I live in the state of Washington. We have as strong a “left/right” polarization as anywhere in the country (world) but we have a unique situation as it relates to our system of elections. While the governor and the state legislature has been dominated by unapologetic Democrats for decades, in the same time, we have elected, consistently, Republican Secretaries of State. In this state, the Secretary of State manages elections. Washington has developed a system whereby all registered voters have a mail-in ballot mailed to their home address. We have ballot boxes as well as paid return mailing for the ballots. We receive our ballots at least a month prior to an election and with it a pamphlet to help guide voters on those running, ballot measures, and the process of the election itself. I have not heard much in the press nationally about this state having any claims made against the integrity of this or any election using this system.
I am aware that state histories and cultures can make a lot of difference in how election laws and processes evolve. How can that not be true?—many started at the beginning of our nation’s history and then had a restart after the Civil War—-in that setting, one would find a lot of traditions and precedents and barriers that we don’t have in Washington. I have a prejudice against the voting processes in Southern States which is partly based on past history which is easily defended (my prejudice that is) and “a feeling” which is not easily defended. Given that Texas and Georgia are front and center in the controversy following the last presidential election, I thought I would look at the two states: Georgia’s law as passed and Texas as proposed but currently in limbo. I try to present them in outline form without editorial content. I will raise a few questions in the end.
Georgia Voting Law
These measures are incorporated into law following the last presidential election.
Georgia’s law takes the authority to run the election system (chair of the election board) from an elected official (Secretary of State) and changes that to one selected by the state legislature.
2) Elections are run by a State Election Board, traditionally with the Secretary of State Chairing—a majority of the election board can vote to replace county election boards (which report to the State Board) with selected replacements if they feel there is reason to do so; they define this broadly: malfeasance, nonfeasance, negligence.. It appears that there is a limit of how many counties in an election cycle this can occur (four counties).
3) The new law limits how many drop boxes (where mail in ballots can be delivered) each county would have (with a minimum of one per county) and limits the hours they are open or where they are located. There is little detail on this measure which covers all counties and I presume the details would be filled locally. Fulton County, under this measure has a representative identifying a need to contract from the 32 drop boxes used in the last election to 8 with the next in mind.
4) Sunday voting, a racial dividing issue was not impacted by this new law ie the historical tendency for black voters to vote after church on Sunday has not been curtailed by the timing and hours allowed for voting on Sundays.
5) While voting hours in this legislation calls for 9-5 hours on weekdays, counties are allowed to expand to as much as 7-7 which was used in the last election in Fulton County (Atlanta)
6) Runoffs, which are common, are now constricted both in the time-frame after the original election and there are restrictions on early voting. The new law sets the runoff election day four weeks after the general election, down from the previous nine weeks. The new law also eliminates two of the three weeks of early voting that used to be required in runoffs.
The new law says early voting has to occur at least from Monday to Friday in the week before the runoff election day. It also says the runoff early voting period has to start "as soon as possible," so it's possible that some counties will offer more than the single Monday-to-Friday period.
7) Under the new law, absentee ballots are allowed to be sent out to voters 29 days before an election, down from the previous 49 days before an election. Voters are allowed to request an absentee ballot a maximum of 78 days before the election, down from 180 days. And the applications have to be received by elections officials no later than 11 days before the election, a reduction from the previous effective deadline of four days before the election.
8) State and County officials are prohibited from sending applications for mail-in ballots if not solicited by the voter. And third-party groups can face financial penalties if they mail applications to people who have already applied for a ballot.
9) The law also does away with the signature-matching system Georgia used to
check the identities of absentee voters. Instead, voters will have to provide their Georgia driver's license number, the number on their state identification card, or the last four digits of their Social Security number. If they don't have any of that, they can provide one of several alternative forms of identification, such as a copy of a utility bill, bank statement or government check.
10) The law guarantees that any one Georgia voter can challenge an unlimited number of other individuals' qualifications to vote.
11) The law says that anyone who shows up to vote in the right county but in the wrong precinct will not have their provisional ballot counted unless it is cast after 5 pm and the voter swears a statement that they cannot make it to the right precinct on time.
12) The law mandates that if precincts of a certain substantial size had lines of more than one hour in the previous general election, or did not complete voting by an hour after the official poll-closing time in that previous general election, county officials have to reduce the size of the precinct or get more poll workers, voting equipment or both for the next election.
13) The law will require a ranked-choice ballot to be sent to military and overseas voters in primaries and general elections, along with a standard ballot. The ranked-choice ballot will be counted in the event of a runoff. A Radiolab podcast found me listening to an Irishman talking about our American Democracy as a great start but in need of an upgrade (“you are Democracy 1.0 and we are on 3.2……). Ranked choice voting was one of his points and he made me a fan of it as simplicity is something a value.
14) The law penalizes those who approach voters with “gifts” which includes water and food. Nothing prohibits voters in line from obtaining their own supplies when needed.
PROPOSED TEXAS LAW
Mail in ballots are legal but cannot be unsolicited. If you want one, you have to request one.
Signatures will no longer serve the identification function they have historically served; drivers license numbers or last four of SSN will replace this plus a “pin” identified with the ballot
“Free Movement” A lot of attention in the proposed laws is driven by the perceived needs of partisan observers to have unobstructed views of the process. There are redundancies to allow all such observers latitude to stay and watch.
Access is restricted relative to the last election: there was drive-through voting with the last election no longer allowed, and no longer will polls be open 24 hours.
Set hours are effectively 6-7 AM to 9-10 PM
The number of drop boxes is decreased.
Voting hours are 6AM-10PM with prohibitions of extending early voting hours.
Questions and points made in no particular order:
I start with a practical question: What problem are we trying to solve with these laws? Are these radical changes and how much would one expect them to change the outcome of a future election? Do they unfairly treat a particular demographic? How would I know?
I listened to a Radiolab about voting some years ago. A hearty Irish accented individual discussed voting in Ireland and his comments left me with this impression: “We want to thank the United States for so many things and the principles of voting and citizenship are high on the list. As we got our independence in the twentieth century and developed our system, we came to think of the USA having “Democracy 1.0 and we currently have Democracy 2.3.” ie they (the Irish) moved with the times and we did not. The topic raised in that setting was of ranked choice voting which helps prevent runoffs and is an efficient way for voters to be clear about their intentions in voting with a result to be arrived at after one election. Of interest, Georgia’s law allows for ranked choice voting for those in the military who cannot reasonably meet the tight deadlines for runoffs. So the principle of ranked voting is established in Georgia. Why not make it the rule for everyone each election? Democracy 2.3……..
Both states constrain the timing of when voters can vote. I don’t see it as a dramatic problem but question, “why?” What materially changes when the window for voting by place and type of vote (mail vs in person) other than penalizing those who delay or are constricted in their ability to vote? If citizens have a right to vote, why put a complicated process in place? I note that neither state had to change the basic principle of ID. I checked the process in Georgia during the last election and photo ID was required in the last election. Identifying citizens does not appear to be an issue in either state’s legislation. I agree that asking civilians to compare signatures seems archaic and new systems to secure ID in these laws seems reasonable.
Early publicity had me thinking the Sunday voting attributed to the traditions in Black communities was to be impacted but it appears that is not the case.
Each state’s adjustment to the problem the Covid pandemic represented was unprecedented. I see the discomfort being addressed by these laws is the impact these (covid related) changes had and bringing the election system back into an established order. In Georgia, I have to worry that the “flipping” of the traditionally Republican state on the three Federal Elections (president and two senators) also motivated the State Legislature to “do something” to address the flip. The Big Lie is also the elephant in the room with these discussions and laws going forward.
The Constitution called for state legislatures to appoint senators early in the country’s history. With modern times (early 20th century), this seemed undemocratic, unnecesary, and subject to partisan influence that would not reflect, “the will of the people.” We had an amendment that led to our selection of senators in open elections. It seems unusual to me that our direct connection between elections and the people serving which by and large has been supported by both parties sees a fraying in Georgia’s law where the legislature will appoint someone that previously was voted into the position ie Secretary of State running the Election Board. This change in the Georgia law seems like a step backwards. This begs for controversy and a perception of abuse in the same state that certified its election despite the lobbying to change that certification. Does that seem messy to anyone else? I predict there will be more news on this and it will be depicted as an abuse of the system.
The Georgia law precludes giving voters “gifts” under the general notion that this could be perceived as a bribe of exerting undue influence. Assuming the state will live up to the law and assure adjustments to preclude more than one hour wait times at polls, I think people can reasonably be expected to bring their own food and water. My prejudice coming through: what if some counties or areas in a county have polling places that are understaffed or serve too large a population for the staff that is there? An eight hour wait begs for supports to be made available. Will the law stand scrutiny in that setting?
The Texas law pretty brazenly makes partisan participation in the process front and center. The number of warnings for inappropriate behavior that would have an observer pulled is articulated in the law. That just seems weird to me.
The Georgia Law allows for any one Georgia voter to question an unlimited number of individual’s qualifications to vote. This is pretty vague and it is not clear to me how it would be used and which problem it is intended to solve. Given the history of Jim Crow in this state, it pushes on my prejudice button. If this is used aggressively, it might set the precedent for Federal Oversight of Southern State’s voting processes once again.
Here is one (critical) opinion of how this might play out:
https://www.vox.com/22607616/georgia-republicans-fulton-county-atlanta-voter-suppression-sb202-jim-crow
Comentarios