Don’t believe the claims by left-wing organizations like the ACLU that they won a major victory with US District Judge JP Boulee’s recent decision in their challenge to Georgia’s 2021 electoral reform law.
Indeed, Georgia won a significant victory against opponents of electoral integrity when Boulee refused on August 18 to grant them an injunction against most of the provisions they were contesting.
For example, one of the reforms implemented by Georgia was a ban on ballot trading. Under the new Georgia law, only a voter, a member of their family or household, or a carer can return that voter’s mail-in ballot. This apparently prevents third parties such as candidates, party activists, political advisors and others interested in the outcome of the election from handling the ballot papers, which can lead to all sorts of mischief.
Georgia also legalized mailboxes for the first time, but for obvious security reasons has mandated that they be placed inside polling stations rather than outside polling stations so polling officials can keep an eye on them just as they would regular ballot boxes inside polling stations.
In the sixth circuit of the African Methodist Episcopal Church v. Kemp, Boulee dismissed plaintiffs’ claims that these two common sense rules violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 by discriminating against disabled voters. Brian Kemp is the governor of Georgia.
Boulee concluded that none of these rules would prevent disabled voters from casting their ballots as they would have “easy access to postal voting”.
“Although some voters prefer certain methods of absentee voting,” Boulee wrote, disabled voters “have alternative options for returning their ballots, such as having an assistant accompany them to return their ballots in person.”
The key point Boulee made is that a “mere preference for one method of voting over another” is insufficient to establish a denial of meaningful access to voting.
That point, however, was simply lost on liberal challengers, not just in this lawsuit, but in virtually all other baseless lawsuits filed against this type of electoral reform.
The left didn’t even really get what they wanted with their challenge to the so-called “ban on food, drink and gifts,” which they wanted to end entirely. Georgian law prohibits giving money, food and gifts to voters within the standard campaign zone, which includes “150 feet from the outside edge of a building” containing a polling station and “25 feet from any voter entering the polling station.” Waiting in line to vote.” any polling station.”
Lawmakers were rightly concerned that campaigns and partisan groups — like all challengers in those lawsuits — were using this process to “improperly campaign for campaign advertising, exert political pressure, or intimidate voters.”
Boulee upheld the 150-foot ban on activities that serve “compelling interests of the state,” saying it’s not an unreasonable restriction. On the other hand, he endorsed the 25-foot ban because there was “no limit.”
However, his analysis makes no sense as there is a limit – 25 feet from voters who are in line to vote. So what? I used to be a election supervisor for a Georgia county and have never seen a voter line stretch more than 150 feet from a polling station. Therefore, ordering the 25-foot ban should have little, if any, practical effect.
A 2022 election poll conducted by the University of Georgia Survey Research Center found that 68.75% of black Georgia voters had no wait at all or had to wait less than 10 minutes to cast their ballot. About 27.3% said they only waited 10 to 30 minutes to vote. White voters had much the same experience. If someone had been in a line that stretched more than 150 feet from a polling station, they would have had to wait well over 30 minutes to vote.
The point is that the very minor concession the challengers received will affect almost no voter. As long as voters remain within the 150-foot anti-voting zone of their polling station, these groups will not be able to shower them with gifts to convince them to vote for their preferred candidates. And if they’re thirsty or hungry, voters can bring their own food and drink, or the law allows election officials to provide voters with water.
I don’t seem to recall any reports of voters dying of starvation or dehydration in the 2022 Georgia midterm election, which is just another example of how ridiculous most liberal groups’ claims about electoral reform are.
Finally, Boulee demanded that a voter must include their date of birth on the envelope containing the completed mail-in ballot returned by the voter to election officials. Boulee argued that requiring voters to provide a date of birth was “not essential” to determining their eligibility to vote, since that determination was made when voters applied to vote by mail. Therefore, in the judge’s view, this requirement allegedly violates Section 101 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, codified at 52 USC § 10101(a)(2)(B).
Section 101 states that a person cannot be denied the right to vote because of “an error or omission in any record or document relating to any application, registration or other act necessary for voting” if that error or omission is relevant to the Determining whether this is the case is not material. Such an individual is entitled under state law to participate in such an election.”
Boulee is wrong for two reasons: First, the point of requesting information such as the date of birth on the completed absentee ballot is so that election officials can verify the identity of the voter, i.e. that the registered voter who applied for the absentee ballot is in fact the same person who completed and returned the ballot and is therefore “qualified under state law to participate in such an election.”
But the main reason he’s wrong is because Congress itself has already determined that the information — a date of birth — that Boulee claims is not essential is actually relevant to a state that considers a person’s qualifications to be a Voting determines identity, which of course includes the authentication of voters. Congress did so when it passed the National Voter Registration Act in 1992.
The National Voter Registration Act introduced a national voter registration form developed by the US Election Assistance Commission: 52 USC § 20505 requires states to “accept and use” this form in all elections for federal office. Specifically, this form requires voters to provide their date of birth as well as other relevant information required by States, as set forth in § 20508, “to assess the applicant’s eligibility to vote and to administer voter registration and other parts of the voting process.”
Georgia apparently checks the identity (and thus eligibility) of a postal voter during “other parts of the electoral process” (voting) when it asks for a date of birth.
Boulee is simply legally wrong on this issue. He doesn’t have the authority to defy Congress and suddenly decide that information about a voter’s date of birth is “not essential.”
On the other hand, Boulee did not violate Georgia’s requirement that a voter provide their name, registration address, and the number of their Georgia driver’s license or free voter ID card, or the last four digits of their social security number. Liberal groups have fretted over this new requirement to provide such an ID number. However, the judge did not ask the state to enforce these additional security requirements, which Georgia introduced as part of its electoral reforms to improve the integrity of postal voting.
This also ensures that it is actually the registered voter submitting the completed absentee ballot.
This case is not closed, however, as these Boulee decisions concerned whether these provisions should be put into effect on an interim basis. While most of the contested provisions remain in effect for now, which is good news for Georgia voters who care about the integrity of their elections, the judge should reconsider his position on the date of birth requirement.
If he does not do this and ultimately decides against the state, Georgia will have a very good basis to appeal and reverse this decision.
This piece originally appeared in The Daily Signal
