This is going to come as a shock to you, so you'd better sit down.
Hey, you know, there are other things going on in politics besides La Puerta Del Sol. Seriously. In fact, there's a story in the ABH today about another issue that we are very passionate about - namely the racist voter ID bill that was passed (by ethics guru and campaign finance law violater Bill Stephens) and the ensuing challenge in federal court.
Now this is important stuff. In fact, thousands of people's abilities to vote may be riding on it. The law is being challenged by the ACLU, AARP, and League of Women Voters.
And during a hearing yesterday, Cathy Cox (wearing her Secretary of State hat, not her candidate for Governor hat) testified. According to Cox, this law actually makes it easier to commit voter fraud, because no ID is required to vote absentee.
We should also point out that in our political opinion, this law is nothing more than a blatant attempt to disenfranchise minorites, the elderly, and poor people. Why so bold, Athens Politics? Because according to Cox, who as the state's numbah one election official should know these things, there have no cases of voter fraud by impersonation in Georgia.
Some hotshot Republican appointee to the State Elections Board told reporters that they had a list of "5,400 people [who] had voted who had names similar to those found on a database of dead Georgians."
Similar? Like what? John Smith? Robert Green? Professor Plum with a candlestick in the conservatory? Sorry, we digress.
Similar names do not convincing evidence make, pal. And unless you've got hard evidence that someone is committing voter fraud that the Secretary of State doesn't know about, then keep yer yap shut.
It's also interesting to note that when 13 Augusta voters were turned away under the new law for not having photo ID, only two returned to make their provisional ballot official. (Voters who don't have their ID are allowed to vote on a provisional ballot, and then by showing ID can make their votes count). That's hardly a representative sample, we know, but what if it is indicative of what's going to happen under this law?
Anyway, the federal judge is going to rule on this one "as soon as possible."
For more background on this law, we'd refer you to this post and this post.