Georgia Law Creating New Hurdles For Voters Already Faces A Legal Challenge | Talking Points Memo

This is an interesting thread relating to the signing of that sickening legislation.

Will Bunch is a National opinion columnist for the Philadelphia Inquirer.

20 Likes

One Roberts will never admit that striking down portions of the VRA was wrong, we might get him to say he regrets the words he used in his reasoning, but he’ll never admit to being wrong.

8 Likes

Thank you - I hope that “portrait” gets a whole lot of media attention.

7 Likes

Best news so far today. They had plenty of time to prepare their suit and they took advantage of it and filed immediately.

Now, the timeclock begins. This needs to be fully and completely resolved in 18 months or less, so that the impact on the 2022 midterms is not realized.

8 Likes

Funny how I haven’t heard any reporting on how there was this little problem in the 2020 election process that came to light, so now we need to fix it. I also don’t hear them mentioning anything about COVID, which is why states made some changes, why the changes were to make voting safer in the time of a G-D global pandemic*.

*speaking pandemics I can’t remember ever hearing any Republican reference how a foreign country was/is dealing with the virus. Am I missing something here?

5 Likes

Five members of the Supreme Court are going to be at the center of things for which they were specifically chosen. They know upon which side their bread is buttered and they will vote accordingly:

  1. voting law is up to the states
  2. federal voting rights enforcement has no place in a “post-racial” America.
4 Likes

Sherman was too easy on Georgia.

11 Likes

Give them some credit, at least they resisted the temptation not make an exception for Chick - fil -A, sandwiches.

4 Likes

Apparently only “dangerous” when electing Democrats.

13 Likes

His reasoning was based on his reading of the facts on the ground that turned out to be spectacularly wrong. He said, if let to their own devices, these states will no longer act in a discriminatory way and so there is no more need for pre-clearance. In fact, those states almost all did the exact opposite, right away, and after 2020 they are doubling down. He will go down in history as one small step above Justice Taney (see Dred Scott).

11 Likes

Dear hubby has an interesting take on this and, so far, it appears to have been borne out (particularly with the election fraud cases earlier this year) on SCOTUS.

Once these people have been confirmed, they are no longer beholden to their benefactors. There’s no penalty for SCOTUS justices for doing the ‘right thing’ in these cases. They can be impeached, but usually that falls only to real judicial misbehavior (and Thomas comes the closest to this, but hasn’t crossed the line yet).

It is very possible that SCOTUS could do the right thing because voting is constitutional - we have amendments allowing women to vote and to eliminate the poll tax and literacy tests. They are there for a reason.

Should HR1 pass, I don’t know that it will prevent States from continuing to do stuff like GA has done, but it will make it more difficult. The constitutional challenges to HR1 will be as bad as they were against the ACA. SCOTUS is going to find itself more in the limelight. Makes me wonder how many of the older justices will decide it’s just too much limelight to act however they please, regardless of the constitutional position, especially for the originalists.

This could get very interesting.

@christianhankel

18 Likes

Of course it was going to be challenged.

TPM needs to dig in a bit and find out if the whole thing can be invalidated due to a single provision that doesn’t hold water. Such as the one saying people in line cannot be brought water!

6 Likes

I’m legit shocked at the sheer stupidity of pushing this law through. It only serves to apply even greater pressure on Manchin and Sinema to blow up the filibuster and pass H.R. 1. It just shines a massive light on the necessity of passing new voting rights legislation. The bit making it illegal to bring food or water to someone waiting in line to vote is so petty and cruel that it shows even the casual political observer that this is clearly about limiting voting. This is going to massively blow up in their faces and will probably never be enforced as it gets hung up in court.

29 Likes

Just checked … unfortunately, the case was assigned to J.P. Boulee, one of the later Trump appointees. Not good.

3 Likes

I feel like including that ridiculous provision about it being illegal to give water or food to voters waiting in line blasted this Georgia voter-suppression effort to a whole nother level. It’s on, Republicans

9 Likes

Try harder not to post bigoted bullshit.

2 Likes

Why should people have to work hard to vote? This law needs to be outlawed by the federal Congress via HR1 and SR1 - the filibuster has to go.

8 Likes

Such challenges will fail.

"Article I, Section 4, Clause 1: The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

12 Likes

Some of the law provisions are almost certainly going down. Not allowing people to provide food and water to people having to wait in long lines (lines created explicitly to discourage minorities from voting) is blatantly unconstitutional. The ballot process is still secret and the notion that providing people with needed food and water will unduly influence their votes is far less impactful that taking the blame for making them wait in long lines to vote.

Politicians also having the legal authority to step over local elections officials without due cause also will likely be overturned, as will politicians deciding on their own accord to overrule the vote counts on whatever basis that pleased them. The current system of candidate-sponsored legal challenges is more than sufficient to hold local elections processes accountable and make such inquiries at least facially fact-based with judicial rules of evidence, not politically-based results-oriented challenges from lawmakers.

7 Likes

Yikes - the racism is breathtaking sometimes

7 Likes