yup. and this coming from the party that wailed and railed against “motor-voter” registration when first proposed (and passed) in the 90s.
flip-flopping assholes! just like the SCOTUS boondoggle, when it suits them, they just roll back and do what they said could not be done (when it didn’t suit their bullshit voter suppression agenda)!
12 Likes
How uncanny. Obviously he couldn’t have written that speach, he lacks the acumen and attention span. This mofo was set up by the deep state.
Here we go, many more to come…
14 Likes
Another proof that deep down he’s admitting he lost.
9 Likes
10 Likes
Mitch and Elaine sleep in the pig pen out back.
5 Likes
It is and it’s not part of the requirements for voting in GA. 
I think they are tryign to use it to prove residency, but she’s FUCKING JUST TURNED 18… Why the fuck would she own a car?
12 Likes
Strictly speaking the proposed rule did not require a prospective voter to have a car or even for that car to be registered in Georgia. It allowed the registrar to consider car related stuff to determine whether someone was eligible to vote.
Plenty of room for vote suppressing shenanigans there of course but theoretically at least the prospective voter without a car who can otherwise prove their residency in Georgia shouldn’t be prevented.
The article is now updated to note that the rule won’t be added but only because registrars can already look at that sort of stuff when determining voter eligibility.
Judging by the article someone without a car may be better off than someone with a car from out of state. Fingers crossed it all goes ok getting her registered.
5 Likes
a license would make sense or any state issued non driver id. a registered car does not make sense.
in atlanta somewhere north of 16% of families don’t own cars. that’s maybe what, 1 in 5 or more individuals who don’t have access to a car let alone have one in their name. that’s a pretty terrible metric.
( edit: and i bet you it probably prejudices towards men in families that own a car. which all makes perfect sense to the well off white men making the rules, and is not at all equitable to everyone else. )
8 Likes
But that’s the point, the proposed rule didn’t make owning a car a requirement.
It was supposed to allow a registrar to look at where a voter’s car is registered to see if they are a genuine Georgia resident. If the voter didn’t own a car, the registrar would have to look at other information.
As I say it is a rule that can certainly be misused to bar eligible voters but it is not a rule that says “no car, no vote”.
What it does is allow a registrar to say “I have doubts about your residency, show me documents proving your residency in state at the required point in time - oh, look your car is registered out of state, you must have moved here recently, I don’t accept that you are an eligible voter.”
A power it turns out the registrars already have and don’t need this rule for. 
3 Likes
It’s voter suppression, however you spin it. It’s aimed at stopping young people form voting. Full stop. That’s the whole point. I live here and this is how the GOP operates to suppress the vote.
21 Likes
19 Likes
Oh, I agree. It’s bad.
It’s just bad in a different way to what was being suggested - and I think the detail of how it’s bad matters so that people can work to nullify that kind of fuckery and make sure they have what they need to absolutely minimise the options for their vote being suppressed under the figleaf of everything being done ‘lawfully’.
I was also hoping to provide some reassurance that so long as your kid has plenty of other evidence of her residence, the lack of a car alone shouldn’t scupper her voting.
I’m sorry if I trod on any toes.
3 Likes
Voter suppression is voter suppression. 
That is what this is.
12 Likes
I’m glad to hear it wasn’t adopted. Thank you for sharing that.
What I think you might be missing, that @anon61221983 is trying to point out, is that by calling out vehicle registration as a criterion (even if the intent is to use it to rule in eligible voters), local authorities will use it to rule out eligible voters due to age, race, religion, etc. There’s a long history of that. And by the time it gets settled in court, it would be too late for that eligible voter to vote in the Georgia runoff. That’s even if said eligible voter bothers to fight it.
What we’ve seen here is that every tiny barrier to voting causes some voters to stop trying. That’s been the GOP voter suppression approach - they lost the ability to just outright make it illegal for POC to vote with the dismantling of Jim Crow in the Civil Rights era. Now, they approach it as a death by a thousand cuts. Any individual barrier to voting reduced minority turnout by a small percentage, so they stack a ton of small barriers in the way.
17 Likes
“With surgical precision.” There are probably data analysts engaged in figuring out more ways to this just subtly enough to get by. It’s the only chance they have at this point.
14 Likes
You’re absolutely correct, but they also have to contend with a Republican party that can’t help but outright tell the press “we’re doing this to disenfranchise Democrats”, so at the very least there’s some record of their actions.
6 Likes
A lot of people never consider that no matter how precise a surgical procedure may be, it is still bloody.
(I might re-watch Blue Thunder this weekend.)
8 Likes
I’m trying to keep some sense of humour about this but I can’t avoid the impression that people are only choosing to read part of what I write. Which is fine, it’s not exactly great literature and who can be bothered to read whole paragraphs.
But then it’d be nice if people didn’t reply to it attempting to tell me a bunch of stuff I already said or showing in their first sentence that they read to a certain point but not beyond.
The rule wasn’t adopted, no.
There’s no reason to be glad about that because - as I said in that same post - the reason it wasn’t adopted is that they can apparently already do everything the new rule was supposed to give them the power to do.
I get that. Which is why I specifically made the point that there is plenty of room for vote suppression by that means.
The point is (and I really don’t understand why this is even mildly controversial) that people posting things to the effect that “Georgia Republicans want to disenfranchise everyone who doesn’t have a car!!11!!” is just as much disinformation and just as damaging as people posting stories about how the Liberals are going to force everyone to be gay or ban Christmas.
It simply isn’t true. That was never what this measure was attempting.
Even if one doesn’t care about accuracy in information as a general good, the details of attempted voter suppression matter because without an understanding of the detail there is no hope of combatting or circumventing the measure.
If you think the rule is “must have a car” and buy one so you can vote only to turn up to find that the rule is actually “if has car, car must be registered to that person in Georgia for more than a month prior to the election date” or similar, then not only have you wasted your money, you’ve probably scuppered your chances of voting because you yourself have given them the figleaf to cover their voter suppression because you have a car which is freshly registered to you in Georgia so they can say they consider you to be a new resident.
Details matter.
Which in my view is why it is important to ensure that the actual barriers are clearly understood and not made to appear even bigger (or simply other) than they already are.
If even small but real barriers reduce turnout, then what’s the point in spreading stories about nonexistent huge barriers? The only people that benefits are the people who want to suppress voters.
That’s my final attempt to explain myself here on this issue.
There are sadly more than enough other Trumpian events to discuss.
1 Like
