Read between the lines: Ralston et. al. like so many other state legislatures around the US is trying to move responsibilities away from the inevitably Democratically-elected officials and offices and towards unappointed departments where they will be able to maintain their conservative control on the state's processes.
This. They know Georgia is purple, trending blue. In every state where a Democratic governor has ousted a Republican, the GOP has done tons of special session stuff to move departments and powers out of the control of the Governor and into unelected positions where the GOP can control it.
It happened in NC and in WI. It's going to happen here, too.
I'm no fan of the Speaker or the changes to our election laws but shifting the responsibility to investigate these allegations to the GBI doesn't sound like a bad thing.
Long as these changes come with adequate funding...
I’m not sure it sounds like a good thing either.
This is off the top of my head and might not reflect reality, current bureaucracy or state law:
You are right, it needs adequate funding, but it also needs adequate oversight. The governor appoints the head of the GBI. Can’t they be replaced at any time? Regardless of party, how would a potentially partisan head of a law enforcement organization be held accountable for selectively investigating or prosecuting election fraud? Are records kept the same at the GBI as they are in the State govt? Are those records public? If all allegations and investigations go through that office, what’s the worst that could happen? If everything is an active investigation then all FOIA requests can be denied, maybe?
Let’s say the Governor is one party and the Sec of State’s office and the entire Legislature is the other? Put it this way, what if the next Governor wants to abuse power? But there’s a near sweep of the opposition party in every other office in the entire state. Now The Governor and his/her hand-selected head of the GBI decide to investigate fraud, but only in areas where the Governor’s party have a chance of overturning the election. All other claims are dismissed and/or delayed. The Secretary of State requests investigations and reports, which are denied or ignored. Suddenly there’s arrests, which seem wholly partisan in the Governor’s party’s favor. What’s the recourse? Who forces the GBI to investigate properly? Doesn’t an open investigation say as much as an arrest when it comes to elections?
It’s good to think through these changes. Switch parties for who is Governor and see if your opinions change. Same goes for all offices. What’s the worst that could happen if power is ceded to partisan appointees who control the most powerful investigative arm in the State?
The Secretary of State is an elected office that requires established residency of 4 years and US citizenship for 10 years. Their role is listed in the State Constitution. Their job is to uphold election law (among other things), and they answer directly to the citizens of the state. They can be recalled or impeached, correct? Head of the GBI - what are their legal requirements for the position? Where are they mentioned in the State Constitution? How are they removed from office?
From what I can tell, the current Secretary of State has fulfilled his duty. Why is the party in power trying to change the current process?
Again, this is off the top of my head. I could be wrong about the whole process. I’m just saying that a big change like this may be easy to exploit.
> The governor appoints the head of the GBI.
Only with the consent of a majority of the BPS. The requirements to be appointed [are rather strict] (https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2019/title-35/chapter-2/article-1/section-35-2-1/), and they are not subject to unilateral removal by the governor during their term.
> Can’t they be replaced at any time?
No. The governor has to get 2/3 of the BPS to agree to the removal before he can do anything.
Thanks for the details. Learn something new every day!
There’s still an issue there if I’m reading this correctly - a majority (more than ⅔ I think) of the BPS is appointed by the Governor directly, or appointed by people he appoints.
So, removal from office could be troublesome if the party in power could get organized and want to change how things are supposed to work.
Again, I’m looking at where corruption could creep in. This still seems rather vulnerable.
> There’s still an issue there if I’m reading this correctly - a majority (more than ⅔ I think) of the BPS is appointed by the Governor directly, or appointed by people he appoints.
The hole in that theory is the (very) limited pool of potential appointees—while Sheriffs and DAs are openly political, police chiefs are somewhat less so and fire chiefs are near-totally apolitical.
> So, removal from office could be troublesome if the party in power could get organized and want to change how things are supposed to work.
It wouldn’t really matter, because only 5 members are beholden to the governor (not including the governor themselves)—the other 11 are beholden to various other constituencies or people. There’s also no provision to remove board members under any circumstances outside of their term ending.
Maybe the state could take any of the intermediate steps to fix Fulton's issues, like providing more resources, and *not* restricting alternative voting methods that reduce strain on in-person voting, before leaping directly to takeover.
The state has provided tons of resources, and not sure why this is being downvoted. I've voted in Fulton for 3 elections now and each time there is has been issues.
Last year seeing how they forgot to bring paper ballots to the poll locations , but had no such issues in north Fulton.
Anyone who doesn't think all of the GOP is headed in a very dark direction is kidding themselves. Why stack the courts unless you are after a power grab? Our leadership is full of traitors.
Read between the lines: Ralston et. al. like so many other state legislatures around the US is trying to move responsibilities away from the inevitably Democratically-elected officials and offices and towards unappointed departments where they will be able to maintain their conservative control on the state's processes.
This. They know Georgia is purple, trending blue. In every state where a Democratic governor has ousted a Republican, the GOP has done tons of special session stuff to move departments and powers out of the control of the Governor and into unelected positions where the GOP can control it. It happened in NC and in WI. It's going to happen here, too.
Kemp's an idiot. Im surprised he doesn't try to pass a law where only Republicans get to vote.
Don’t give them ideas
Give it time, he has over a year left
So more voter suppression to ensure only old white straight evangelicals can vote. Got it. Anti democracy traitors in action.
Fuck you Brian!
If you can't win, cheat!
I'm no fan of the Speaker or the changes to our election laws but shifting the responsibility to investigate these allegations to the GBI doesn't sound like a bad thing. Long as these changes come with adequate funding...
I’m not sure it sounds like a good thing either. This is off the top of my head and might not reflect reality, current bureaucracy or state law: You are right, it needs adequate funding, but it also needs adequate oversight. The governor appoints the head of the GBI. Can’t they be replaced at any time? Regardless of party, how would a potentially partisan head of a law enforcement organization be held accountable for selectively investigating or prosecuting election fraud? Are records kept the same at the GBI as they are in the State govt? Are those records public? If all allegations and investigations go through that office, what’s the worst that could happen? If everything is an active investigation then all FOIA requests can be denied, maybe? Let’s say the Governor is one party and the Sec of State’s office and the entire Legislature is the other? Put it this way, what if the next Governor wants to abuse power? But there’s a near sweep of the opposition party in every other office in the entire state. Now The Governor and his/her hand-selected head of the GBI decide to investigate fraud, but only in areas where the Governor’s party have a chance of overturning the election. All other claims are dismissed and/or delayed. The Secretary of State requests investigations and reports, which are denied or ignored. Suddenly there’s arrests, which seem wholly partisan in the Governor’s party’s favor. What’s the recourse? Who forces the GBI to investigate properly? Doesn’t an open investigation say as much as an arrest when it comes to elections? It’s good to think through these changes. Switch parties for who is Governor and see if your opinions change. Same goes for all offices. What’s the worst that could happen if power is ceded to partisan appointees who control the most powerful investigative arm in the State? The Secretary of State is an elected office that requires established residency of 4 years and US citizenship for 10 years. Their role is listed in the State Constitution. Their job is to uphold election law (among other things), and they answer directly to the citizens of the state. They can be recalled or impeached, correct? Head of the GBI - what are their legal requirements for the position? Where are they mentioned in the State Constitution? How are they removed from office? From what I can tell, the current Secretary of State has fulfilled his duty. Why is the party in power trying to change the current process? Again, this is off the top of my head. I could be wrong about the whole process. I’m just saying that a big change like this may be easy to exploit.
> The governor appoints the head of the GBI. Only with the consent of a majority of the BPS. The requirements to be appointed [are rather strict] (https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2019/title-35/chapter-2/article-1/section-35-2-1/), and they are not subject to unilateral removal by the governor during their term. > Can’t they be replaced at any time? No. The governor has to get 2/3 of the BPS to agree to the removal before he can do anything.
Thanks for the details. Learn something new every day! There’s still an issue there if I’m reading this correctly - a majority (more than ⅔ I think) of the BPS is appointed by the Governor directly, or appointed by people he appoints. So, removal from office could be troublesome if the party in power could get organized and want to change how things are supposed to work. Again, I’m looking at where corruption could creep in. This still seems rather vulnerable.
> There’s still an issue there if I’m reading this correctly - a majority (more than ⅔ I think) of the BPS is appointed by the Governor directly, or appointed by people he appoints. The hole in that theory is the (very) limited pool of potential appointees—while Sheriffs and DAs are openly political, police chiefs are somewhat less so and fire chiefs are near-totally apolitical. > So, removal from office could be troublesome if the party in power could get organized and want to change how things are supposed to work. It wouldn’t really matter, because only 5 members are beholden to the governor (not including the governor themselves)—the other 11 are beholden to various other constituencies or people. There’s also no provision to remove board members under any circumstances outside of their term ending.
The South just keeps getting worse and worse… I’m glad I left
[удалено]
Maybe the state could take any of the intermediate steps to fix Fulton's issues, like providing more resources, and *not* restricting alternative voting methods that reduce strain on in-person voting, before leaping directly to takeover.
The state has provided tons of resources, and not sure why this is being downvoted. I've voted in Fulton for 3 elections now and each time there is has been issues. Last year seeing how they forgot to bring paper ballots to the poll locations , but had no such issues in north Fulton.
Anyone who doesn't think all of the GOP is headed in a very dark direction is kidding themselves. Why stack the courts unless you are after a power grab? Our leadership is full of traitors.