Fogbow

neonzx wrote: ↑Sun Mar 28, 2021 6:00 pm

Lani wrote: ↑Sun Mar 28, 2021 5:51 pm 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.

tek wrote: ↑Sun Mar 28, 2021 5:47 pm

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"

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.

sugar magnolia wrote: ↑Sun Mar 28, 2021 3:58 pm Never assume anything about GA politics. You'll be disappointed.

SuzieC wrote: ↑Sun Mar 28, 2021 6:16 pm 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.

tek wrote: ↑Sun Mar 28, 2021 6:25 pm 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?

(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 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 29, 2021 5:59 am

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

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

sugar magnolia wrote: ↑Mon Mar 29, 2021 6:17 am

Uninformed wrote: ↑Mon Mar 29, 2021 5:59 am

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 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 29, 2021 6:29 am

sugar magnolia wrote: ↑Mon Mar 29, 2021 6:17 am

Uninformed wrote: ↑Mon Mar 29, 2021 5:59 am

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.

Greatgrey wrote: ↑Wed Mar 31, 2021 11:15 pm

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

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

Gerrymandering.JPG (54.37 KiB) Viewed 5254 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.

(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.

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.

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.