Thread by @BregmanPs

@jaketapper The first page of the Georgia law is full of signs that they are acting in bad faith. They frequently refer to the need to address the loss of voter confidence n the 2020 election and to make the laws "uniform".

@jaketapper If their goal is really about voter confidence Kemp would reopen the legislature, hold hearings and amend the law. The statements by corporations and the strong concerns of voters make it clear the law doesn't have the confidence of Georgia voters.

@jaketapper Can't wait to see them squirm in court when they try to justify some very undemocratic changes by claiming they are restoring confidence in the election system in Georgia.

@jaketapper The frequent reference to "uniformity" is a trigger word that tells human rights lawyers there is a genuine problem with the bill. Treading everyone identically isn't equality. Imposing the same rules on people assumes that they are starting in the same position.

@jaketapper I'll stay away from elections for example. A deaf couple in Canada requested an ASL interpreter to be present when their baby was delivered. There were complications and they wanted to be sure they understood what was happening.

@jaketapper The hospital refused saying written notes would suffice. There was a problem during the delivery with the baby's heart rate. It turned out ok but there were hours of stress. It's hard to imagine any woman giving birth in a complicated labor would think passing notes works.

@jaketapper The case went to the Supreme Court of Canada. The BC government that ran the insurance program argued that they were treated like every other Canadian, they didn't have to pay for the do tor or hospital. It was up to them to pay for an interpreter.

@jaketapper The court ruled that it was discrimination because health care is more than a series of actions by doctors, communication is essential to the process in some cases. Identical treatment resulted in a service that wasn't of the same quality as if they could hear or have ASL.

@jaketapper Sorry for the diversion I didn't want to use examples that could be seen as commenting on specific provisions. Some examples of the disadvantage voters may experience in the Georgia bill by "uniform" treatment.

@jaketapper Any person can challenge the eligibility of as many voters as they choose at the pools or when there is an application for an absentee ballot. . It's not clear how someone would get information that a person has requested a ballot but that's a separate issue.

@jaketapper The law requires the voter to be given 3 days-notice delivered by 1st class mail. We learned during the past election that the period for delivering mail isn't uniform. The law doesn't allow electronic delivery or delivery by courier. It specifies 1st class mail.

@jaketapper A 3-day turnaround is very short given the mail delays we all experienced. Treating everyone the same means people who live where ail delivery is slower are at a disadvantage. If they miss the hearing or other process their name may be struck from the voter's rolls.

@jaketapper They may have to hire a lawyer to help them get back on the rolls. The State Board can issue new rules that might include a prohibition against having a friend or service provider assist with the response.

@jaketapper It's not hard to see how a single person challenging hundreds of thousands of voters can tie up the county election process. If the county doesn't perform to the standards of the Election Board appointed by the GOP legislature they can be replaced.

@jaketapper The law has taken away the authority of the Secretary of State to run the election. The SOS is no longer the chair of the State Election Board. They are an ex officio non-voting member who is required to follow direction from the unelected Board.

@jaketapper The law gives the Board the authority to make emergency orders. Some other measures imposing "uniformity". Weekend voting. The state is right that there are 100 counties that never had weekend voting. They will now be required to have 2 days. The law doesn't stop there.

@jaketapper It sets a maximum number of early voting days on weekends. There is no rationale for this limit. The media should ask why they made the lowest common denominator the maximum when there was strong public support to increase the number of days.

@jaketapper They do the same with many of the rules that were originally put in place to make it easier to vote. Closing the polls at 5 p is another example. If counties are supposed to run the election why should the state constrain them from serving the needs of their voters.

@jaketapper Another change that will raises questions about their intentions is the authority of the State Elections Board over the county election officials. The State Board can be asked to do performance reviews of the county boards.

@jaketapper There is a claim in the bill that many county boards were dysfunctional. There is no specific information nor were problems apparent during the election. They refer to long lines, but that was a function of reducing polling stations, not dysfunctional boards.

@jaketapper There will also be an anonymous tip line for election intimidation and irregularities. The Board has the right to investigate within 3 days, but they are not required to investigate. On the other hand, the county boards have many new mandates.

@jaketapper Another change in uniformity that makes it more unfair: grants to help defray the costs of the election. The law prohibits accepting grants and certain funds. It is confusing because the law also allows the Board to distribute donations among counties as they see fit.

@jaketapper Distributing money 'equally" is fair only if all of the counties start out with the same resources. Otherwise, it enriches those that are already well resourced and maintains the disadvantage of boards in less affluent counties. Handing out identical amounts isn't fair.

@jaketapper It's as though they went through every law to see how they could further disadvantage some counties by making additional things like ballots boxes capped at the minimum that existed rather than the maximum. There is no rational reason given.

@jaketapper Reading individual sections without the context isn't how the law or courts analyze laws to see if they are discriminatory. This one has all the clues that this is intended to increase or at least sustain the existing disadvantage, not raise everybody up to the same level.