
<p>Georgia is the epicenter on the issue of voter suppression …. or voter protection. ; Gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams is the poster child of the suppression argument. ; She represents Democrats across the nation who claim that Republican legislators and governors in half the states are enacting restrictions on voting that is suppressing minority voters. ; At least that is her claim.</p>



<p>While the claims of voter suppression make a good partisan election year narrative, is there any legitimacy to them? ; If you go past the headline and take a deep dive into the specifics and the facts, you will discover that the answer is “no.” ; The claim is as empty as Vice President Harris’ list of accomplishments.</p>



<p>Abrams made a big deal about Georgia’s more recent election laws – claiming they were suppressing the vote. ; In response, the overly woke National Baseball Association switched the All-Star Game from Atlanta to Denver – a state with more restrictive voting laws than does Georgia even after the new legislation. ;</p>



<p>Even Biden’s home state of Delaware has more restrictive voting laws than Georgia. President Biden’s repeated claims (lies) about Georgia election laws won him four Pinocchios from the <em>Washington Post</em>.</p>



<p>Even as the left continues to point to non-existent voter suppression in Georgia, the black population has been voting in record numbers in several of the recent elections.</p>



<p>CNN newly reassigned morning anchor Don Lemon – when confronted with the increase in black voter participation in Georgia – said that two things can be possible at the same time. ; In this case, voter suppression and an increase in the number of “suppressed” voters. ; ;</p>



<p>Sorry, Don … this is not one of those situations in which two things can be true at the same time. ; By definition, voter suppression means engaging in policies and actions that actually LOWER voter participation. ; Based on the increased numbers of black voters in Georgia, the Peach State can legitimately claim to be one of the least prejudicial states in terms of black voters.</p>



<p>But the issue is not just about Georgia. ; Democrats call all the recently passed election laws in more than 25 states – and what the claim will be of future actions by legislators and Secretaries-of-State – suppression against blacks. ; These claims of future voting suppression and cheating by Republicans in future elections lose credibility when you examine how totally dishonest and wrong are the Democrats’ claims of suppression today. ; After all, if you are going to whole cloth lie about the current situation, why should anyone put any trust in those future claims? ; ; ;</p>



<p>Virtually every Republican-backed law in every state focused on ballot protection. ; Democrats do not like to talk about the specifics of the laws because most of the provisions are common sense and widely popular with voters.</p>



<p>To maintain voting integrity there are two essential issues. ; First, is the assurance that the ballot is being cast by the person who has a legitimate right to vote. ; Fake votes and fake voters have been an evergreen problem in maintaining election integrity.</p>



<p>Among the provisions in the new legislation is the requirement to show a photo identification at the polling place – or submit it with mail-in ballots. ; Some legislation requires that the polling roles be purged of the dead or those who have moved to other jurisdictions. ; Democrats oppose those commonsense measures – and called them voter suppression.</p>



<p>Other portions of the legislation deal with weak points in the “chain of custody” – the security along the route as ballots move to and from voters and throughout the tabulation and reporting systems.</p>



<p>Some of the past legislation &#8212; allegedly to provide easier access to voting &#8212; created weak points in the system. ; Some of the new laws outlawed unattended ballot drop boxes. ; If the chain-of-custody has any meaning at all, there can be no … zero … unattended points along the way. ; In fact, there should be no point in which one party alone has exclusive access to the ballots, the machinery and the voting process.</p>



<p>Democrats oppose having partisan stakeholders oversee the process. ; Three is no end to the mischief that can take place when only one party is in charge. ; Yet, you hear Democrats opposing the participation of partisan observers &#8212; a concept that for generations has been at the core of voting integrity.</p>



<p>Some of the laws restored the historic restrictions against the once illegal practice of “ballot harvesting” and “dumping.” ; These are practices in which one person may enter multiple ballots into the system. ; Whether by mail, early voting or election day voting, each ballot should be submitted by the individual voter.</p>



<p>As a person who has labored in the field of election integrity, I have been a constant critic of early voting and unattended ballot drop off boxes. ; I see no need to extend early voting beyond ten days ahead of Election Day – and there is no need for unattended ballot drop boxes.</p>



<p>While the Pollyanna left proffers the claim that there is no such thing as election fraud, cheating and irregularities, the fact remains that if there are opportunities to steal votes, there will be stolen votes. ; The system needs to be based on pre-emptive protection. ; We need to minimize the opportunities to steal votes by not counting an opponent’s votes … switching votes from one candidate to another … or packing the ballot box with fraudulent ballots.</p>



<p>In every election, there will be cheating somewhere to some extent. ; The best we can do is to keep it to an absolute minimum – and hopefully prevent it from producing dishonest election results. ; The most important aspect of vote integrity is an effective chain of custody with monitoring by all stakeholders – candidates and parties &#8212; throughout the process.</p>



<p>It is true that that the vast majority of voting in millions of precincts is conducted fairly and honestly – but that is not true everywhere. ; If you want to identify where vote fraud is taking place, the first sign is anywhere that there is one-party rule – where stakeholders of other parties are not present. ; In the worst cases, workers of one party will take up the election judge position devoted to the other party. ; In those cases, there is no end to the virtually undetectable mischief that can … and does … take place.</p>



<p>Under the claim of making voting easier and more accessible to more people, we have built in weak points in the process. ; Early voting – for all its advantages – create prolonged periods of time in which ballots are not supervised by all stakeholders. In most cases, the stored ballots are under the control of only one partisan elected official.</p>



<p>No matter what you believe about the outcome of the 2020 election, there should be a universal devotion to effective protections in the balloting process. ; Democrats, unfortunately, call that suppression and racism. ; Why do they have a problem with ballot security?</p>



<p>So, there ‘tis.</p>

Is it vote suppression … or vote protection?
