Georgia's Very Own Megathread! (v2)

[henster]

I can't think of this as nothing more than a money grab, Kamala Harris was already trying to grift off of this. Half of what was she raising for Stacey was going to herself, I'm sure the state party is getting all they can from gullible donors for recount/runoff funds they'll never need. 

[J. J.]

Yet there is the issue of Mr Kemp ignoring the blatant cyber security issues and misfunding of county equipment. Mr Kemp has used his powers to implement the "mismatch law" before it was law.
This is at least odiuos.
I do agree with you on that there are simply not enough votes left to trigger a runoff. Stacey Abrams should concede the race, and campaign for the SoS runoff instead of going full conspiracy theory.

The cyber security issue was being litigated.  That was part of the problem with the county equipment.  The judge in the case would not release machines nor would she permit a paper ballot substitute.  https://www.ajc.com/news/state--regional-govt--politics/federal-judge-rejects-paper-ballot-effort-for-2018-georgia-election/MPNGITqPbZ9wYfZ0NEP1IJ/

The legislature did not fund any changes, which ties Kemp's hands. 

There was no way for the legislature to know that this suit would be filed and that the judge would rule this way. 

As to the "mismatch law", the judge agreed that the law was appropriate, provided the voter would have a chance to verify that he/she signed it.  https://www.11alive.com/article/news/politics/elections/judge-temporarily-blocks-signature-match-law-in-georgia-to-ensure-due-process-for-absentee-voters/85-607700881

I will note that both judges, Totenberg and May,  were Obama appointees, the former contributing to his campaign prior to becoming a judge.   

[Aurelio21]

Yet there is the issue of Mr Kemp ignoring the blatant cyber security issues and misfunding of county equipment. Mr Kemp has used his powers to implement the "mismatch law" before it was law.
This is at least odiuos.
I do agree with you on that there are simply not enough votes left to trigger a runoff. Stacey Abrams should concede the race, and campaign for the SoS runoff instead of going full conspiracy theory.

The cyber security issue was being litigated.  That was part of the problem with the county equipment.  The judge in the case would not release machines nor would she permit a paper ballot substitute.  https://www.ajc.com/news/state--regional-govt--politics/federal-judge-rejects-paper-ballot-effort-for-2018-georgia-election/MPNGITqPbZ9wYfZ0NEP1IJ/

The legislature did not fund any changes, which ties Kemp's hands. 

There was no way for the legislature to know that this suit would be filed and that the judge would rule this way. 

As to the "mismatch law", the judge agreed that the law was appropriate, provided the voter would have a chance to verify that he/she signed it.  https://www.11alive.com/article/news/politics/elections/judge-temporarily-blocks-signature-match-law-in-georgia-to-ensure-due-process-for-absentee-voters/85-607700881

I will note that both judges, Totenberg and May,  were Obama appointees, the former contributing to his campaign prior to becoming a judge.   

Thx for the insight who appointed the judges, and why there was no appropiate funding.

About the "exact match", here a source I found:
https://www.citylab.com/equity/2018/10/how-dismantling-voting-rights-act-helped-georgia-discriminate-again/572899/
OK, discount the left leaning bias of the article, the important date was 2016 in which the first programme was canceled by a judge. In 2017, the georgia legislature made a new law, to which you referred.

About the voting rights act: Neither do I think that all the provisions are OK, e g the federal review. In this case, I fully approve of the SCOTUS ruling that Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional. And there is at least one more explanation than voter suppresion for problems of minorities with the exact match law.

[Virginiá]

Thx for the insight who appointed the judges, and why there was no appropiate funding.

About the "exact match", here a source I found:
https://www.citylab.com/equity/2018/10/how-dismantling-voting-rights-act-helped-georgia-discriminate-again/572899/
OK, discount the left leaning bias of the article, the important date was 2016 in which the first programme was canceled by a judge. In 2017, the georgia legislature made a new law, to which you referred.

About the voting rights act: Neither do I think that all the provisions are OK, e g the federal review. In this case, I fully approve of the SCOTUS ruling that Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional. And there is at least one more explanation than voter suppresion for problems of minorities with the exact match law.

How come? Is this a view on its constitutionality or is it more of a preference to not hinder the states?

Because I don't see how anyone can look at what the states have done with election law over the past 8 years, if not the past 60 years, and conclude that they can be trusted to run fair elections. The majority party of these states have and are constantly trying to game the system and for a long time, the federal government was the only thing that could stop the most abusive states of all - the south. Before the Voting Rights Act, calling America an actual liberal democracy would have been laughable.

If anything, the states need more federal intervention in federal elections, and not just in the south.

[Aurelio21]

Thx for the insight who appointed the judges, and why there was no appropiate funding.

About the "exact match", here a source I found:
https://www.citylab.com/equity/2018/10/how-dismantling-voting-rights-act-helped-georgia-discriminate-again/572899/
OK, discount the left leaning bias of the article, the important date was 2016 in which the first programme was canceled by a judge. In 2017, the georgia legislature made a new law, to which you referred.

About the voting rights act: Neither do I think that all the provisions are OK, e g the federal review. In this case, I fully approve of the SCOTUS ruling that Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional. And there is at least one more explanation than voter suppresion for problems of minorities with the exact match law.

How come? Is this a view on its constitutionality or is it more of a preference to not hinder the states?

Because I don't see how anyone can look at what the states have done with election law over the past 8 years, if not the past 60 years, and conclude that they can be trusted to run fair elections. The majority party of these states have and are constantly trying to game the system and for a long time, the federal government was the only thing that could stop the most abusive states of all - the south. Before the Voting Rights Act, calling America an actual liberal democracy would have been laughable.

If anything, the states need more federal intervention in federal elections, and not just in the south.

That certain laws from have to be reviewed by the federal level is somewhat disturbing to my perspective. Germany consists as well of semi-automonous states in which the federal government has no say about electoral laws.

Of course, there must be somekind of check that unfair practises must be stopped. Yet the way it is realized is something that is doubtful out of my European perspective.
I do not approve of out federal Government which simply gave the same power of reviewing the Budget law by the EU. This is anti-democratic, and I assess this review power in the Voting Rights Act in the same way. 

[Virginiá]

That certain laws from have to be reviewed by the federal level is somewhat disturbing to my perspective. Germany consists as well of semi-automonous states in which the federal government has no say about electoral laws.

Of course, there must be somekind of check that unfair practises must be stopped. Yet the way it is realized is something that is doubtful out of my European perspective.
I do not approve of out federal Government which simply gave the same power of reviewing the Budget law by the EU. This is anti-democratic, and I assess this review power in the Voting Rights Act in the same way. 

Generally I agree that the federal government shouldn't be given this unlimited, total review power over state laws, but when it comes to elections, it is incredibly important. That is how the people are supposed to affect change, and our entire system doesn't work if that is subverted. Consider that pre-1965, it was impossible for African Americans to exercise their right to vote in many southern states because a huge wall had been build between them and the ballot box. Or consider that today, politicians in state majority parties are drawing maps so egregiously partisan that even landslide elections fail to dislodge the majority party. It does get to a point where a state has so thoroughly rigged its elections that it would take decade(s) or longer to even have a chance at undoing it.

One could say that instead of a preclearance review, states could just be sued, and that is what happens now. However, lawsuits take time, money and aren't always effective. This is a problem because states can just keep churning out laws faster than groups can sue. It only makes sense that states who can't seem to stop trying to game the system should no longer have the ability to unilaterally change their election laws. Lastly, I'd argue that since we already did this for a long time, it did work out fine for the most part. The benefits certainly outweighed the negatives.

Anyway, I suppose we'll probably just have to agree to disagree. But I do wonder if you are aware just how far some state parties go in trying to consolidate power in America. We're not just talking about closing a few polling places here and there.

[Aurelio21]

That certain laws from have to be reviewed by the federal level is somewhat disturbing to my perspective. Germany consists as well of semi-automonous states in which the federal government has no say about electoral laws.

Of course, there must be somekind of check that unfair practises must be stopped. Yet the way it is realized is something that is doubtful out of my European perspective.
I do not approve of out federal Government which simply gave the same power of reviewing the Budget law by the EU. This is anti-democratic, and I assess this review power in the Voting Rights Act in the same way. 

Generally I agree that the federal government shouldn't be given this unlimited, total review power over state laws, but when it comes to elections, it is incredibly important. That is how the people are supposed to affect change, and our entire system doesn't work if that is subverted. Consider that pre-1965, it was impossible for African Americans to exercise their right to vote in many southern states because a huge wall had been build between them and the ballot box. Or consider that today, politicians in state majority parties are drawing maps so egregiously partisan that even landslide elections fail to dislodge the majority party. It does get to a point where a state has so thoroughly rigged its elections that it would take decade(s) or longer to even have a chance at undoing it.

One could say that instead of a preclearance review, states could just be sued, and that is what happens now. However, lawsuits take time, money and aren't always effective. This is a problem because states can just keep churning out laws faster than groups can sue. It only makes sense that states who can't seem to stop trying to game the system should no longer have the ability to unilaterally change their election laws. Lastly, I'd argue that since we already did this for a long time, it did work out fine for the most part. The benefits certainly outweighed the negatives.

Anyway, I suppose we'll probably just have to agree to disagree. But I do wonder if you are aware just how far some state parties go in trying to consolidate power in America. We're not just talking about closing a few polling places here and there.

Atlas has deleted my elaborate post, thus a short version:
I have a somewhat clear opinion about certain power abusing parties and former Governors. And I know the story of Mr Kemp sending a SWAT team to organizers of voter registration for a school board.

I am a voluntary poll worker myself here in Germany, and these "problems" could be easily avoided if wanted (1000 voters per precinct, paper ballots, hand count, seperate ballots for seperate electoral levels e g).

Yet I do not think that reviewing laws is the best solution, rather an clear outlook for perpetrators e g nullifying elections and loosing the electability for perpatrators.

[GeorgiaModerate]

https://twitter.com/KevinMKruse/status/1061615464860790784

[IceSpear]

It's lovely that the incumbent Secretary of State is so vehemently against the idea of counting all the votes.

[GeorgiaModerate]

It's lovely that the incumbent Secretary of State is so vehemently against the idea of counting all the votes.

He's not the incumbent anymore; he resigned on Thursday.  (But yeah, I agree with your point.)

[Aurelio21]

This is the new republican strategy: As soon as you lead in the counting process, you simply declare victory. Even if 99 % would be not counted  yet, any further counted vote is "voter fraud" ;-)
 
Maybe they are crypto communists after all, who are accusing the Democrats of this. Nobody less than J Stalin himself succintly remarked that it is not important who votes but who counts.

[Adam Griffin]

Interesting, if true:

In Georgia governor race, new voters helped Republican candidate more

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If true, it likely means that the GOP was able to mobilize more presidential year-only voters than Democrats...but also means that Democrats succeeded at flipping more reliable voters than we might have expected (otherwise, the margin would have widen rather than narrowed compared to 4 years ago).

Granted, this is just early vote data and I hypothesized that the GOP was cannibalizing voters more so than Democrats during EV, so we'll see in a few weeks.

[Skill and Chance]

Interesting, if true:

In Georgia governor race, new voters helped Republican candidate more

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If true, it likely means that the GOP was able to mobilize more presidential year-only voters than Democrats...but also means that Democrats succeeded at flipping more reliable voters than we might have expected (otherwise, the margin would have widen rather than narrowed compared to 4 years ago).

Granted, this is just early vote data and I hypothesized that the GOP was cannibalizing voters more so than Democrats during EV, so we'll see in a few weeks.

Who would that help in 2020 if true?  Do you mean new midterm voters (who presumably turned out for Trump in 2016) or new voters, period?

[Adam Griffin]

Interesting, if true:

In Georgia governor race, new voters helped Republican candidate more

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If true, it likely means that the GOP was able to mobilize more presidential year-only voters than Democrats...but also means that Democrats succeeded at flipping more reliable voters than we might have expected (otherwise, the margin would have widen rather than narrowed compared to 4 years ago).

Granted, this is just early vote data and I hypothesized that the GOP was cannibalizing voters more so than Democrats during EV, so we'll see in a few weeks.

Who would that help in 2020 if true?  Do you mean new midterm voters (who presumably turned out for Trump in 2016) or new voters, period?

The more I read that article, the more I say toss it. Basically, its only data-backed premise seems to be "there were more first-time white midterm voters than first-time black midterm voters, so advantage Kemp". Yet when I do some rough back-of-the-napkin map in conjunction with CNN exit polls, the white/black combined figures come out exactly tied down to the hundredth; when you add in the remaining non-white, non-black voters (I have to make educated guesses for the "other" category), it'd be advantage Abrams.

White & Black "First Time" Voters:
Abrams 49.50%
Kemp 49.50%

Non-Black, Non-White "First Time" Voters*:
Abrams 61.36%  
Kemp 37.63%

Total "First Time" Voters:
Abrams 52.18%
Kemp 46.81%

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Furthermore, Georgia Votes' tracking of "first time voters" was built on whether they voted in 2014, and not solely whether they were voting for the first time period. Yes, true first time voters would be included in that category as well, but that's not the entire makeup - and maybe not even the majority.

As far as who it would benefit: I don't know that it would change anything, unless it benefits Ds. Turning Trump voters into midterm voters doesn't inherently have any impact on the next presidential election (unless a significant share were at risk of not showing up, but with Trump on the ballot again, that'd be unlikely). There's no way that Kemp netted more first-time voters than Abrams, hence why I assumed from the get-go that their math was built on first-time midterm voters (i.e. people who vote in presidentials but not midterms), but apparently it's not even that: it's based on people who didn't vote in the last midterm alone, whether they're a first-time voter or not - and even there, it still manages to be off-base.

[Adam Griffin]

The breakdown of provisionals is as such:

Abrams - 3,221 (71.73%)
Kemp - 1,233 (27.46%)
Metz - 36 (0.81%)

Another 2,420 provisional ballots have been counted since Saturday evening, bringing the total provisional counts to:

Abrams - 4,886 (70.71%)
Kemp - 1,965 (28.44%)
Metz - 59 (0.85%)


As of 5:00 PM today, here are the stats (252 additional votes have come in since):

Total votes cast: 3,932,382
Votes for Abrams: 1,918,667 (50.26%)
Votes for Kemp: 1,976,546 (48.79%)
Votes for Metz: 37,169 (0.95%)
Abrams votes to trigger a runoff: 20,711
Abrams votes to trigger a recount: 18,372

[GeorgiaModerate]

The breakdown of provisionals is as such:

Abrams - 3,221 (71.73%)
Kemp - 1,965 (27.46%)
Metz - 59 (0.81%)

Another 2,420 provisional ballots have been counted since Saturday evening, bringing the total provisional counts to:

Abrams - 4,886 (70.71%)
Kemp - 1,233 (28.44%)
Metz - 36 (0.85%)


As of 5:00 PM today, here are the stats (252 additional votes have come in since):

Total votes cast: 3,932,382
Votes for Abrams: 1,918,667 (50.26%)
Votes for Kemp: 1,976,546 (48.79%)
Votes for Metz: 37,169 (0.95%)
Abrams votes to trigger a runoff: 20,711
Abrams votes to trigger a recount: 18,372

Metz went from 59 to 36?

[Adam Griffin]

Metz went from 59 to 36?

The other way around: somehow I managed to reverse Metz and Kemp's figures there.

[RussFeingoldWasRobbed]

Abrams should never concede an election that was stolen by the GOP. This was a fraudulent election where voters were purged from the ballots! Kemp should be a prisoner, not a governor elect! Bourdeaux shouldn't concede either!

[lfromnj]

Abrams should never concede an election that was stolen by the GOP. This was a fraudulent election where voters were purged from the ballots! Kemp should be a prisoner, not a governor elect!

Kemp still wins
All she does is look like a sore loser and racist hicks in Ga 12th won't for Barrow.

[Alabama_Indy10]

Abrams should never concede an election that was stolen by the GOP. This was a fraudulent election where voters were purged from the ballots! Kemp should be a prisoner, not a governor elect! Bourdeaux shouldn't concede either!

Yawn.

[Gass3268]

https://twitter.com/bluestein/status/1062189106384551937

[SCNCmod]

How many provisional ballots are still unsettled in GA?
&
How many rejected early/absentee votes are there in GA? (that Abrams could potentially challenge to get them counted).

[Calthrina950]

Abrams should never concede an election that was stolen by the GOP. This was a fraudulent election where voters were purged from the ballots! Kemp should be a prisoner, not a governor elect! Bourdeaux shouldn't concede either!

Yawn.

I agree. Abrams has clearly lost, and her dragging this out will only hurt the Democrats. My prediction of a Kemp victory some weeks ago was proven correct. The Democrats might finally be able to win the governorship in 2022, though.

[Storr]

Abrams should never concede an election that was stolen by the GOP. This was a fraudulent election where voters were purged from the ballots! Kemp should be a prisoner, not a governor elect! Bourdeaux shouldn't concede either!

Yawn.

I agree. Abrams has clearly lost, and her dragging this out will only hurt the Democrats. My prediction of a Kemp victory some weeks ago was proven correct. The Democrats might finally be able to win the governorship in 2022, though.

Same with the Senate and Presidential races in 2020. Yes, it's disappointing she lost. But, the result clearly indicates Georgia is going to be competitive state for the foreseeable future. It also seems time is on the Democrats' side, as they did well in the areas of Georgia that are going the fastest.

[Calthrina950]

Abrams should never concede an election that was stolen by the GOP. This was a fraudulent election where voters were purged from the ballots! Kemp should be a prisoner, not a governor elect! Bourdeaux shouldn't concede either!

Yawn.

I agree. Abrams has clearly lost, and her dragging this out will only hurt the Democrats. My prediction of a Kemp victory some weeks ago was proven correct. The Democrats might finally be able to win the governorship in 2022, though.

Same with the Senate and Presidential races in 2020. Yes, it's disappointing she lost. But, the result clearly indicates Georgia is going to be competitive state for the foreseeable future. It also seems time is on the Democrats' side, as they did well in the areas of Georgia that are going the fastest.

That is true. Abrams got over 70% of the vote in Fulton County, and she carried both Cobb and Gwinnett Counties by double digits. Kemp, however, was able to narrowly prevail by getting record percentages in Georgia's white rural counties, even breaking 90% in some of them. I don't think Trump got to that mark in any Georgian county back in 2016. By 2022, however, I suspect that the Atlanta metropolitan area will be populous enough, and Democratic margins wide enough, to overcome Republican strength in the rural areas.