Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Don't mess with Georgia's mostly-in-person election system. It works best.

Opinion

Georgia primary, voters, long lines

The June 9 Georgia primary proved that a primarily mail voting system disenfranchises voters, writes state Sen. Bruce Thompson.

Elijah Nouvelage/Getty Images

Thompson, a Republican, has served in the Georgia Senate since 2013.


During the first seven months of the year, overshadowed by the coronavirus pandemic, I have seen a common trend across the country: government mandates limiting Americans' choices in every corner of our lives.

Justified or not, the lockdowns drastically limited where we could shop, where we could eat, where we could worship and the jobs we could be paid for.

Today, all 50 states are in various stages of reopening, and I am proud to represent voters in Georgia, where we were one of the first to return to some semblance of normalcy. Yet despite this early loosening of restrictions, our state is under a new threat that would limit another of our precious freedoms: how we cast our ballots in the presidential election in November.

Multiple lawsuits are exerting enormous pressure on judges and elected officials to vastly expand mail-in voting in Georgia while closing polling places — ostensibly to encourage as many mailed ballots as possible.

The premise is fundamentally flawed. Make no mistake: Our electoral institutions here in Georgia are already set up to operate in a pandemic like this one. These efforts would fundamentally transform them, eliminating the safeguards we need to protect the legitimacy of our election.

Georgia has a no-excuse absentee system in place, whereby any voter who chooses can request that a ballot be mailed to them through a request form. That form asks voters for their full name, address, birth date, an ID number and a signature. That information is verified against the voter's registration on file before the ballot is sent. The ballot itself has a return envelope with a line for a signature. The signature is compared against the one on the application, again checking for a match before counting the ballot.

In Georgia's electoral system, voting absentee is one choice for all voters. If voting in person is preferred, that is also our choice, and we have taken enormous steps to make the elections of 2020 the safest and most hygienic in history. Just a few measures include social distancing, face masks or shields, hand sanitizer, gloves and disposable marking devices for every voter. The list goes on.

It is safer to go to the polls this year, if you choose to do so, than it is to go to the grocery store.

But the culmination of these lawsuits is not to improve the electoral system we already have, but to fundamentally alter it. As we have seen in California, Nevada, Maryland and New Jersey, the goal is to send every name on the registration rolls a blank ballot — and then to allow third parties, even campaign staff, to collect them.

A lawsuit filed by the New Georgia Project, together with former Hillary Clinton attorney Marc Elias, specifically advocates for party operatives to be lawfully allowed to go door-to-door to collect completed ballots or "help" voters fill them out, a recipe for influencing voters' choices.

Polling place closures simply require more voters to participate in this system.

For evidence, consider the primary season. So many polling places were closed during the June 9 primary that each one would need to accommodate approximately 10,000 voters. The problems were especially obvious in minority communities, since Hispanic voters are three times less likely to vote absentee — and Black voters half as likely — as white voters. Georgia voters waited in line at polling places for up to five hours.

Mayors and other local officials bargained that voters would choose to vote absentee, and they made the corresponding decision to close polling places rather than develop innovative solutions to keep them staffed and open. These decision-makers did not take into account the Postal Service delays, the deluge of request forms at the Board of Elections, or the valued tradition of voting in-person on Election Day. We will never know how many voters were simply disenfranchised two months ago — either because they never received the ballot they requested or they felt compelled to drop off a very long line and walk away.

In other words, our primary proved it: Moving to primarily mail voting disenfranchises voters.

With so many safety protocols at polling places, and so many conspicuous issues with blank ballots reaching real voters, it's no wonder voters trust the traditional system of in-person voting more than the trial-and-error system of voting through the mail. Our priority must be creating a system that allows as many people as possible to vote safely and securely. For Georgia, that means keeping our established system of no-excuse absentee voting and in-person voting in place.


Read More

Nicolas Maduro’s Capture: Sovereignty Only Matters When It’s Convenient

US Capitol and South America. Nicolas Maduro’s capture is not the end of an era. It marks the opening act of a turbulent transition

AI generated

Nicolas Maduro’s Capture: Sovereignty Only Matters When It’s Convenient

The U.S. capture of Nicolás Maduro will be remembered as one of the most dramatic American interventions in Latin America in a generation. But the real story isn’t the raid itself. It’s what the raid reveals about the political imagination of the hemisphere—how quickly governments abandon the language of sovereignty when it becomes inconvenient, and how easily Washington slips back into the posture of regional enforcer.

The operation was months in the making, driven by a mix of narcotrafficking allegations, geopolitical anxiety, and the belief that Maduro’s security perimeter had finally cracked. The Justice Department’s $50 million bounty—an extraordinary price tag for a sitting head of state—signaled that the U.S. no longer viewed Maduro as a political problem to be negotiated with, but as a criminal target to be hunted.

Keep ReadingShow less
Red elephants and blue donkeys

The ACA subsidy deadline reveals how Republican paralysis and loyalty-driven leadership are hollowing out Congress’s ability to govern.

Carol Yepes

Governing by Breakdown: The Cost of Congressional Paralysis

Picture a bridge with a clearly posted warning: without a routine maintenance fix, it will close. Engineers agree on the repair, but the construction crew in charge refuses to act. The problem is not that the fix is controversial or complex, but that making the repair might be seen as endorsing the bridge itself.

So, traffic keeps moving, the deadline approaches, and those responsible promise to revisit the issue “next year,” even as the risk of failure grows. The danger is that the bridge fails anyway, leaving everyone who depends on it to bear the cost of inaction.

Keep ReadingShow less
White House
A third party candidate has never won the White House, but there are two ways to examine the current political situation, writes Anderson.
DEA/M. BORCHI/Getty Images

250 Years of Presidential Scandals: From Harding’s Oil Bribes to Trump’s Criminal Conviction

During the 250 years of America’s existence, whenever a scandal involving the U.S. President occurred, the public was shocked and dismayed. When presidential scandals erupt, faith and trust in America – by its citizens as well as allies throughout the world – is lost and takes decades to redeem.

Below are several of the more prominent presidential scandals, followed by a suggestion as to how "We the People" can make America truly America again like our founding fathers so eloquently established in the constitution.

Keep ReadingShow less
Money and the American flag
Half of Americans want participatory budgeting at the local level. What's standing in the way?
SimpleImages/Getty Images

For the People, By the People — Or By the Wealthy?

When did America replace “for the people, by the people” with “for the wealthy, by the wealthy”? Wealthy donors are increasingly shaping our policies, institutions, and even the balance of power, while the American people are left as spectators, watching democracy erode before their eyes. The question is not why billionaires need wealth — they already have it. The question is why they insist on owning and controlling government — and the people.

Back in 1968, my Government teacher never spoke of powerful think tanks like the Heritage Foundation, now funded by billionaires determined to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. Yet here in 2025, these forces openly work to control the Presidency, Congress, and the Supreme Court through Project 2025. The corruption is visible everywhere. Quid pro quo and pay for play are not abstractions — they are evident in the gifts showered on Supreme Court justices.

Keep ReadingShow less