question is, what do you think Georgia will do next when these measures turn out not to have the intended effect?

 

[tz620q]

From the "Abuses beget backlash", files: Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp Signs Election Integrity Bill

The legislation, Senate Bill 202, was passed along party lines by Georgia’s General Assembly with votes of 100-75 in the House and 34-20 in the Senate. It aims to enhance voting rules to ensure more fair and safe elections.

As reported by the Hill, the bill will “require voters to provide a driver’s license or state-issued ID card number to request and submit absentee ballots, and it would curtail the use of ballot drop boxes ...​

Good for Georgia. I am not sure why this is news though. I vote in person and have to show my driver's license to prove that I am who I am and then they check that against the voter registration rolls. This is hardly a new system; but it has proven to be an effective one. Allowing any less for absentee ballots is undermining the trust people will have in the fairness of elections.

 

[tz620q]

Good for Georgia. I am not sure why this is news though. I vote in person and have to show my driver's license to prove that I am who I am and then they check that against the voter registration rolls. This is hardly a new system; but it has proven to be an effective one. Allowing any less for absentee ballots is undermining the trust people will have in the fairness of elections.

After I thought about this, I realize the need for a reaffirmation of state election laws. In 2020, often at the 11th hour, the Democrats led many law suits in state courts to effectively broaden the time frame and ability of people to get and file absentee ballots beyond the current election laws ratified by the state. In my opinion this was an unconstitutional violation by the courts ostensibly taken up because of the public health emergency. Why were the courts used for this challenge to election laws and not simply go before the legislatures to make a temporary change to the law? I can see two reasons. The first is that one need only convince one judge in a court case, versus many legislators if one used the lawful means to change election laws. The second is that our court system works off precedence. Once a judge rules to allow these changes, that can be used as a precedent in the next case. The slope is therefore slippery in the change of balance of powers from legislature to judicial. So there is a need for the legislature to reaffirm the valid election laws after these court cases to stop that slippery slide.

 

[Joyous Song]

In NY any form of ID that government or school based issued can work for ID. Opening up what can be used removes some of the reasons democrats are likely creating those low suits. This is the problem with human creating laws to shut up loopholes. We do so imperfectly replacing one abuse with another injustice.

Thus truly far elections may have to wait for Christ's return, we can only approach true justice and fairness but never meet it. Yet every bill should be looked at this way, the loop holes and injustice watched for and filled or fixed.

 

[Tiberius Lee]

All we are missing is a literacy test for non-white folks. But I am optimistic, next time it will be included in next bill.

 

[FenderTL5]

After I thought about this, I realize the need for a reaffirmation of state election laws. In 2020, often at the 11th hour, the Democrats led many law suits in state courts to effectively broaden the time frame and ability of people to get and file absentee ballots beyond the current election laws ratified by the state. In my opinion this was an unconstitutional violation by the courts ostensibly taken up because of the public health emergency. Why were the courts used for this challenge to election laws and not simply go before the legislatures to make a temporary change to the law? I can see two reasons. The first is that one need only convince one judge in a court case, versus many legislators if one used the lawful means to change election laws. The second is that our court system works off precedence. Once a judge rules to allow these changes, that can be used as a precedent in the next case. The slope is therefore slippery in the change of balance of powers from legislature to judicial. So there is a need for the legislature to reaffirm the valid election laws after these court cases to stop that slippery slide.

You failed to recognize one other reason of upmost importance - many (most?) state legislatures have a determined time for their annual session. As example, the Georgia Constitution limits the General Assembly’s annual session to no more than 40 legislative days. It begins on the second Monday in January. Given breaks, recesses etc, it will typically end in Late April or May.
So in Georgia, as example, the legislature having already adjourned for the year was prohibited in addressing issues arising due to COVID until January of this year.

 

[Albion]

Well, that will be a nuisance for some voters, but the problem will be gotten around. The question is, what do you think Georgia will do next when these measures turn out not to have the intended effect?

Most of the changes that liberals are horrified at were the standard in most states until 2020 or, in some cases, only a few years prior. The usual excuse for making most of the changes was, of course Covid.

Now, however, the politicians who benefitted from these changes, most of which were supposedly temporary, are loudly protesting that any attempt to return any of them to the way things were before is "vote suppression," "racist" and etc.

In fact, the legislators who are trying to return some normality and safeguards to the voting system are, for the most part, not trying to repeal all of the changes, anyway, but just to get a handle on those most which are most susceptible to vote fraud.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

I assume we won’t be hearing any complaints of “rigged elections” out of Georgia should the GOP candidate lose again in the future.

 

[tz620q]

You failed to recognize one other reason of upmost importance - many (most?) state legislatures have a determined time for their annual session. As example, the Georgia Constitution limits the General Assembly’s annual session to no more than 40 legislative days. It begins on the second Monday in January. Given breaks, recesses etc, it will typically end in Late April or May.
So in Georgia, as example, the legislature having already adjourned for the year was prohibited in addressing issues arising due to COVID until January of this year.

That is a good point though you are talking only about the regular legislative session. In Georgia, an extraordinary or special session can be called under the following requirements - presentation to the governor of a petition signed by three-fifths of the members of each house, with a copy to the secretary of state. The governor also can solely call for a special session. The regular session was shutdown in mid-March due to COVID. A petition was presented to Gov Kemp calling for a special session starting on April 15, 2020. I could not find anything that detailed that this happened, though the Governor called a special session for March 16, 2020 to cancel his public health emergency powers. So the next special session that was in the news was the one in early December to discuss how to handle the special election required for the two senators and the certification and issues surrounding that of the election results. In the interim, the Secretary of State of Georgia Raffensperger decided without legislative powers to mail out absentee ballots to every registered voter in Georgia. In Georgia, prior to the new law, one had to show identification when voting in person; but not if they voted by mail. That to me is a large hole in certifying that voters are casting a valid vote that is plugged by the new law. That new law also removed the Secretary of State as the head of the State Election Board. This is probably because of the backlash at the Secretary of State for his mail in vote decision.

 

[wing2000]

Noting the new GA law strips the GA Secretary of State of his authority over elections -- the same Republican Secretary of State who stood up for the integrity of the vote when the former President attempted to blatantly pressure elections staff to come up with 11,780 votes.

 

[tz620q]

Noting the new GA law strips the GA Secretary of State of his authority over elections -- the same Republican Secretary of State who stood up for the integrity of the vote when the former President attempted to blatantly pressure elections staff to come up with 11,780 votes.

That is a claim without any proof that this new law was in retaliation for that stance. I can show that several senators spoke out against the Secretary of State's mail in decision long before the election. So which is the most logical motivation?
To put some numbers to this issue, the number of absentee ballots cast in 2018 was 284,393. In 2020, there were 1,322,529 absentee ballots cast.

 

[wing2000]

That is a claim without any proof that this new law was in retaliation for that stance. I can show that several senators spoke out against the Secretary of State's mail in decision long before the election. So which is the most logical motivation?
To put some numbers to this issue, the number of absentee ballots cast in 2018 was 284,393. In 2020, there were 1,322,529 absentee ballots cast.

Fair point. However, the Secretary of State was granted this authority for a reason. I don't see the rational for stripping the office of this power. On what basis were the referenced senators objecting to mail in ballots?

 

[RocksInMyHead]

...and now they're being sued.

U.S. civil rights groups sue Georgia over sweeping new voting restrictions | National Post

 

[Ringo84]

Protecting the "integrity" of the vote by (checks notes) making the scourge of handing out food and water to people standing in line at polling stations illegal.

If Republicans believed in "free and fair elections", as their propaganda suggests, they would expand - not contract - voting rights.
Ringo

 

[Elliewaves]

Hopefully a person goes along the election line handing out pennies and the person behind them goes along selling water and food for a penny.

Also, this will be hilarious if Kemp was pressured to do this and then he loses in the next election because he won't be endorsed by he that shall not be named.

 

[Ringo84]

I don't live in Georgia (thank God).

If I did, it would be my pleasure to be arrested for the heinous crime of handing out food and water to voters for free. That'd be a mark on my record I'd be more than proud to accept.
Ringo

 

[FenderTL5]

I don't live in Georgia (thank God).

If I did, it would be my pleasure to be arrested for the heinous crime of handing out food and water to voters for free. That'd be a mark on my record I'd be more than proud to accept.
Ringo

I wonder where supporters of the bill/law stand on the issue of religious freedom?

For whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink in my name, because ye belong to Christ, verily I say unto you, he shall not lose his reward.
Mark 9:41

And whosoever shall give to drink unto one of these little ones a cup of cold water only in the name of a disciple, verily I say unto you, he shall in no wise lose his reward.
Matthew 10:42

 

[NightHawkeye]

...and now they're being sued.

U.S. civil rights groups sue Georgia over sweeping new voting restrictions | National Post

No surprise there.

Unconstitutional election process changes were put in place as a result of over-exuberant judicial pressure, largely without pushback. Who would expect those pushing to just give up now?

Considering that the courts largely stayed out of recent election matters, who really expects the courts to intervene again now that the legislature has re-asserted its constitutional explicitly mandated authority?

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Considering that the courts largely stayed out of recent election matters, who really expects the courts to intervene again now that the legislature has re-asserted its constitutional explicitly mandated authority?

What do you mean by ‘the courts have largely stayed out of it’? You’ve started literally tons of threads based entirely on 2020 election challenges filed by the Trump team. How many of those were ignored by the courts?