Gubernatorial Race 2018 (restriction, comparison, regulations)

[-thomass]

Under Georgia procedures, registered voters who have not cast ballots for three years are sent a notice asking them to confirm they still live at their address. If they don’t return it, they are marked inactive. If they don’t vote for two more general elections after that, they are removed from the rolls.



Georgia removed more than 534,000 voters that way in 2016 and 2017. Using databases employed by commercial mailing firms, analysts commissioned by Palast’s group found that 334,134 of those citizens actually still live at the address they registered.

This is interesting. You can be purged from the rolls for not voting?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...ion-brian-kemp

[markjames68]

Originally Posted by Born 2 Roll

From the Associated Press at about 7am EST:


"Abrams prepares push for new Georgia Gov. vote" (Associated Press)

“Abrams would assert that enough irregularities occurred to raise the possibility that at least 18,000 Georgians either had their ballots thrown out or were not allowed to vote.”

Assert
Allege
Imply

But courts don’t rule on this, they need proof. I don’t see how there is proof of 18K votes being “not allowed to vote”.

There is a big difference between being not allowed to vote, or not bothering to follow the rules and then demanding the system accommodate you.

Unless she finds the friendliest judge (and I’m sure her team is looking into this) it won’t even pass the sniff test.

She’s ruining her future now, possibly with the backing of progressives out of state who want to make her a lightning rod for 2020.

[ronricks]

Originally Posted by Iconographer

Perhaps now that the actual count has been completed and certified, she will.
Subverting democracy, my ass. That's rich.

It is exactly what she is doing. It is almost if the strategy is recounts, and if those don’t work (they haven't) keep redoing the election until she wins.



Once again I will ask why is she trying to subvert democracy? She lost. At least she hasn't blamed the 'Russians' but I am sure that is next.

[markjames68]

Originally Posted by -thomass

This is interesting. You can be purged from the rolls for not voting?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...ion-brian-kemp

Assuming it was followed correctly it’s hardly an overnight process.

“Under Georgia procedures, registered voters who have not cast ballots for three years are sent a notice asking them to confirm they still live at their address. If they don’t return it, they are marked inactive. If they don’t vote for two more general elections after that, they are removed from the rolls.”

If my math is correct this takes approximately 7 years and requires the voter to not return a notice nor vote. These people were also removed a year ago yet no talk about filing until now - when she’s clearly lost.

The Supreme Court voted 5-4 last year that the “use it or lose it” approach doesn’t violate federal law. I don’t see Abrams having a real case here unless she can prove that Kemp didn’t follow the process.

[MattCW]

Originally Posted by -thomass

This is interesting. You can be purged from the rolls for not voting?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...ion-brian-kemp

No, it says it right there in what you quoted, it's only if they don't return the notice. Nothing wrong with that.

[markjames68]

Originally Posted by MattCW

No, it says it right there in what you quoted, it's only if they don't return the notice. Nothing wrong with that.

And there is also nothing preventing someone from reregistering to vote if they are removed. After the 2017 purge I’m surprised Abrams and her team didn’t ensure that was done.

I became a GA resident mid-September and registered to vote when I changed my Driver’s License. Had I noticed that I wasn’t registered a few weeks before the election I could have checked online and registered.

[CaliDreaming01]

Originally Posted by MattCW

No, it says it right there in what you quoted, it's only if they don't return the notice. Nothing wrong with that.

Originally Posted by markjames68

And there is also nothing preventing someone from reregistering to vote if they are removed. After the 2017 purge I’m surprised Abrams and her team didn’t ensure that was done.

I became a GA resident mid-September and registered to vote when I changed my Driver’s License. Had I noticed that I wasn’t registered a few weeks before the election I could have checked online and registered.

What's wrong with that is that we're dealing with people's constitutional rights. People may not have computers or otherwise be in a position where they can easily check their registration status. These people who are not able to check for whatever reason should have the ability to vote.

The big question I think to be answered is why is it so critical for these folks to be kicked off. What is the harm? The only downside is that you might have a few people on the rolls who shouldn't be there, but if election officials are doing their jobs, they should be able to catch these people before they vote. Constitutional rights trumps administration efficiency.

[markjames68]

Originally Posted by CaliDreaming01

What's wrong with that is that we're dealing with people's constitutional rights. People may not have computers or otherwise be in a position where they can easily check their registration status. These people who are not able to check for whatever reason should have the ability to vote.

The big question I think to be answered is why is it so critical for these folks to be kicked off. What is the harm? The only downside is that you might have a few people on the rolls who shouldn't be there, but if election officials are doing their jobs, they should be able to catch these people before they vote. Constitutional rights trumps administration efficiency.

Perhaps but the US Supreme Court didn’t find against it.

When you say “constitutional rights” note that voting isn’t in the constitution, but referenced in the (if I recall correctly) 15th, 19th and 26th amendments. You cannot supress the vote based upon color or national origin, gender, or age if over 18, but you CAN require advance registration. You CAN purge the rolls of that registration if they don’t exercise their privilege.

I am an immigrant to the US and had to follow a lot of laws, rules and regulations to get a visa, to get a green card, and finally, citizenship. To me, if a rule is in place that needs to be followed in order to vote, I follow it. Georgia is the 4th state I’ve lived in. Each has different rules in place.

On the other hand, if someone can’t be bothered to register beforehand, attempts to vote in the wrong county, doesn’t fill in forms correctly, and/or hasn’t voted in the past few elections, are they truly disenfranchised if their vote doesn’t count? Or are they just opportunistically engaged? Or perhaps disengaged until they are called on by one of the campaigns?

To allow voting in spite of the laws in place seems to me a bit like allowing the Central American caravans to come in without following immigration law. Are these people disenfranchised too?

It’s likely you and I won’t agree on this topic, and that’s fine.

And to be clear, this applies to voters voting for any candidate in any party.

[toll_booth]

Originally Posted by Iconographer

Perhaps now that the actual count has been completed and certified, she will.
Subverting democracy, my ass. That's rich.

I see that the Kemp base has resorted to full-fledged projection: Accuse your opponent of the very thing you are guilty of.

[Born 2 Roll]

Originally Posted by markjames68

“Abrams would assert that enough irregularities occurred to raise the possibility that at least 18,000 Georgians either had their ballots thrown out or were not allowed to vote.”

Assert
Allege
Imply

But courts don’t rule on this, they need proof. I don’t see how there is proof of 18K votes being “not allowed to vote”.

There is a big difference between being not allowed to vote, or not bothering to follow the rules and then demanding the system accommodate you.

Unless she finds the friendliest judge (and I’m sure her team is looking into this) it won’t even pass the sniff test.

She’s ruining her future now, possibly with the backing of progressives out of state who want to make her a lightning rod for 2020.

Abrams may be ruining her future with the right-of-center voters who went almost exclusively for Brian Kemp in 2018 and Donald Trump in 2016... Right-of-center voters who always break heavily for Republican candidates late in the election cycle (September and October) and right-of-center voters who were never (and are never) going to vote for a decidedly left-leaning candidate like Abrams anyways.

But for the left-of-center voters that got Abrams and the Democrats to within 1.5 percentage points of their first victory in a gubernatorial race in 20 years (1998), they won't care if Abrams draws this out with lawsuits over the issue of voter suppression.

Heck, the left-of-center voters that Abrams wants to energize to help Democrats better compete with Republicans for future election cycles probably will like seeing her continue to fight against the conservative power structure like the progressive activist that she has been prescribed to be... And, like you alluded to, the out-of-state progressive donors in the Northeast and on the West Coast are likely to be inspired and motivated by Abrams' continued fight to pour even more money into the state for voter registration and GOTV (Get-Out-The-Vote) efforts in 2020 and beyond, in hopes of flipping a dependably deep-red but heavily purple-trending state of Georgia from the Republican column to the Democratic column.

Also, whatever legal moves Abrams might make to extend this post-election process out even longer most likely will pale in comparison to the flaming s---show and legal disputes that are going on down in neighboring Florida which is seeing another major election end in a mountain of endless lawsuits and recounts.

With these legal moves contesting vote counts after the election, Abrams is not playing to the right-of-center voters that think these moves subvert the Democratic process.

With these legal moves contesting vote counts after the election as part of her continuing advocacy against voter suppression, Abrams is playing to the left-of-center voters and progressive donors that she estimates will give her and the Democrats their best chance of winning statewide elections and breaking the Republican vice grip over Georgia politics.