Imagine if politicians in a state decided to pass legislation with the stated intention of increasing both election participation and integrity.
As part of that effort, the bill included provisions that:
-Absentee ballots will be delivered to post office boxes and in-town mail route, but not to routes outside the city. This is because it is too difficult to ensure the integrity of that ballot left in isolated mailboxes in the country.
-More financial resources will be allocated to urban areas with low civic involvement. This would be done to encourage people who historically have not been part of the process, to engage in voting.
-Counties with small populations will have one polling location, at the county board of elections, while counties with a large population will have many polling locations. The reasoning is that it’s expensive to set up multiple sites only to serve a small population.
-Counties with diverse ethnic populations will have multiple polling locations in those specific neighborhoods. This will encourage people from different backgrounds to engage in the political process.
-Early voting will not be available on days when it rains, as we do not want people to feel pressured to stand outside in lines during inclement weather.
Taken individually, none of these items seem egregious.
However, when they are looked at in a composite, it would become clear to some that these items were a targeted attempt to limit the ability for a certain population to cast a ballot.
If your job is not impacted by the weather, or if you live in a densely populated area, these items probably would not strike a chord. In fact, you would likely find yourself defending these measures because they do make some sense individually. You may even go so far as to say anyone who opposes these measures is uninformed.
But if you are part of a rural or agrarian community, you would see these measures as clearly targeting rural and farm voters.
I am blessed that I have never had my nearby polling location closed. I have never been forced to stand in line to vote, certainly not a line that stretched for hours.
And likely neither have you.
So, it is easy for us to say election reform measures make sense when they don’t impact our polling places.
Do portions of the Georgia voting reform make sense? Absolutely. I have no problem with requiring identification to vote.
Are any of Georgia’s reforms back-breakers when taken individually? Possibly not.
But the legislation:
-eliminates polling locations in traditional Democratic strongholds in the name of finances.
-eliminates after-hour drop offs under the guise of election security.
-makes it illegal for “any person” to give food or water to a voter stuck in the lines because they could influence voters.
– allows local boards of elections to make some decisions about polling hours, but forbids them to allow voting on Sunday, a popular option among Black communities who rally at churches then go vote.
Taken all together, it seems like a bill targeted to discourage certain people from voting.
And if you are blessed enough to not be able to see that, be thankful and pray it always stays that way for you, but at least have the empathy to understand some are not.
-Mac Cordell is a reporter for the Journal-Tribune.