Governor Elect Kemp and Speaker Ralston on Abrams’ “Announcement”

All right. Let us try this again.
Removing people from voter rolls due to inactivity is state law. It has been consistently enforced by previous secretaries of state including Democrats. The same law exists in other states. That some – though not all – Democrats oppose this law and do not wish to see it enforced is not the same as some illegal racist conspiracy to disenfranchise black voters. And yes, purging rolls of inactive voters is something that has repeatedly been deemed as valid by the Supreme Court in Georgia and in other states.

The exact match issue:: more of the same. It is a law passed and enacted in accordance with the legitimate political process and it withstood Supreme Court challenges. If you feel that the law has a disparate impact in its effect or was discriminatory in its intent then gain the governor’s office and a majority in the legislature – since the courts are not a remedy as it has already been upheld – and change it. While the law is in effect, calling Kemp a racist or making any other charges against his competence or character for enforcing it is wrong and no one who makes these charges should ever be supported for any public office.

The problems at various urban polling locations with misallocated voting machines, broken equipment, long lines: not Kemp’s fault or problem. Elections are managed locally by county election boards and not the state. Also, such problems – particularly in DeKalb and Fulton – are chronic, occurring in every election where there is a large turnout, which means no correlation between Kemp or any other statewide elected official. Anyone who claims that Kemp was behind the city of Atlanta requesting voting machines and not receiving them is simply not telling the truth and nothing that they say should be believed.

The Abrams’ campaign’s claim concerning tens of thousands of ballots that existed that the secretary of state was trying to prevent from being counted was never true. Those ballots never existed. The Abrams’ campaign knew this was so when they were claiming it. Which means that Abrams’ lawsuits, PR moves and other attempts to delay and prolong the certification was a farce. It was never about “counting every vote.” Abrams never demanded that “every vote be counted’ in the many races that she has won. And it wasn’t because it was close. It has always been clear and obvious that even if all of the outstanding ballots were added to Abrams’ total it would still not be enough to force a recount. Abrams’ entire basis was claims that a trove of ballots existed that never did. The Kemp campaign, the secretary of state’s office – including when it was being run by Crittenden – and the various county election boards all consistently said the same: that the ballots that the Abrams campaign claimed to exist did not. They challenged Abrams to provide evidence that these ballots existed, she never did (because they do not). That the media never once challenged Abrams about where these ballots were or how she expected to force a runoff demonstrates where their sympathies lied, and it wasn’t neutrality, the process or fairness.

In every election – again including the ones that Abrams has won – there are going to be uncounted ballots and failed attempts to vote due to voter error (the primary cause), mechanical failure or administrative failure. But this is not anything exceptional: humans are not perfect and neither is anything that they administer. But taking the issues that occur in every single election all over the country and claim that in this one election between these particular candidates the problems were due to a racist conpiracy is demagoguery.

I am not deying that there is a context here. Kemp takes an aggressive, literalist approach towards voter registration and does so in order to limit the ability of minority and other likely voters to cast ballots as possible. In short, Kemp makes it as hard for blacks to vote as possible because 95% of blacks vote Democrat and he is a Republican. Because of this, Kemp has tangled with Abrams before, invalidating countless registrations that Abrams’ various political operations have submitted over the past decade. You don’t have to like it – I certainly don’t – but the issue is that Kemps actions were always entirely legal. Kemp has never acted outside of the law. He has attempted to use aggressive interpretations of the law and has been forced to back down by the courts numerous times. But he has never sought to invalidate voter registrations on the basis of laws that do not exist. He has acted to partisan advantage. His actions have had a disproportionate impact against black voters. His actions may have even been motivated by racial animus. None of that changes the fact that his actions are entirely 100% legal. That is why none of Abrams’ tactics were ever going to succeed and it was just an exercise in delaying the inevitable.

Of course, you have a lot of people on the progressive side of the ledger who believe that laws that they doo not agree with should not be enforced and indeed should be actively resisted. That is where the “sanctuary city” and “abolish ICE” mindset comes from. So a lot of people believe that merely by virtue of the fact that they disagree with such policies as disenfranchising felons, purging inactive voters and preventing those who made any number of simple mistakes with their voter registration applications or on election day makes it wrong … “my disagreeing with something makes it worng and illegal.” That. Is. Not. How. The. Law. Works. If it did, what prevents the other side from having the same approach to civil rights, abortion, environmental, worker protection and other laws that they disagree with? What happens if Texas decides that it is going to be a “sanctuary state” from minimum wage laws and overtime laws? The behavior of the Abrams campaign and others like it often makes me wish that they would actually try it and see what happens.

I will say it again: If you think that the state of Georgia makes it too hard for black people to vote, gain the governor’s mansioin and the legislature and change them. This anti-Trump climate against a very weak candidate in Kemp was the ideal opportunity to begin the process of doing so because with a Democrat in the governor’s office the redistricting process would have gone entirely differently. Unfortunately Democrats picked the wrong candidate. Abrams has claimed for years that she was capable of registering enough minority, liberal and progressive voters to simply outnumber this state’s center-right majority on election day and in that way gain control of the governor’s office without having to move to the right in the same way that Charlie Baker or any Republican who wishes to get elected in a liberal state has to move left. Had the Democrats nominated a Joe Manchin or Bob Casey the rural voters that turned out huge for Kemp – in numbers and percentages that exceeded their voters for Trump in the presidential election and Sonny Perdue in state ones – would have divided their votes more evenly or stayed home. I will give you an example: the Arizona Senate race. The Democrat in that race used to be a true blue dyed in the wool progressive activist. But she spent the last 15 years moving to the center, establishing a moderate record and thanks to that was able to beat Martha McSalley in a red state to become their first Democatic senator in 30 years.

This race was only close because of Trump and Kemp. Had Hillary Clinton won in 2016 or had the GOP nominated practically anybody else the margin would have been 150,000 (or more) instead of 15,000. May be that is a lesson for the Democrats in 2018 and 2020 but unfortunately that climate won’t be anywhere near as favorable for them as this one was.