In other words, while the person who files a frivolous mass challenge faces no sanction, the board responding to challenges faces the risk of sanctions.
Marc Elias's latest
https://www.democracydocket.com/2021...-very-bad-law/Buried in the new Georgia law are three provisions related to the ability to conduct mass challenges of voter eligibility.
The first states simply that “[t]here shall not be a limit on the number of persons whose qualifications such elector may challenge.” In other words, mass challenges are now expressly provided for in Georgia state law.
The second requires counties to hear any challenge within 10 days of providing the voter notice. Previously, counties that believed a challenge was frivolous or unwarranted could deny it or at least postpone consideration of the challenge until after the election. Now, counties are required to hold a hearing on each challenge, regardless of how frivolous the challenge. This means that voters whose eligibility to vote is challenged will receive a formal notice requiring them to attend or participate in a hearing (on as little as three-days’ notice). The county boards have the power to issue subpoenas in connection with these hearings. And, if a challenge is rejected, the challenger can appeal the decision in court.
Finally, if a county board fails to comply with this new mass challenge hearing process, the board itself is subject to sanctions by the state board. In other words, while the person who files a frivolous mass challenge faces no sanction, the board responding to challenges faces the risk of sanctions.
When viewed against the other new provisions of Georgia’s omnibus voter suppression law that serve to make the State Board a partisan instrument of the legislature, the intent of this new challenge provision is clear. Rather than curtail frivolous, racially-targeted mass challenges to voter qualifications, Georgia has empowered them.
In other words, while the person who files a frivolous mass challenge faces no sanction, the board responding to challenges faces the risk of sanctions.
"indigenous" = "Native American"
this would be a much bigger deal say, in Arizona
Republican boycotts don't seem to have hurt national MLB ratings
https://theweek.com/speedreads/97990...al-mlb-ratings
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/15/u...l-workers.html“The default assumption that county election officials are bad actors is problematic,” said Chris Davis, the county election administrator in Williamson County, Texas, north of Austin. “There’s so many moving parts and things happening at a given polling place, and innocent mistakes, though infrequent, can happen. And to assign criminal liability or civil liability to some of these things is problematic. It’s a big-time issue that we have.”
“These poll workers don’t ever, in our experience, intend to count invalid votes, or let somebody who’s not eligible vote, or prevent somebody who’s eligible from voting,” said Mr. Davis, whose role is nonpartisan. “Yet we’re seeing that as a baseline, kind of a fundamental principle in some of the bills that are being drafted. And I don’t know where it’s coming from, because it’s not based on reality.”
"The default assumption"
"Don't ever"
Why is this guy speaking in absolutes.
Why make mistakes criminal offenses?
That's very absolutist.
Iowa GOP sure seems cheesed off at Heritage Action
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)