If you challenge all of them, it’ll give them an excuse to clear all the Republicans first while leaving the Democrats in limbo, so they could still ratfuck the election that way.
The other problem is that you have to have “a reason” to challenge the registration, and that’s a lot easier to manufacture, on average, for the sort of people who tend to vote Democrat. For example, a liberal apartment dweller in Midtown Atlanta who moves frequently (even through no fault of his own, such as being forced out by a landlord increasing rent) is a lot more likely to have an exploitable address discrepancy than a conservative in the East Cobb suburbs who’s owned the same single-family house for decades. That’s the point of the article: the law is written in such a way that it’s superficially non-discriminatory, but Democrats and minorities are structurally more susceptible to it.
The other problem is that you have to have “a reason” to challenge the registration, …
It seems that you do not have to have a sound or valid reason:
“There seems to be some inconsistencies with how challenges are sustained or denied, and we want to codify the fact that there are only a very limited number of reasons to sustain a challenge,” said state Sen. Max Burns, a Republican who authored both SB 202 and SB 189, at a March committee meeting where the voter challenge language was workshopped.
The resulting legislation, however, did the exact opposite. It listed some criteria that election board members may consider when receiving a challenge, such as knowledge that a voter had passed away. But it also failed to place any restrictions on what evidence activists may submit when questioning fellow voters, how many challenges one person can submit at once, or even mandate that they be residents of the state, prompting outcry from Democrats.
If you challenge all of them, it’ll give them an excuse to clear all the Republicans first while leaving the Democrats in limbo, so they could still ratfuck the election that way.
The other problem is that you have to have “a reason” to challenge the registration, and that’s a lot easier to manufacture, on average, for the sort of people who tend to vote Democrat. For example, a liberal apartment dweller in Midtown Atlanta who moves frequently (even through no fault of his own, such as being forced out by a landlord increasing rent) is a lot more likely to have an exploitable address discrepancy than a conservative in the East Cobb suburbs who’s owned the same single-family house for decades. That’s the point of the article: the law is written in such a way that it’s superficially non-discriminatory, but Democrats and minorities are structurally more susceptible to it.
It seems that you do not have to have a sound or valid reason:
What kind of “evidence” would you suggest making up when mass-challenging East Cobb homeowners?
Dead. Everyone’s dead. All registered voters in the State of Georgia are dead.