Raffensperger Tries To Show He Is Okay to Anti-Voters

The big news for some this week was Georgia beating Alabama for the national football championship. January is now Georgia's month. Last year, they elected two Democrats in a pair of run-offs, giving the Democrats control of the Senate. A key aid to Biden as well given the power of the Senate to potentially block nominations alone.

Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger came out as a hero as well when he strongly resisted pressure from Trump to find some votes and so on. This, of course, made him a bad guy for many Trump loyalists.  

As the Democrats go the to the next step toward trying to pass voting rights legislation, one prime target is Georgia. Which passed anti-voting legislation, which in part is intended to rein in people like Raffensperger and the ongoing investigation of Trump trying to pressure him.  So, he's trying to find a middle path, yes?

I saw something among the updates at Talking Points Memo yesterday, where Raffensperger tried to show his bona fides via  three step plan (other than general ridicule of the Democrats), using standard talking points.  

First, you have the collection of votes by others, such as to help isolated rural voters who have a hard time getting to the polls and even might live where postal service is sketchy.  This is attacked as "ballot harvesting."  

The practice generally is regulated in various ways, but there is always some call for more, which could particularly problematic during the Big V pandemic (e.g., some strong rule regarding notarized witnesses or something).   Basically, it's fine on some level to regulate; the problem is when you demonize and totally ban something that is helpful to various people. 

Second, he went with the tried and true voting identification thing. Voting id for in person voting (as compared to registration) is is another troll device, especially when it requires special types of picture identification. If you simply require something like a utility bill or something, it really can be a mild requirement.  It also is basically pointless.  

Still, if you include a mild voting id requirement as part of a wider voting rights package, it need not be a poison pill.  You should encourage and promote picture ids -- they are useful to have.  You should provide an extended time to roll things out.  Have exceptions and affidavit options for special cases. And so on.  Again, we are talking Republican here. I realize there is going to be some imperfections here.  It's a scale thing.  

The last thing was promotion of a state and federal amendment to block non-citizens from voting.  As a general matter, I'm not going to argue too much about non-citizen voting.  Personally, I am okay with it, especially with some restrictions.  Ditto there service on juries or something.  But, voting is a logical part of citizenship, and it is not some sort of travesty to think it of that way.  It is not the same as those who already served their time having the right to vote.  More like the convicted in prison.

What really bothers me here is the idea we should amend the fucking Constitution (reminded me of when people wanted to do it to "defend" marriage against the gays) to stop it.  Like there is some glaring problem.  I'm sure -- like after Hawaii looked like they might protect same sex marriage -- New York City (Mayor Eric Adams decided he didn't have to worry about it, after wavering, so no veto) passed a non-citizen voting law for local offices.  

We should amend the U.S. Constitution because a few localities allowing non-citizens to vote is so problematic?  We need to send a message by putting it in dark black text, so to speak, that only citizens should have the right to vote?  For those who care, historically, many places in the past allowed non-citizens the right to vote.  And, the basic thing that will happen will be a few places will allow it, especially if there is a limited right to vote for special elections such as school elections.  

There is no big possibility that Georgia will suddenly pass a law allowing non-citizens to vote.  If they did, the horror, I know.  Likewise, if it allowed local option, such as such suburb of Atlanta allowing it in school elections. Who cares?  Raffensperger is basically trolling here, if in a somewhat less offensive way than others.  So, the state constitution thing is only somewhat less bad.

But, the overall message is still poisonous.  A distrust of non-citizens, of "them," so much that you need extra protections against them. You are going to have unnecessary message type laws. It's part of the deal.  Sometimes, however, the message (think DOMA) is bad and helps add oxygen to worse things.  That is the nature of all of these things.

Meanwhile, we are looking at how the Senate is doing on voting. 

ETA: On that front, there is the usual tiresome arguments/warnings against/about at least a partial change of the filibuster.  The problem there is twofold: (1) people thought these things through and realize net it won't be worse (2) on principle and overall practice, the current policy is far from ideal.  

As noted by one person on Twitter: "A gridlocked government promotes extremism and performative politics. Since you can't do anything to address the major problems of our time, you end up with a Congress that just posts all day."  Meanwhile, workarounds have been done to pass stuff, including reconciliation, and judges were dealt with separately.  

And, it is a guesstimate (yeah, I see you smarty-pants, who cited Trump as a possibility pretty early), but a supposed 2025 trifecta is likely to include an impatient raw conservative component that will want certain policy things done. Filibusters by a supposed 54/46 (R) Senate or something stopping them much is dubious.  

Of course, we can stop that from happening (voting rights and judicial reform can help) at least in some form, including a second presidential term.  This can also involve passage core legislation now of some popularity (see ACA), which can have some degree of staying power.

Again, let's see how that goes.