ATLANTA (AP) — Voting rights groups on Monday asked a judge to block a provision of a new Georgia law that isn’t necessarily the most consequential, but has certainly generated the most outrage: a ban on distributing food and water to voters in waiting for the queue.
The ban is just part of a 98-page bill that includes dozens of changes to state electoral law, including shortening the deadline for applying to vote by absentee ballots, reversing the pandemic-induced expansion of the ballot box and reducing early voting before runoff elections.
But it’s perhaps the easiest to understand and has been cited by critics as particularly punitive. The groups argued that it illegally violated their rights to freedom of expression and should be blocked immediately, even before a broader case challenging other areas of the law goes to trial.
US District Judge JP Boulee did not immediately rule on the request for a restraining order.
State attorneys described the provision as a “light line” drawn to prevent circus-like conditions near polling stations that could stoke concerns about the possibility of illegal campaigning or vote-buying. Former Richmond County Director of Elections Lynn Bailey, however, called the measure “tough.”
The US Department of Justice has also sued an attempt to overturn Senate Bill 202, arguing that it is racially discriminatory, but it was not among the groups seeking a temporary restraining order Monday.
The hearing came just months before the hard-fought elections in November. Democrat Stacey Abrams is challenging incumbent Republican Gov. Brian Kemp while Republican Herschel Walker is seeking to unseat incumbent Democratic US Senator Raphael Warnock.
The state argued that following previous court decisions, it was too late for Boulee to make changes to November’s election. The plaintiffs gave several examples of when changes were made up to the eve of the elections.
Many Democrats are promising to roll back Senate Bill 202 while protecting the election results from attack. Republicans argue that smooth voting in the May primary, with relatively high turnout and short lines, showed that the new law does not restrict voting. Opponents, however, warn that the law will set up roadblocks for marginalized voters, an effect they say will become more apparent in November.
In that regard, groups on Monday called on Boulee to block the food and drink ban known as “line relief” or “line warming” as it violates her right to free speech to encourage people to vote.
“Line relief represents a key expressive behavior,” said Davin Rosborough, attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union. “Its meaning is well understood in communities where plaintiffs state it.”
He said Georgia “stands alone” as the only state to outlaw and criminalize the practice.
Rhonda Briggins, of the Delta Sigma Theta sorority, said her historically African-American group offered food and water to voters in previous elections, but stopped activities when the new law passed.
“We’ve been doing this for years,” Briggins said. “It’s meant to encourage people to stay in line. We are the cheerleaders.”
But state witnesses argued such activity spiraled out of control in the 2020 election, with clearly partisan groups offering lavish food and other goods. State Election Board member Matt Mashburn, a Republican election observer before he was appointed to the board, said he witnessed Democrats not only provide food but appear to control the line outside a Cobb County polling station during early voting.
“My reaction to that is that we’ve completely lost control of the districts,” Mashburn said. “And when voters see that poll workers have lost control, it makes them very nervous for their own safety and nervous that someone is cheating.”
The judge hypothetically asked whether it was acceptable for groups to give voters steaks.
“Is that a bottle of water because someone is thirsty, or is that a bottle of Gatorade to determine control of the US Senate?” Boulee asked.
Plaintiffs found that campaigning within 45 meters (150 feet) of a polling station was illegal before and under the new law, as was giving anything of value in exchange for voting, and the state should enforce those laws to to prevent illegal election campaigns.
They also argued that Georgia could have adjusted its law more tightly, limiting the value of what can be given to voters. But Ryan Germany, chief counsel for Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, said that forcing overburdened poll workers to monitor whether gifts were illegally tied to voting or whether people were campaigning illegally was “a tricky matter” “a tricky matter.” , which depend on the facts of each case.
The state argued that an outright ban would make poll workers’ jobs easier.
“It’s a clear line rule,” said attorney Gene Schaerr. “Nobody has to decide how much is too much.”
___
Follow Jeff Amy on Twitter at http://twitter.com/jeffamy.
