Most legislation is passed to solve a problem. In Georgia, more people voted than ever before. That's good. Election officials declared the election problem-free. That's good. The will of the majority prevailed. That's good. So what's the problem?

The problem is that the wrong people won to them. It's naive to read the new law as if it were some objective act, a kind of high ideal of election law. It has to be read in the context that birthed it--a shocking Democratic trifecta. The few not very expansive measures in the law are cover; they'll do little if anything to ease access to the vote. Absentee voting brought the Democratic victory and so absentee voting is the target of the restrictive measures. No one should be fooled. The aim is simply to reduce the numbers of votes likely to go Democratic--that's it. The problem for Republicans is that the wrong people won. The goal is to make sure that doesn't happen again.

Yes, the Georgia election law is that bad:



It's the motive. Defenders of the law argue that the law establishes reasonable requirements. It sounds great until you consider that there was no material (or even immaterial) fraud found in the last round of elections. Or decades of preceding elections. So, in order to sustain the myth of voter fraud, Republicans create solutions in search of the fictional problem. The result is to restrict voting rights under cover of election security. Modern day Jim Crow, yes.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Democracy Town

Welcome to, a United States based Mastodon instance run by and for progressives.

All are welcome who follow our guidelines.