Tuesday, November 17, 2020

Watch the Donut, Not the (A-)Hole

It is entirely possible they are both right. The Georgia SOS heard what he reported to WaPo. Graham insists that's not what he meant. There's a lot of CYA energy in that denial, but the question of how signatures are verified is a red herring and a voter suppression measure, not unlike asking how photo ID's "verify" a voter in person. My photo ID is an old picture of me. I've changed my glasses and have more grey hair since then. I dare say my face looks older.  If we're going to split hairs (!), do we need to verify that my DL picture is actually me as you see me before you now?  Do we need more than one person to review it?

There is a purpose behind these kinds of challenges, and it's a pernicious one.  Whether or not Sen. Graham committed a felony is ultimately irrelevant (he'll never be convicted on "he said/he said" evidence about a telephone conversation).  Why Sen. Graham asked the question in the first place is the crux of the matter, and what Sen. Graham was asking for as "relief" (as the lawyers say) is even more important.  This is turning into how many bubbles on a bar of soap, how many beans in the jar, type "tests" for who can vote and who can be denied their vote.  If two or more people have to verify a signature, why not two or more people verifying a photo ID?  And how good is their visual acuity?  Most of the poll workers I've ever seen wear glasses and are elderly, and my eyes aren't as good as they used to be. How far must we go to decide what "valid" is?  And what is the purpose?  Ballot security?  Or voter suppression?  Really a question of the end result, isn't it?

All of this would be as ridiculous as the soap test, if it weren't a completely logical extension of Sen. Graham's question to the Georgia SOS.

No comments:

Post a Comment