Here's the problem with giving power to remove or change a board on a win. It's not how they are appointed, it's that if they oversee an election with a result not to the liking of the party, they can be removed and replaced with loyalists who will then make decisions favoring the party that made the change. I am sincerely puzzled why this would not be concerning to you.
that's simply how you (or maybe others) are spinning this. You don't know what these folks will do in the future. And you have to have a certain amount of faith in the basic integrity of ANY of these boards, otherwise why not simply assume every election board in the United States is corrupt. I disagree that the changes being described--at least from what I have seen or read so far--necessarily entail the ominous outcomes you are predicting here
It all depends on how concerned one is about the abandonment of prior norms from trump followers and the Republican Party generally, and ones views about the election fraud rhetoric they have spewed since the months leading up to the 2020 election. I think it is fair to say that they hare convinced that the ends justifies the means and they must and will do whatever is necessary to regain control of the executive and legislative branches. Without exaggeration, that has been the tone and volume of the rhetoric, so if they say it and behave that way, shame on us if we don’t believe them. If you look at the legislation in a vacuum or academically, then yes, maybe it’s too early to believe in the ominous outcomes. But those outcomes are the very ones for which a growing chorus of republicans are calling. And that chorus gets louder and uglier by the minute.
That was a boring and unproductive read. I'm going to just say we'll see how this plays out in the coming elections especially in 2024. If you genuinely have questions about why these laws are bad given your job status, you should have more resources than I do to accomplish that. Bring something to the table also as I want to get answers too.
GA legislators are already removing Democrats from county election boards. Giving the legislator power to remove and replace as they see fits before, during, and after an election is perfectly fine if you trust that centralized power without check won't corrupt. Of course, history tells us that unchecked power is dangerous and do corrupt. I think Americans, especially those wary of too much-centralized power, inherently understand this. How Republican States Are Expanding Their Power Over Elections - The New York Times (nytimes.com) Lonnie Hollis has been a member of the Troup County election board in West Georgia since 2013. A Democrat and one of two Black women on the board, she has advocated Sunday voting, helped voters on Election Days and pushed for a new precinct location at a Black church in a nearby town. But this year, Ms. Hollis will be removed from the board, the result of a local election law signed by Gov. Brian Kemp, a Republican. Previously, election board members were selected by both political parties, county commissioners and the three biggest municipalities in Troup County. Now, the G.O.P.-controlled county commission has the sole authority to restructure the board and appoint all the new members. “I speak out and I know the laws,” Ms. Hollis said in an interview. “The bottom line is they don’t like people that have some type of intelligence and know what they’re doing, because they know they can’t influence them.” Ms. Hollis is not alone. Across Georgia, members of at least 10 county election boards have been removed, had their position eliminated or are likely to be kicked off through local ordinances or new laws passed by the state legislature. At least five are people of color and most are Democrats — though some are Republicans — and they will most likely all be replaced by Republicans. G.O.P. lawmakers in Georgia say the new measures are meant to improve the performance of local boards, and reduce the influence of the political parties. But the laws allow Republicans to remove local officials they don’t like, and because several of them have been Black Democrats, voting rights groups fear that these are further attempts to disenfranchise voters of color.
How can you say this with a straight face? That's the entire reason for passing these laws. There was a lot of anger that election officials would not overturn the election and so they passed these laws. It's absolutely ridiculous that you think there is any other purpose for the laws other than to dispose of people when they don't get the result they like. Are you that naive or have you not been paying attention?
I think there's a chance that it's you who hasn't been reading widely enough in sources that don't fit your preconception. First, there isn't a single "entire reason" for proposing 200+ laws in multiple states ("216 bills in 41 states"). So that's hyperbole. Second, there were a lot of election practices that were changed on an emergency basis because of covid in 2020; so many of these 200+ changes are likely trying to address problems and other issues that arose over the course of the 2020 election season. It is NOT unreasonable to disagree that every single last one of these election law changes in multiple states is "to dispose of people when they don't get the result they like." This is why I keep pressing people to narrow down their hyperbole and just offer up ONE law for us to focus on. Instead we get global assertions about alleged monolithic reason(s). I don't necessarily dispute the statement about anger. I'm just not seeing anyone cite a specific example of that anger being channeled into a specific law that can be examined and evaluated as either "good" or "bad." not ridiculous at all relatively ill-tempered ad hominem flourish at the end duly noted.
I'm sorry but it is ridiculous. Yes, the reason they are passing these laws is because they were not happy election officials stood up to them when Trump lost. Because they protected the integrity of these elections, these laws are being passed so in future elections they can replace people who stand in there way. That is the ONLY reason some of the laws are being passed. You should know that. I guess you are just playing devil's advocate.
saying something is ridiculous doesn't make it so, even with the repetition. I acknowledge that in some cases there may be bills being proposed "because they were not happy election officials stood up to them when Trump lost," but you have still not identified any that have been passed and enacted into law. Even with the Georgia example above, which grants authority to the legislature to pick three of five state elections board members (rather than to the Secretary of State? which is unclear to me), you stated that: My question remains, why is this a bad thing? Why would oversight per se be a bad thing if a county's election officials are performing poorly? Why would we not want poorly-performing county election officials replaced? Why is empowering the state board to enact an emergency measure to replace poorly-performing country election officials with a single election administrator a bad thing? You seem to be assuming that because currently the legislature is dominated by Republicans, that the three legislature-selected state election board members will be corrupt because . . . because why? because they are appointed by a Republican-controlled legislature? That complaint seems to me to be rather question-begging, because if and when the legislature is controlled by Democrats, would you have the same complaint? Again, the substance of your critique seems lacking other than the repetitious assertions that I am being ridiculous. No, in this particular case I am not necessarily playing devil's advocate. I am looking for evidence for claims that I have no reason yet to accept. And no one is offering any evidence. Just assertions of "that's ridiculous".
Because the "oversight" they are trying to implement is around loyalty, not performance. The reason this law was passed as because these election officials refused to buy into conspiracy theories and did the right thing to protect the integrity of the elections. That doesn't sit well with the people who lost, so they passed this to be able to undermine results they don't like. That's why it's a bad thing. No one should be forced to be a loyalist out of fear of being fired, and that's what this law does plain and simple.
okay, that's good as far as it goes, that gives me relevant "legislative history." But again, the historical context of why something gets passed doesn't guarantee anything about future implementation. From where I sit, oversight of poorly-performing county election officials is a good thing, whether the legislature is controlled by Republicans or by Democrats.
The ability to remove an official for not favoring your team to replace with someone who does is simply dangerous
well, that's you saying that's what they'll do. It's another thing entirely for that to happen. Is there evidence this has happened?
Yes - they tried to do it a few months ago. Failed. So passed a law that they can do it. There was no need for this law. The system worked fine. And how do you measure "poor performance" - a highly subjective evaluation that is going to be political
that's two different things though now. There's what was attempted; and there is now a law that people are complaining about. Are you complaining about the attempt prior to the law, the law itself, or to both? that very well may be. there are lots of stupid, unnecessary laws. nothing unusual about that. I'll take your word for it. if you're going to complain about definitional issues, you will never be done with objectionable laws again, nothing unusual about this well, we are talking politics, no? I would be surprised if it weren't political.
the Georgia "takeover law" is far more complicated than has been described in this thread, and I think it is highly unlikely that ANYONE knows yet how it will play out see for example https://www.gpb.org/news/2021/07/29/how-does-georgias-election-board-takeover-law-work-not-quickly How Does Georgia's Election Board Takeover Law Work? Not Quickly July 29, 2021 3:30 PM By:Stephen Fowler The latest battle over Georgia's massive new voting law is over sections that allow state officials to temporarily take over county elections boards, with Republicans eyeing Fulton County in particular. But a GPB News analysis of the measures included in SB 202 suggest a takeover of Fulton is unlikely to happen any time soon — if at all. Fulton County has been the epicenter for discussions over the 2020 election, with some Republicans advancing conspiracies and falsehoods that say fraud and wrongdoing cost former President Trump the state's electoral votes. Although three different counts of the votes confirmed the results, a state-appointed monitor found no evidence of fraud, and numerous accusations have been debunked, Georgia's most populous county has not done itself any favors with the actual problems and long lines that have plagued parts of the process over the years. Now, Republican lawmakers want to trigger an investigation process that could see the five-member appointed elections board temporarily suspended and replaced by a single person appointed by the State Election Board. This week, Senate President Pro Tem Butch Miller (R-Gainesville) sent a letter to the State Election Board signed by 27 GOP senators asking for the SEB to initiate a performance review of Fulton County elections director Rick Barron to determine if he should be fired. But that's not quite how the law works. While Republicans and Democrats alike have painted a takeover of Fulton's elections as inevitable, a review of the law, the potential process and the politics behind the decision shows it could potentially be more of a political talking point than a likely outcome. How does the performance review process start? First, we start with a definition. According to new State Code Section 21-2-105 on page 20 of the law, the term "local election official" means a county board of elections (appointed by local governments), a municipal election superintendent or a probate judge acting as election superintendent. These officials by law are technically the election superintendents, tasked with things such as choosing polling places, hearing voter challenges and certifying election results. This does not include hired county elections directors, such as Fulton County's Rick Barron. A performance review of local elections officials (like the five-member Fulton elections board) may be initiated by the local governing authority (Fulton County Commission) or by two House members and two senators who represent that county (or one of each for counties that have three or fewer total state lawmakers) filing a request. In Fulton's case, while the Senate letter includes more than two dozen signatures, the only ones that matter are Sens. John Albers, Matt Brass and Kay Kirkpatrick, all Republicans whose districts include Fulton County. At least two Republican House members who represent Fulton are likely to support a review as well, and once that is sent to the State Election Board, the board has 30 days to appoint an independent review board. That board will be made up of one member of the Secretary of State's office and two other local elections officials, meaning two other county elections board members or probate judges who run elections. What is a performance review? According to SB 202, the review shall "make a thorough and complete investigation of the local election official with respect to all actions of the local election official," including maintaining election equipment, oversight of registration and elections and compliance with state law. Presumably, this review board would also look into the numerous allegations made about Fulton County's elections, from unfounded claims of fraud to more concrete examples of problems with the voting process that did not affect the outcome of the election. Crucially, there is no time limit placed on how long this board has to conduct the investigation. From there, a report would be issued to the Secretary of State's office, the State Election Board and the Fulton County Commission with its findings, which will include "evaluations, judgments and recommendations as it deems appropriate." Apart from the specific Fulton County example, the State Election Board can appoint its own independent review board for counties that it thinks has made mistakes and violations worth investigating. What happens after the review board investigation? After the review board delivers a report to the SEB, code Section 21-2-33.2 on page 12 of the law comes into play. After receiving a report from the review board, the local government can ask the state board to temporarily suspend the election board. In this case, it seems unlikely Fulton County would issue a request, since Commission Chairman Robb Pitts has been adamantly opposed to inquiries into the county's election business. The State Election Board can also pursue the steps to remove an elections board, based on the review board's report or on its own. If an independent review found that Fulton's elections board should be suspended, then the SEB would conduct its own preliminary investigation into the allegations, with a preliminary hearing scheduled between 30-90 days of receiving the request for a takeover. That hearing would determine if probable cause exists or if the case should be dismissed. From there, the state board would then schedule a full hearing on the issue and decide whether or not to suspend the local election officials for a period of nine months. The officials in question can also request a continuance on the hearings and decisions for a number of reasons, especially as election season picks up again with municipal races in November 2021 and primaries in spring 2022. In that full hearing, at least three of the four SEB members would have to find that the Fulton election board either broke three election rules or laws in the last two general election cycles in 2018 and 2020 or if there is "clear and convincing evidence" that the board demonstrated "nonfeasance, malfeasance, or gross negligence" in running two elections in a two-year period. Currently, there are three Republicans and one Democrat on the State Election Board, with the chair position vacant after the GOP legislature stripped Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger from his role and failed to appoint a replacement. The new law also places strict limitations on who is eligible to be board chair that limits extreme partisans from holding that role. What happens if the board is suspended? If the process makes it this far, a review board does find cause to suspend the board and the State Election Board agrees that Fulton's elections board should be suspended, there is another guardrail in place before the process is over. Fulton (and other boards subject to this procedure) can petition for reinstatement between 30-60 days after the suspension, which includes a hearing to determine if restoring the elections board "is more likely than not to improve the ability to conduct elections in a manner that complies with this chapter." That process requires at least 30 days' notice and must happen by 90 days after the request. If that request is denied, then it can be appealed to the courts as governed by State Code 50-13-19. From there, Fulton would have 30 days to petition the Superior Court of Fulton County and a hearing would be scheduled, adding even more time to the process. Ultimately, if it were to go through, at the end of the nine-month suspension period a majority of the State Election Board could decide that the county would no longer need a temporary superintendent or the county could appoint a new election board. more
conclusion How long does the process take, then? It will almost certainly be well into 2022 before any final resolution of Republican lawmakers' desire to investigate Fulton County's elections. If the request for a performance review were delivered to the State Election Board on August 1, the State Election Board would have to appoint a review board by the end of the month. The review process does not have a time limit, and could take several months to review evidence and allegations made against the county that is home to one in 10 Georgia voters. From there, it would take between one to three months for the SEB to meet, decide to hold a preliminary hearing, set a date and decide to have a full hearing. And at any point in the process, Fulton could request a continuance because of obligations for the November municipal elections, any runoffs or other reasons for good cause. If the SEB decides to suspend the Fulton elections board, there is another one- to two-month period in which the county can ask to be reinstated, at which point a hearing is scheduled that will be held between one to two months after that request. The state hearing process alone could take up to seven months after an independent investigation is complete, pushing the timeline for a takeover — if it even happens — well into next year. Plus, it is likely that Fulton would file legal challenges to the takeover process at some point, potentially tying things up in the courts even longer. So is it likely that Fulton's elections board will be suspended? The short answer is probably no, based on the guardrails set forth in the law, the temperament of the current State Election Board members and the numerous opportunities for the county to make improvements in its process over the next several months — not to mention the elections that will take place in that time. Suspending the Fulton elections board would not necessarily result in elections director Rick Barron being fired, which is the stated goal of some Republicans like Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger (who has been removed from this process) and others who have attacked Fulton elections. The temporary superintendent does have the power to hire and fire the elections director. But the state-appointed monitor of Fulton's elections said doing so would not solve Fulton's problems while other staffing changes might. The county is currently searching for a new registration chief and has retooled its absentee voting staff and structure to fix issues identified in the 2020 election cycle that have contributed to conspiracies about the vote counting. Suspending the elections board would be an extraordinary step for the State Election Board to take, especially for the Republican members that are not as directly beholden to constituencies who may falsely believe the election was stolen as some lawmakers who are angling for higher office. Even if the Fulton elections board is replaced by a temporary superintendent, the person picked by the SEB would likely not be successful in taking steps to undermine the county's elections — especially if the supposed intent of having them in place is to improve failing processes. Finally, the lengthy nature of the takeover process and numerous hearings give opportunities for Fulton to show changes made to address concerns that an independent review board might bring up and avoid the nuclear option of replacing the five-member board. With several elections coming up before November 2022, the county can also show smoother processes and voting experiences that could alleviate concerns brought by state officials. Additionally, the takeover provision is one of many sections currently being challenged in federal court (in eight different lawsuits) and might not be in place. Because this process has never been used before for elections, and because decisions on election boards are normally made at the local level, there are many unknowns about how the process will ultimately play out, if at all. But the bottom line is that nothing will happen quickly.
Your perspective here makes no sense to me. How can it not be clear that this law was passed as a result of what happened in GA? They wanted to remove the election officials who were blocking changing vote tallies. They couldn't do it. So they passed this law so they could now remove those officials for essentially any reason at any point and replace them. You know that this law was intended to ensure a Trump victory in 2024
I get that that may be true, but from a policy analysis perspective that is almost wholly irrelevant even if it was, that doesn't mean it cannot be impartially evaluated (to the extent that impartiality is possible)
