With less absentee and early voting, more time will be spent in voting lines. That's why the bans on water and food matter. The strategy is to torture prospective voters until they abandon the effort. No picking and choosing which provisions are benign or unimportant. It's all of a piece.
With less absentee and early voting, more time will be spent in voting lines. That's why the bans on water and food matter. The strategy is to torture prospective voters until they abandon the effort. No picking and choosing which provisions are benign or unimportant. It's all of a piece.
I wish legislation was that simple. My experience in doing it suggests otherwise. There is the philosophy/practicability of severability. Besides if that was the case, the Affordable Care Act would have been ruled unconstitutional/invalid when selected portions were brought before the courts. As I recall, this was one of the issues facing the Supreme Court when Barrett was being confirmed.
Section 33 deals with campaigning at polling stations. It prohibits solicitation of votes, payment of monies to people standing in line to vote, etc. The legislature added to that element of not approaching people standing line to vote and giving them water and food. This is about a perception that people approached voters in line, offered them water and food in exchange for their vote. If it happened doesn't matter because there's the perception of giving something for a vote. The language regarding where this cannot occur is defined by three elements:
- within 150 feet of the building where voting occurs
- to a voter standing in line waiting to vote (I'll come back to this)
- inside the voting place.
Makes sense in that I doubt Massachusetts allows campaigning within a distance of the a voting location. It's supposed to be a neutral zone.
What's problematic is the definition of where the voting line starts. This language is part of the original law. I could be standing in line to enter the voting line. And the legislation defines to some degree where someone could try to influence a voter that is out of sight of the voting location, out of hearing distance of the voting location, etc. Given the bad publicity Georgia got in the last election about the long lines, the bill provides for election officials to provide an unattended table with water that a voter can pick up while they wait in line. So seeking clarification would help in this matter.
If you're a poll worker and you see someone passing out water and food or whatever where the law stated earlier that no one could campaign, how do you know the person, who is not an election official, is not influencing the vote, intimidating the voter, etc. Thus the language of the bill.
"how do you know the person, who is not an election official, is not influencing the vote, intimidating the voter, etc."
Yes, MA has similar laws, but also citizens, officials, and police who know how to act on Election Day, so they're rarely enforced. Not so in GA.
Of course the bill isn't simple; it is abstract. Some progressive MIGHT try to influence voters in line, though we know it's mostly Repugs who mess with in-person voting. But its intent and, even more, its effect is clear: to do exactly what it claims to prevent, intimidate and influence.
If replying, please skip the mini-treatise and show that you care if Georgia's votes are cast and counted.
You make a good point. The lines stretched miles- so they will have enough tables and water that is actually accessible? or is it actually "an unaccompanied table"
With less absentee and early voting, more time will be spent in voting lines. That's why the bans on water and food matter. The strategy is to torture prospective voters until they abandon the effort. No picking and choosing which provisions are benign or unimportant. It's all of a piece.
Absolutely!
I wish legislation was that simple. My experience in doing it suggests otherwise. There is the philosophy/practicability of severability. Besides if that was the case, the Affordable Care Act would have been ruled unconstitutional/invalid when selected portions were brought before the courts. As I recall, this was one of the issues facing the Supreme Court when Barrett was being confirmed.
Section 33 deals with campaigning at polling stations. It prohibits solicitation of votes, payment of monies to people standing in line to vote, etc. The legislature added to that element of not approaching people standing line to vote and giving them water and food. This is about a perception that people approached voters in line, offered them water and food in exchange for their vote. If it happened doesn't matter because there's the perception of giving something for a vote. The language regarding where this cannot occur is defined by three elements:
- within 150 feet of the building where voting occurs
- to a voter standing in line waiting to vote (I'll come back to this)
- inside the voting place.
Makes sense in that I doubt Massachusetts allows campaigning within a distance of the a voting location. It's supposed to be a neutral zone.
What's problematic is the definition of where the voting line starts. This language is part of the original law. I could be standing in line to enter the voting line. And the legislation defines to some degree where someone could try to influence a voter that is out of sight of the voting location, out of hearing distance of the voting location, etc. Given the bad publicity Georgia got in the last election about the long lines, the bill provides for election officials to provide an unattended table with water that a voter can pick up while they wait in line. So seeking clarification would help in this matter.
If you're a poll worker and you see someone passing out water and food or whatever where the law stated earlier that no one could campaign, how do you know the person, who is not an election official, is not influencing the vote, intimidating the voter, etc. Thus the language of the bill.
"how do you know the person, who is not an election official, is not influencing the vote, intimidating the voter, etc."
Yes, MA has similar laws, but also citizens, officials, and police who know how to act on Election Day, so they're rarely enforced. Not so in GA.
Of course the bill isn't simple; it is abstract. Some progressive MIGHT try to influence voters in line, though we know it's mostly Repugs who mess with in-person voting. But its intent and, even more, its effect is clear: to do exactly what it claims to prevent, intimidate and influence.
If replying, please skip the mini-treatise and show that you care if Georgia's votes are cast and counted.
You make a good point. The lines stretched miles- so they will have enough tables and water that is actually accessible? or is it actually "an unaccompanied table"