Von Spakovsky: The truth about Georgia’s voting law

By Hans von Spakovsky | The Daily Signal

There are a lot of partisan political issues out there, but election integrity shouldn’t be one of them.

What could be more basic to the very concept of representative government than having citizens trust that an election—whether it be for president or dog catcher—was fairly won or fairly lost?

Yet in the recent past, this issue has become very contentious. For purposes of our discussion here, let’s put aside any feelings we might have regarding a specific election.

Here’s the conflict: One side is primarily concerned that all votes are legitimately cast; that is, each vote can be traced to the person voting. The other side is primarily concerned that as many people as possible have the opportunity to vote.

Now a very obvious question arises. Why are these two concerns incompatible? Well, the answer is: They are not. We should be able both to verify voters and make it easy to vote at the same time.

Yes, even in politics, it should be possible to walk and chew gum simultaneously.

Let’s look to see how Georgia, where there has been much controversy over voting, has addressed this issue.

First concern: voter ID.

The recent Georgia voter reform law requires voters to provide identification to receive an absentee ballot. Since 2008, the state has required a voter to show a government-issued photo ID when he or she votes in person.

To require the same level of security for absentee voting seems to make perfect sense. In fact, one wonders why this wasn’t addressed sooner. There’s simply no good evidence that possessing an ID presents a hardship to voting. Have you ever met anyone who didn’t have an ID? Anyone?

When a federal judge threw out the ACLU-led lawsuit against Georgia’s in-person voter ID law, he noted that in two years of litigation, the challengers could not produce a single resident of the state unable to vote because of the new ID requirement.

But wait, as they say in TV ads, there’s more!

The new Georgia law says you can satisfy the voter ID requirement with a “copy of a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other government document that shows the name and address” of the would-be voter.

It’s worth noting that the language on voter IDs for absentee ballots is identical to the language in the federal Help America Vote Act of 2002, which passed the U.S. Senate by a vote of 92-2. The “yes” votes included then-Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware.

Let’s move on to the second concern: making voting easy. The charge against Georgia’s new voting law is that it prohibits voters from access to water while they wait in line. One has to admit that sounds harsh.

But, if we dig a little deeper, we find that like most other states Georgia prohibits electioneering within 150 feet of a polling place or within 25 feet of any voters waiting in line to vote.

The new law simply added that within such distances, no one can “give, offer to give, or participate in the giving of any money or gift, including, but not limited to, food and drink, to any elector.”

In other words, a candidate, his supporters, or an activist group can’t show up at a polling place with a truckload of Happy Meals and start handing them out to voters standing in line.

The clear intent here is to prevent operatives from any party from unduly influencing voters with money or gifts, including food and drink. The idea that Georgia is somehow doing something nefarious by preventing gift-giving at the polls is, to put it mildly, bizarre—especially considering that this is a standard practice (as it should be) in most other states including New York and New Jersey.

By the way, the law says it’s OK for poll officials to make available “self-service water from an unattended receptacle” to “an elector waiting in line.” And, of course, you can bring a bottle of water with you if you’re worried that you’re going to die of thirst waiting to vote.

But wait, there’s more! Georgia added additional weekend voting days for those who want to vote early.

To call these reforms “the new Jim Crow” as some have done, or an example of “voter suppression,” is simply not true. In fact, it’s so far from the truth, it makes one wonder about the accusers’ motives.  But more than anything, it is an insult to the people who really did suffer under restrictive voting laws of the past.

But those days are long gone. And the numbers prove it. Georgia has seen record levels of voter registration and turnout in recent elections, including 2020. That includes blacks and Hispanics. And that’s been the trend for a decade.

Anybody who wants to vote can vote. Introducing a few safeguards to build confidence that only legal votes are cast and counted just seems to make common sense.

So why all the controversy?

4 thoughts on “Von Spakovsky: The truth about Georgia’s voting law

  1. The rhetoric of the left defies common sense and rationality when it comes to voting. Their narrative is patently false.

  2. Hans,

    Here is some more info regarding Arizona.

    Increasingly, Arizona folks, Democrats and Republicans, are becoming aware of the extent Arizona election officials have gamed the 2020 Election.
    Apparently, those shenanigans were also used in other states, based on reports that are trickling in.

    A deep knowledge of the many ways to game the election systems should be PUBLIC information, because ALL future elections could be adversely affected. That deep knowledge can be obtained only by having forensic audits in every state.

    Preliminary Results of Forensic Examination of Ballots Arizona

    Here is some preliminary info from the FORENSIC examination in ARIZONA.
    The weirdness of it all is beyond belief.
    No one could make this up.
    Where in hell was the FBI and the US Justice Department?

    The Arizona dysfunctional 2020 Election was decided by 10,457 votes


    – 3,981 voted on November 3, but were registered AFTER THE OCT 15 DEADLINE, in violation of law

    – 11,326 voted, but were NOT on any registered voter list on NOV 7.
    They were added to the lists on DEC 4.
    They were marked as “voted” in the November 3 election.

    – More than 30,000 registered voters are shown as “voted” after the state deadline. Were those voters the kind of people who almost never voted?

    – About 18,000 voted (dead people and out-of-state people, etc.), but were removed from the lists AFTER the election

    – 74,243 mail-in ballots were counted, but showed no clear record of having been requested, or mailed out.

    That surely is a “miracle”.
    It is highly likely those ballots were for Biden
    Had this “miracle” not occurred, Trump would have won by 74,243 – 10,457 = 63,786 votes

    This miracle could have occurred due to:

    1) Clerical errors, i.e., very sloppy bookkeeping

    2) It is possible, DEM/PROG operatives delivered the 74,243 ballots-in-envelopes, prepared prior to the election, or even after the election, to vote-counting centers, staffed by mostly DEM/PROG operatives. See Note

    NOTE: The number of mail-in ballots returned would normally be less than the number sent out, for many reasons.
    However, election records showed 74,243 MORE mail-in ballots were counted, than were sent out.

    NOTE: Item 2 is similar to the “manufactured” 288,000 ballots-in-envelopes, prepare SEVERAL MONTHS prior to the election, in Bethpage, Long Island, NY, for use in Pennsylvania, in case Trump would be too far ahead. See URL for detailed information

    – Dominion voting machines can be configured with wireless AND cellular access.

    – Confirms there was a breach on election day regarding unauthorized access to servers.

    – 11 hard drives of cloned data were received by the auditors, but information had been altered by the Maricopa County “audit” process.

    – Duplicate ballots lacking chain of custody information for thousands of ballots, many without serial number.

    – Thousands of ballots with serial numbers, printed lightly and obscured, i.e., matching was very difficult.

    These URLs are provided to support the above and for information


  3. Hans,
    You describe some measures to reduce opportunities regarding election fraud.

    But those measures are very minor aspects of election fraud.

    Much of the fraud problem is elsewhere. It has NOTHING to do with VOTERS and VOTER FRAUD

    Election officials, who likely have decades of experience, know all the ins and outs of affecting the outcomes of elections.

    Here is a write-up regarding election officials in Arizona gaming the system in major ways.
    The revelation of this would NEVER be possible, without a forensic audit of ballots.

    Malfeasance by Election Officials and “SharpieGate”

    A newly released email from Maricopa County Elections Assistant Director Kelly Dixon confirms the “Sharpiegate” scandal.

    Wednesday, July 14, 2021, the Arizona forensic audit reported ballots were printed incorrectly, and on thin, uncoated paper stock, that allows for ink bleed-throughs, based on their experience during prior elections.

    In an email dated October 22, 2020, Maricopa County Elections worker, Kelly Dixon, ordered her staff to use ball-point pens for early voting from 10/23-11/2, and that they NEEDED to use felt markers, such as Sharpies, on Election Day.

    “Starting tomorrow, 10/23 and through 11/2m we are asking that Clerks hand voters BALLPOINT PENS rather than markers. We NEED to use Markers on Election Day, but for now and through 11/2, hand voters a Ballpoint Pen. You have plenty of pens in your supplies right now. Please message this to your inspectors and ensure they can cascade this change down to everyone on the Board.”

    Kelly, et al, knew most Trump voters would wait to vote on November 3, Election Day.

    Kelly, et al, knew markers would cause discrepancies on these Republican ballots,
    The ink would bleed through the thin paper ballots, which meant “adjudication”, an unsupervised process of “determining voter intent”.

    Republican voters had decided to vote IN PERSON on election day, because they did not trust mail-in (I was one of them).
    They had no idea “bleed-through” would be used to “adjudicate” their votes.

    About 168,000 ballots showed bleed-throughs, due to the use of sharpies
    This was just another pre-meditated method to manipulate the election outcome.

    Jennifer Asper shared an image of this letter to Twitter (See URL), originally shared by Garret Lewis, and swept under the rug by the Media.

    The Gateway Pundit reported 2 days after the Election (ballots were still being delivered and counted), that Arizona ballot instructions read, “Do NOT use a sharpie type pen as it will bleed through”.

    Adjudication: Ballots used on Election Day consisted of thin paper, un-coated. They were EXPECTED to “bleed through”. They likely were handed to voters in strong Republican areas on Election Day.

    That means the ballot would not be read by the machine as a “correct ballot”. However, the ballot would not be summarily rejected (that would be too harsh), but it would be sent to and area with specially-selected Dem/Prog poll workers for “adjudication”.

    That process is not supervised by official observers. All sorts of shenanigans were possible. The more “adjudication”, the more the impact of shenanigans.

    NOTE: Adjudication had been standard operating procedure by Election Officials with decades of experience managing election, in various areas of the US. Prior to mail-in, the number of adjudicated ballots was insignificant


Comments are closed.