Donate
News. Debate. Community. Levers for a better democracy.
Jessica McGowan/Getty Images

The League of Women Voters and its Georgia affiliate are asking the Georgia secretary of state to halt plans to remove 300,000 names from the state's voter rolls. Stacey Abrams' failed for Georgia governor was marked by allegations of voter suppression.

League of Women Voters asks Georgia to stop new voter purge

Georgia's plans to remove at least 300,000 names from the voting rolls before the primary in March are badly flawed and should be delayed or dropped altogether, one of the country's most renowned nonpartisan civic activist groups says.

The national League of Women Voters and its Georgia chapter have made that request to the Republican secretary of state, maintaining the biggest problems are with the state's policy of cancelling registrations of people simply because they haven't voted in five years.

The state's plan, announced two weeks ago, is getting heightened scrutiny because the primary could be a turning point in the Demoratic presidential contest and there will be three important races next fall: The parties will be competitive in a tight contest for Georgia's 16 electoral votes and both Senate seats. Republicans have won every statewide contest since 2004 but the record could be threatened if there's a big turnout from Democrats who have not been regular ballot-casters.


"Georgia's policy should be to encourage infrequent voters to participate in our democracy, not further alienate infrequent voters by purging them from the rolls and putting up another obstacle to further participation," the groups wrote in a letter last week drafted by the Campaign Legal Center, a democracy reform advocacy group.

Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger had not replied as of Friday morning.

Purging voter lists has historically been used to deny minorities the opportunity to vote. Often the people removed from the rolls don't realize it until they arrive to vote.

Danielle Lang, the CLC's co-director of voting rights and redistricting, said the biggest concern is for the estimated 100,000 who could lose their ability to vote in Georgia in 2020 only because they have not voted in the previous two federal elections.

This "use it or lose it" method for managing the rolls, the letter states, does not focus on those who legitimately should be removed — people who have moved, died, gone to prison or are otherwise no longer eligible to vote.

Two years ago Georgia culled 534,000 names from the rolls — 20 percent of them only for failure to vote in recent elections. A subsequent study found that most of those 107,000 ended up re-registering in the same county where they were listed before the purge. This helps illustrate "that the 'use it or lose it' program is not only bad policy but also violates the constitutional rights of Georgia citizens," the letter argues.

Stacey Abrams, whose narrow loss for governor of Georgia a year ago was accompanied by many allegations of voter suppression, has sued in federal court challenging several aspects of the state's voting laws including the one the League of Women Voters is fighting.

The Georgia law was changed this year to allow the process of removing a voter from the registration rolls to begin after five years of not voting instead of three. The law also created a new system under which the state tells inactive voters they'll be purged unless they speak up within 30 days. At a minimum, the League of Women Voters says, the time for replying to the notice should be doubled.



We’re all about the issues that have broken American democracy — and efforts to make governments work again for you, your family and your friends.
Donate
Washington Bureau/Getty Images

The House on Friday passed legislation to restore a provision of the Voting Rights Act struck down by the Supreme Court in 2013. The bill would require advance approval of voting changes in states with a history of discrimination. Here President Lyndon Johnson shares one of the pens he used to sign the Voting Rights Act of 1965 with civil rights leader the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Passage of historic voting rights law takes a partisan turn

In a partisan vote on an issue that once was bipartisan, House Democrats pushed through legislation Friday that would restore a key portion of the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

The Voting Rights Advancement Act passed the House 228-187, with all Democrats voting for the bill and all but one Republican, Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, voting against it.

The bill faces virtually no chance of being considered in the Republican-controlled Senate.

Keep reading... Show less
Big Picture

TV stations fight FCC over political ad disclosure

Broadcasters are pushing back against the Federal Communications Commission after the agency made clear it wants broader public disclosure regarding TV political ads.

With the 2020 election less than a year away and political TV ads running more frequently, the FCC issued a lengthy order to clear up any ambiguities licensees of TV stations had regarding their responsibility to record information about ad content and sponsorship. In response, a dozen broadcasting stations sent a petition to the agency, asking it to consider a more narrow interpretation of the law.

This dispute over disclosure rules for TV ads comes at a time when digital ads are subject to little regulation. Efforts to apply the same rules for TV, radio and print advertising across the internet have been stymied by Congress's partisanship and the Federal Election Commission being effectively out of commission.

Keep reading... Show less
News. Community. Debate. Levers for better democracy.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter.

1952 Eisenhower Answers America

On TV, political ads are regulated – but online, anything goes

Lightman is a professor of digital media and marketing at Carnegie Mellon University.

With the 2020 election less than a year away, Facebook is under fire from presidential candidates, lawmakers, civil rights groups and even its own employees to provide more transparency on political ads and potentially stop running them altogether.

Meanwhile, Twitter has announced that it will not allow any political ads on its platform.

Modern-day online ads use sophisticated tools to promote political agendas with a high degree of specificity.

I have closely studied how information propagates through social channels and its impact on political messaging and advertising.

Looking back at the history of mass media and political ads in the national narrative, I think it's important to focus on how TV advertising, which is monitored by the Federal Communications Commission, differs fundamentally with the world of social media.

Keep reading... Show less
© Issue One. All rights reserved.