The many half-truths surrounding Georgia’s new voting law
Georgia Republicans recently passed a massive bill that would make sweeping changes to voting procedures. Among other things, the bill expands early voting dates and hours, requires identification to vote absentee, shortens the window to request absentee voting, limits locations and hours for ballot drop boxes and demotes the Secretary of State from chairing the Election Board. Controversially, the bill also bans anyone from giving food or drink to the people standing in line to vote.
Progressive activists immediately linked the bill with Jim Crow laws. The activists are right to question legislative motives here, but they go too far in calling this bill “Jim Crow 2.0.” In truth, the bill both expands and restricts voting. The ban on giving water to those waiting in line seems entirely petty, but overall, the bill does not strike me as particularly abhorrent. Notably, Georgia’s early voting expansion and its broad ID requirements are more progressive than those of several blue states.
Regardless, President Biden has repeatedly claimed that the bill ends voting hours early. These falsities have real world consequences. After President Biden called to boycott the MLB All-Star Game in Atlanta, the MLB announced it was moving the game to Denver. Relocating the game, as noted by Stacey Abrams, only hurts the local Atlanta businesses that will now lose a projected $100 million in revenue. Pressuring the MLB to move the All-Star Game rings of performative activism that operates to the detriment of Atlanta’s working class while doing nothing to change the voting situation for Georgians.
Of course, the Republicans are no better. They allege that Democrats go too far in their criticism, but some of that criticism is well founded. The aforementioned water ban is totally unnecessary, and ousting Georgia’s Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger from the Election Board is obvious revenge for his previous refusal to join in Trump’s election overthrow attempt.
Republicans fail to recognize the political context surrounding the outrage. Putting aside the vast history of Southern states attempting to suppress Black votes, state Republicans are currently engaged in a nationwide campaign to limit Democratic turnout. A lawyer representing the Arizona GOP made this plain in a Supreme Court oral argument. The restrictions must stay because otherwise “it puts us at a competitive disadvantage relative to Democrats,” attorney Michael Carvin stated bluntly.
All of these restrictions are proposed under the guise of election security and integrity. But after months of false election fraud allegations, Republicans have lost all credibility in claiming to care about election integrity. While the text of Georgia’s bill may not be terrible, the overarching Republican move to restrict voting is problematic and worthy of outrage.
On one side, Republicans want the public to ignore their pursuit of Democratic suppression and believe these voting restrictions are entirely necessary for election integrity. On the flip side, Democrats want full public support behind their exaggerated allegations of Jim Crow-esque racism in Georgia’s bill. Republicans are half right in the idea that the Georgia bill isn’t hyper-restrictive, and Democrats are half right in their allegations of suppression. It’s clear both sides want to tie in a broader narrative about our current political dynamic. Republicans want Democrats to appear like wild-eyed radicals, while Democrats want Republicans to appear like power-hungry racists. The truth here, as always, falls somewhere in between.
Fact checking can be difficult because often a statement is neither entirely true nor completely false. It’s important that we constantly think critically and independently about accusations thrown by political opposites. Otherwise, we will be trapped in a never-ending cycle of hyperbolic half-truths.
