Georgia’s governor’s race appears to be virtually tied with Republican Brian Kemp’s 2 percent lead over Democrat Stacey Abrams. There is a 4.8 percent error so the vote can sway either way.
Stacey Abrams, former state House Minority Leader, is trying to become the first African American female governor in United States history. She is also hoping to expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. For her win, Abrams relies significantly on black voters and young voters. Brian Kemp, the Secretary of State, is executing a strict voting law, requiring the names on the voter application to match the ID card exactly. Even a hyphen or space mistake in a name can put an application on hold. A day before the voter registration deadline, 53,000 voter applications were put on hold due to this tightened voter access in Georgia. 70 percent of those whose applications were on hold were African American. If someone’s voter application is on hold, they can still vote with a valid photo ID or can cast a provisional ballot and confirm their identity a couple of days later. Unfortunately, these voters were not notified if their application was on hold.
In the past, Congress required federal judges to regulate strict voting laws, but the
Supreme Court deemed it unnecessary in 2013.
1. Does Kemp’s new voting law discriminate against minority voters? How?
2. Is there anything one of the three branches can do to change Kemp’s law?
3. How likely do you think those 53,000 potential voters, whose applications were put on hold, are still going to try to vote?
Clara Kennedy
ReplyDelete1. Yes, I believe that Kemp's new voting law does discriminate against minority voters. In general, fewer people belonging to minority groups possess official IDs. As a result, strict requirements for matching IDs severely disadvantages minority voters because they are less likely to have an ID, keeping more of them from voting simply due to the ID requirement.
2. To change Kemp's law, the Supreme Court could rule that it is unconstitutional under the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Since Kemp's law unfairly targets minority voters, it is a violation of the Voting Rights Act.
3. I think that some of the 53,000 potential voters will still attempt to vote, but that the majority will not. When people are explicitly told they will be unable to do something, people tend to not try because they feel defeated. This will be quite detrimental because fewer people will participate in the election and the actual voting population will be less representative of the population as a whole.
1. The new voting laws will discriminate against minority voters because many minority voters do not have a voter ID. Also, they tend to have longer names that are easier to mess up. By making the ID have to exactly match the ID will make it harder for them to vote and have the African American woman become elected.
ReplyDelete2. Judicial review by the courts can invalidate the law by saying it is unconstitutional because it targets minority voters. It may be harder to prove because it is a very common thing today and easily defended by saying it can apply to white people as well.
3. Some of the 53,000 voters may to vote, but they will probably be denied which was the purpose of this to prevent the governor to be elected which is discriminatory. Therefore, this new law is bad becauuse they cannot vote.
1. Kemp's new voting laws does discriminate minority voters as the need for a voter ID will allow less of the minority to vote. This is because people that minority voters are less likely to have an official ID when compared to majority voters. This keeps a larger portion of the minority voters from voting when compared to the majority voters.
ReplyDelete2. The judicial branch could declare the law to be unconstitutional as it targets a single group by race. By targeting the minority voters, Kemp is threatening the equal right to voting of this group.
3. I believe that only the really determined of the 53,000 voters will still attempt to vote but their vote will not matter much at that point. This is because the majority of the minority voters will have already accepted defeat. This will cause a large portion of the minority voters to not vote at all.
1) While he will obviously deny that what he is doing is discriminating against minorities, the fact that the majority of the people who are negatively impacted by this are minorities, I think we can assume that his intent was to try and help his own campaign by reducing the number of minority voters that can vote.
ReplyDelete2) There is a lot of things that the three branches could do, but the easiest would be to declare the law unconstitutional due to the 15th amendment or that it violated the voting rights act of 1965. The result of this is that the law would have to be abolished because it is infringing upon the rights of people.
3) Since they were not told it appears that they will still vote, but will not know to go confirm their identity after they have voted thus making their votes essentially useless.
1. I do believe that Kemp's voting law discriminates against minorities. These minority groups may not always have a official ID in order to vote, which can not only delay their votes, but outright eliminate them from the ballot. In addition Adams has to rely on the minority groups in order to win, so if she cannot rely on their vote, she can't win which effectively discriminates against her, a minority.
ReplyDelete2. Congress could utilize judicial review in order to prove that this legislation was unconstitutional, possibly by citing the equal protections clause in the 14th amendment of the 15th amendment and the right to vote.
3. I believe there is a possibility some of the voters will continue to try to vote, yet most of them probably will not. Unless they feel strongly about the candidate, then they will likely consider the idea already a loss that either will lead to more prevention if they continue to vote or prevent any progress in the first place.
1.I think that the voting law does discriminate against the minority people in Georgia. Minority people are less likely to have ID than the white voters. This will cause less of a turnout for these minority voters and will take away their right to vote. The majority of Kemp's voters are not minorities, which makes it obvious that he is trying to take away the votes of his competitor.
ReplyDelete2. The judicial branch could rule that this voter ID law is unconstitutional because it discriminates against races and it infringes upon the people's right to vote.
3.I believe that some voters will be more determined to vote so that they can remove Kemp from his position, but others may not have the time to put in the effort to get their vote in.
1. Kemp's new voting law does discriminate against minorities as less minorities tend to have access to official ID. Whether or not it is unconstitutional is up for debate but the intent is pretty clear.
ReplyDelete2. The judicial branch could rule the law unconstitutional but that would likely become a very contentious case and it will be very interesting to see how it turns out, if it even goes to that.
3. There was not much that they could do. Most would give up and not bother continuing to try, and those that do would be in the minority. Those that succeed would be a much smaller number, to the point where it is no longer significant. That is the shame in what Kemp is doing as by discouraging so many voters he is undermining the integrity of our democracy and causing the people of both Georgia and the United States to potentially lose faith in our system.
1. Yes, I think Kemp's law definitely targets and discriminates against minority voters. This is because there is evidence that minorities are less likely to possess official IDs. This may ultimately lead to voter suppression as minorities will be unable to vote and make their voices heard, by voting for people such as Abrams herself.
ReplyDelete2. The judicial branch could use their power of judicial review to deem this law unconstitutional because it targets a single race and prevents them from voting (could find justification in taking an activist interpretation of the 15th or 24th amendment).
3.I fear that only a select group of highly determined voters from these 53,000 will actually vote, while most will just accept defeat, furthering the notion that "my vote doesn't actually matter."
1. Kemp's voting law discriminates against minorities. Minorities are less likely to have IDs and therefore would not be able to vote under his laws.
ReplyDelete2. the judicial branch could rule the law unconstitutional, but the other branches cannot do anything because the states make the voting laws.
3. It seems unlikely that a large amount of the 53000 would be determined enough to still try to vote. There would hopefully be some who know how important it is for them to fight for their vote.
1. Yes, Kemp's law clearly discriminates against minority voters because minorities are less likely to have official IDs. Even if he denies it, Kemp is using this law as an advantage in the election.
ReplyDelete2. The Supreme Court could use its power of judicial review to rule Kemp's law as unconstitutional (considering the Voting Rights Act and 15th Amendment).
3. Most likely, the majority of the affected people will not try to vote. They have been told their vote does not matter, so attempting to vote without the necessary ID will seem like an inconvenience
1. Yes, these new laws definitely discriminate against minority voters. If the statistic is not enough to convince you, based on history, African Americans have been limited in their voting rights with additions of stricter guidelines that directly deal with voter registration.
ReplyDelete2. The Supreme Court can deem the law unconstitutional and reference the equal protection clause. A single race is targeted and strict scrutiny is used and in this sense I do not believe it passes the test, and is thus unconstitutional.
3. It is possible for people to vote. I think this deals with political efficacy and how much they think their voice actually matters. Most people would not put in the extra effort if they believe they won't be able to really impact the government.