Voting Rights / Lawsuits / Voter Supression / HR1 / S1 / Gerrymander Congressional Districts / Gerrymandering

[SuzieC]

IANAL. but it seems offering someone standing in line a bottle of water (with no speaking and no political words on the bottle) is not 'giving money or gifts for the purpose of [..] voting"

It's a gift for voting. Gift a bottle of water to someone to encourage the person to stay in line and vote.

That's exactly what goes on... groups or orgs target polling locations that are backed-up. Bringing water (and sometimes food/treats) ... "stay in the line" -- that's why it's done.

It seems to me that this provision is unconstitutional on at least two grounds. First, freedom of assembly. Making it a crime to offer food or water to a crowd assembled outside in a public place deters their right to freely assemble. Second, criminalizing non-criminal conduct. Like the loitering while black laws of yore, these laws violate substantive due process.

I realize that other provisions of the law are far more serious but the fact that this one is drawing nationwide outrage is good, imo.

[much ado]

Any person who gives or receives, offers to give or receive, or participates in the giving or receiving of money or gifts for the purpose of registering as a voter, voting, or voting for a particular candidate in any primary or election shall be guilty of a felony.

IANAL. but it seems offering someone standing in line a bottle of water (with no speaking and no political words on the bottle) is not 'giving money or gifts for the purpose of [..] voting"

That's the language in the existing statute. The new law includes this language:

From CNN: It's now illegal in Georgia to give food and water to voters in line

Under the bill, signed into law Thursday night by Republican Gov. Brian Kemp, it's now illegal to hand out food or water to people standing in line to vote.

"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 give, offer to give, or participate in the giving of any money or gifts, including, but not limited to, food and drink, to an elector," the new law states.

[tek]

Might be problems there, to my IANAL mind.

Because..

There are lots of people who are electors, who might not at the moment be waiting to vote, or whose need for hydration is not related to voting.

So..

Should an EMT give water to a dehydrated person, who happens to be eligible to vote? Or let them die?

[Frater I*I]

Never assume anything about GA politics. You'll be disappointed.

When you think the GA GQP has scraped the bottom of the barrel, you'll find them next digging under it...

[neonzx]

It seems to me that this provision is unconstitutional on at least two grounds. First, freedom of assembly. Making it a crime to offer food or water to a crowd assembled outside in a public place deters their right to freely assemble. Second, criminalizing non-criminal conduct. Like the loitering while black laws of yore, these laws violate substantive due process.

I realize that other provisions of the law are far more serious but the fact that this one is drawing nationwide outrage is good, imo.

It's our Constitutional right to vote. I have not been to a polling location since 2012 (because I can absentee vote-by-mail). I can't imagine any court in our land which would support charges against a giver or receiver of a bottle of water when there was nothing spoken of politically. But, we are weird people.

[much ado]

Might be problems there, to my IANAL mind.

Because..

There are lots of people who are electors, who might not at the moment be waiting to vote, or whose need for hydration is not related to voting.

So..

Should an EMT give water to a dehydrated person, who happens to be eligible to vote? Or let them die?

I found a place that provides the context of the change to the statute:

cato.org: Criminal Liability Is the Wrong Tool for Enforcing Election Laws

(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 give, offer to give, or participate in the giving of any money or gifts, including, but not limited to, food and drink, to an elector, 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.

[Uninformed]

This appears to be from the adopted bill:

1867 SECTION 33.
...
1884 "(e) This Code section shall not be construed to prohibit a poll officer from distributing
1885 materials, as required by law, which are necessary for the purpose of instructing electors
1886 or from distributing materials prepared by the Secretary of State which are designed solely
1887 for the purpose of encouraging voter participation in the election being conducted or from
1888 making available self-service water from an unattended receptacle to an elector waiting in
1889 line to vote."

I wonder how this provision of water will be made impossible / difficult?

https://legiscan.com/GA/text/SB202/id/2 ... rolled.pdf

[sugar magnolia]

I wonder how this provision of water will be made impossible / difficult?

https://legiscan.com/GA/text/SB202/id/2 ... rolled.pdf

That's an easy one. If you step out of line to get water, you lose your place in line. No holding spots in the line, either.

[Uninformed]

I wonder how this provision of water will be made impossible / difficult?

https://legiscan.com/GA/text/SB202/id/2 ... rolled.pdf

That's an easy one. If you step out of line to get water, you lose your place in line. No holding spots in the line, either.

Oh dear, I didn’t think such a petty option would be considered. Silly me.

[sugar magnolia]

I wonder how this provision of water will be made impossible / difficult?

https://legiscan.com/GA/text/SB202/id/2 ... rolled.pdf

That's an easy one. If you step out of line to get water, you lose your place in line. No holding spots in the line, either.

Oh dear, I didn’t think such a petty option would be considered. Silly me.

It's Georgia. They're famous for always choosing the petty option.

[Slim Cognito]

I was going to ask about line holders myself. Did I miss something in the law saying people couldn't hold places in line? What if the table was set up the appropriate distance away from the line and another table has place holders, like the numbers some restaurants give you to put on your table. If you need water or to use the facilities, you place your marker on the sidewalk and take care of your business. I think most people, especially people forced to vote under these oppressive conditions, would respect the marker. if the line markers aren't specifically forbidden in the new law, could that table be set up a little closer so people can see it?

Also too, if I'm comprehending correctly, if poll workers can set up tables of water, could they set up tables of markers? Could a poll worker be put in charge of tables and provisions?

[Uninformed]

Just for fun could you put water dispensers on wheels?

As a start a law should be enacted mandating the minimum number of polling places per capita, and the maximum travel distance before being entitled to a postal vote.

[Slim Cognito]

Is there a funny political video thread yet? Here's one that's funny and spot-on, if you're going to the polls in Georgia some time in the future.

[p0rtia]

[Greatgrey]

So this morning Delta Airlines & Coca Cola finally came out against the new Georgia voting statute. After it passed & was signed.

F602207D-1A4B-457A-BF10-541F39DA11E7.jpeg (180.13 KiB) Viewed 5505 times

Well the GA legislature ain’t gonna take that sitting down, they just voted to raise jet fuel taxes on Delta!

[Frater I*I]

Well the GA legislature ain’t gonna take that sitting down, they just voted to raise jet fuel taxes on Delta!

They own the fuel company and the company that leases them their aircrafts, so the tax dodge from that will more than cover the new tax.

[Frater I*I]

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/311 ... voting-law

[Luke]

Going to put this here instead of a new topic; HR1 & S1 are vital to prevent this power grab. This is so important we'd support reconciliation or a filibuster suspension to pass it, without it we'll see the same bs we got in the last 10 years and worse.

Exclusive: 1 in 2 states at risk of "rigged maps," group warns
Stef W. Kight

Gerrymandering.JPG (54.37 KiB) Viewed 5357 times

Data: RepresentUs; Chart: Danielle Alberti/Axios


More than half of the states in the U.S. are at "extreme risk" of congressional districts being drawn to unfairly favor one party, according to a new analysis of state redistricting processes by RepresentUs, a non-partisan advocacy group focused on election reform.

Why it matters: The states at risk of gerrymandering — a process the group says can produce "rigged maps" — include battlegrounds like Texas, Georgia, Wisconsin and North Carolina.

The big picture: This year's redistricting process is already more chaotic than usual. And the outcomes could boost one party's political candidates for a decade. "It's really just open season in a way that it never has been," RepresentUs CEO Josh Silver told Axios. That's due in large part to Supreme Court rulings since the last census that block partisan gerrymandering lawsuits from federal courts and ended requirements for some states to get their maps pre-cleared by the Justice Department. What to watch: The U.S. is in a period of rapid demographic change, moving toward becoming a majority-minority population. "At the end of a 10-year [redistricting] cycle, the state can look very different than it did before," the lead researcher on the project, Jack Noland, told Axios. "That is all the more reason that we need fairer lines from the beginning, to sort of withstand those changes."

How it works: RepresentUs researchers looked at five key questions when determining each state's gerrymandering risk.

Are elected officials or nonpartisan commissions are in charge of drawing maps?
Can map-drawing can be done in secret?
Does one party control the process?
What are state criteria around how districts must be drawn?
How hard it is to challenge gerrymandered maps in court?
"I think we have a good sense of where there is a prior history of gerrymandering in this country," Noland said. "But what we hadn't seen is an analysis of the laws on the books in these places."

By the numbers: 11 states saw high risk of gerrymandering across all five categories.

Just seven states received a "minimal risk" rating: California, Colorado, Hawaii, Michigan, Arizona, Washington and Idaho. Democrat-run and Republican-run states alike fell into the highest-risk and lower-risk categories.

What they're saying: The report highlights the need for changes to the redistricting process in many states and advocates for a sweeping election overhaul bill Democrats passed in the House last month. Republicans have sharply criticized the bill, but Silver said given what’s at stake, it shouldn't be a partisan issue.

Interactive map at https://www.axios.com/gerrymandering-st ... 6daad.html

If even being able to compete is off the table, it's a grave blow to democracy. We can't let it happen.

[filly]

[AndyinPA]

https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/07/politics ... index.html

(CNN)Kentucky Democratic Gov. Andy Beshear signed a bipartisan-supported bill into law on Wednesday that expanded voting access by codifying election recount procedures, online absentee ballot portals and early voting procedures -- an exception to the GOP efforts nationwide to overhaul state election rules in the wake of the 2020 election.

"Today is also a good day for democracy, a good day for elections," he said. "I want to start by talking about voting -- about how when much of the country has put in more restrictive laws -- that Kentucky legislators, Kentucky leaders were able to come together to stand up for democracy and to expand the opportunity for people to vote." The bill, HB 574, passed 91-3 in the state House and 33-3 in the state Senate before going to Beshear's desk last week.

Among its provisions are the official approval for voting centers, an online portal for absentee ballot registration and three days of early voting. It will also require drop boxes, creates official recount procedures, allows for tax dollars to advocate for or against ballot questions and mandates all voting machines to generate a paper trail for votes cast, Beshear said.

Beshear also implied the sturdy security of the 2020 election cycle and cast a thinly veiled criticism against states that have made it more difficult for voters seeking to cast their ballot.

[AndyinPA]

https://apnews.com/article/wisconsin-st ... 733b13f3e3

MADISON, Wis. (AP) — The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled Friday that the state elections commission should not remove from the rolls voters flagged as possibly having moved, something Democrats fought and conservatives have wanted done for nearly two years.

The court’s 5-2 ruling means about 69,000 people on the list of likely movers will not have their voter registrations deactivated. When the lawsuit was first brought in 2019, about 234,000 were on the list. Of those who remain, none voted in the 2020 presidential election, according to the Wisconsin Elections Commission. No voters had their registrations deactivated while the legal fight was pending.

The Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, a conservative advocacy group, argued that the state elections commission broke the law when it did not remove voters from the rolls who did not respond within 30 days to a mailing in 2019 indicating they had been identified as someone who potentially moved.

But the court said the job of removing voters from the rolls was up to local municipal elections officials, not the state commission. It ordered the case dismissed.

[Lani]

More than 100 corporate executives hold call to discuss halting donations and investments to fight controversial voting bills\
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business ... ation=true

More than 100 chief executives and corporate leaders gathered online Saturday to discuss taking new action to combat the controversial state voting bills being considered across the country, including the one recently signed into law in Georgia.

Executives from major airlines, retailers and manufacturers — plus at least one NFL owner — talked about potential ways to show they opposed the legislation, including by halting donations to politicians who support the bills and even delaying investments in states that pass the restrictive measures, according to four people who were on the call, including one of the organizers, Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, a Yale management professor.

While no final steps were agreed upon, the meeting represents an aggressive dialing up of corporate America’s stand against controversial voting measures nationwide, a sign that their opposition to the laws didn’t end with the fight against the Georgia legislation passed in March.

[zekeb]

Mitch is going to have a cow and it won't be Nunes' cow.

[Volkonski]

Marc E. Elias
@marceelias
As HR1/S1 moved closer to passage, this is a tactic to watch for in a number of red states. It shows how desperate Republicans are to prevent all voters from participating in elections.

[jcolvin2]

I am curious as to whether the roadblocks to voting being currently engineered by Republicans will ultimately assist the GOP as much as they assume. To avoid being thrown out by the courts, the barriers must at least appear to be facially neutral. In the past, things like a literacy test would have had the effect of making it more difficult for poor (likely Democrat) voters to have their votes counted. However, over the last few election cycles, the more educated, younger and wealthier portions of the population, which have the tools to get around the roadblocks, have increasingly tilted toward the Democrats. It is possible that some of the old tactics to suppress eligible voters will not only suppress minority turnout, but also adversely impact poor white, uneducated and rural segments of the population, i.e., those who are assumed to tilt Republican.