Democrats Lied About the Georgia Senate Bill, The Truth About The Election Integrity Act
Democrats & the Biden Administration exagerated false claims, omitted information, and flat-out lied about the Georgia Senate Bill SB202 The Election Integrity Act.
In the post January 6, 2021 era when the hyper-partisan, team sport cheerleader mentality hit its peak, the predator class, their narrative managers in office and the National Security Apparatus wasted no time in blasting Americans with more warrantless surveillance, First amendment rights violations for protestors, more press freedom violations via police, and censorship via Big tech. Naturally to the Democratic Party that meant a strategic opportunity to increase their positive public perception in order to increase fundraising for the next cycle. Establishment Democrats and Republicans with direct aid from mainstream media, the upper echelons of the one percent, Hollywood, and various for-profit masked as non-profit organizations, managed to convince a large portion of America that this recent election was the “most secure” election in our history.
While millions remain unconvinced the status quo narrative that stuck was one where anyone questioning this last election was a “right-wing conspiracy theorist” and that Democrats were the good guys fighting against voter suppression. The truth is election fraud is a bipartisan practice and has been for decades, including most recently in North Carolina. Election integrity encompasses all facets of an election, including the chain of custody, what that means with vote by mails, ballot harvesting, security in transportation, signature verification, machine verification, proprietary versus open source software, voter suppression, election influence, censorship of information, and other specifics including audits.
A large majority of beltway Democrats smothered social and major news media with incensed critiques on the Georgia Senate Bill SB 202, The Election Integrity Act, equating it to the “New Jim Crow”. Even on the “progressive” left, largely silent or in denial on election fraud issues because the accusations came from the right and not from Bernie Sanders, this assessment was entirely accepted without any proof. This of course was also due to the weaponization of voter suppression as the central issue, only committed by the right and solely on the basis of racism. The reality is that the bill if looked at objectively, is not made to stop voters but rather to focus on the chain of custody and increase trust in elections through security, making it harder to commit fraud. The chain of custody as mentioned prior, deals with the movement of ballots and the security and integrity of that process, areas of election integrity that America is weak on compared to the rest of the world, including third world nations. While not a great bill because it simply does not do enough for election transparency, it is crucial to correct the record on what is actually in the piece of legislation versus what was framed by the mainstream to emotionally manipulate Americans.
Biden who has been exaggerating and making contradicting statements throughout his nearly five-decade long career, was caught in multiple lies regarding SB 202. Even the great beacon of truth, The Washington Post via journalist Glenn Kessler, admitted Biden lied when he stated in a news conference that the new Georgia law ended voting hours earlier. Biden said, “What I’m worried about is how un-American this whole initiative is. It’s sick. It’s sick … deciding that you’re going to end voting at five o’clock when working people are just getting off work.” In another statement made on March 26 at another news conference Biden also said, “Among the outrageous parts of this new state law, it ends voting hours early so working people can’t cast their vote after their shift is over.” The truth is the bill does neither. According to SB 202 on the day of the election people can cast their votes anytime from 7 a.m to 7 p.m and as long as they are in line by 7 p.m they can vote. The bill does make changes to EXPAND early voting to most counties, including adding a Saturday with the potential for Sunday. While the minimum is until 5 p.m the law also specifies individual counties can expand the time. Because some rural areas only work part-time, these specifics guarantee on paper that precincts are open til at least 5 p.m, so most of the counties will be adding a day on Saturday and the weekday voting hours are set to be longer.
As to the allegations that SB 202 is “the New Jim Crow,” the claims are simply unsubstantiated and fueled by a country divided by culture wars amplified by propagandists feeding off a lack of public knowledge, momentously fused with emotional reactivity. The main change to SB 202 deals with the chain of custody by focusing on absentee ballots and going back to pre-COVID times for the time allotted to request and mail out ballots. Since everyone, including this administration, decided COVID was largely over due to the emergence of the experimental vaccines, it would not make sense to continue with COVID emergency regulations in voting when they are not applied to other sectors of American society. Voters will have 11 weeks or nearly three months to request a ballot. The deadline is now two Fridays before Election Day instead of one. Counties will also begin mailing out absentee ballots three weeks later or four weeks before the election. When looking at elections the public must understand that the desire for convenience in voting must be in balance with and not overwhelm the need for security. Absentee ballots and vote by mail ballots are the areas that are most ripe for fraud, increasing with the amount of time and lack of procedural directions allotted for ballot delivery and transport.
Another misconstrued claim from SB 202 is that IDs would now be required, making it difficult for working people and people of color to vote. This is where majority of the “Jim Crow” claims derive from since “voter ID laws” have been largely pushed by Republicans to suppress the votes of minorities, who usually voted Democrat. This does happen and has also been done through redlining. However voter suppression of lower-income people, young people, and minorities is also done by Democrats against progressive candidates, see Bernie Sanders 2016 and 2020 election primaries, and in discrepancies in congressional races where progressives ran against heavily funded corporate Democrats. In this case however, the “voter ID” is not a physical ID but a number a person needs to provide on the absentee ballot FORM and it only applies to those requesting an absentee ballot. It does not have to be a driver’s license or ID and can be a person’s social security number or a copy of another form of voter identification. The Secretary of State's office also launched an online request portal where people can use their driver's license number or state ID number to request their absentee ballot. Poll workers will then use it, a person’s name, date of birth and address, to verify their identity, and they must then sign an oath swearing that everything is stated correctly.
The change from the previous use of signature verification with the signatures on file to the ID verification is a vital one. Extensive research into the mechanisms of signature verification show that neither barely trained workers nor machines are reliable ways to verify signatures. In a past broadcast The Convo Couch interviewed journalist Whitney Webb on how the AI software used to verify ballots is unreliable & how Silicon Valley companies like Parascript are highly suspect. This same system was used in 2020, hence the desire to move away. These systems have easy ways to turn sensors, which verify signatures, up or down and may either easily reject too many ballots because of lack of resemblance or accept too many due to having a setting with far too low a sensitivity. Americans currently rely on machine manufactures who emphasize that machines are “secure” and despite the obvious conflicts of interest most states only enact 1% audits-IF that. The companies in charge that own the equipment are private companies, often one subsidiary of another. American elections therefore have what is known as “proprietary software” running elections because no one knows who owns or has accesses to the software running the machines. These are definitely not open source even if they falsely claim to be because Americans cannot look into these machines and find a source code available to the public. In other words DARPA is not a friend and corporations like Microsoft run subsidiaries & programs for the benefit of intelligence agencies, the Pentagon and the National Security State. Some these companies have ties to the defense industry and it’s worth noting that in 2020 Lockheed Martin donated heavily to Joe Biden.
Another key change that actually helps with security is that third party organizations can only send applications under certain circumstances, while state and local governments can no longer send unsolicited applications. These third-party groups are only allowed to send applications to voters who have not made a request or voted and they face a penalty for any duplicates sent. This is done because in the past anyone could fill out a ballot and there was no way to control who was filling them out, especially in the mass practice of ballot harvesting. Lesser known changes include ballots to be newly printed on a special “security paper,” and the process for military & overseas voters. Voters will now get both their regular and absentee ballots mailed with RANKED CHOICE VOTING ballots for run-off elections which will be four weeks long. These voters will be sent their ballots 45 days before the federal election.
One key complaint made by Democratic organizations and the media was SB 202’s reduction of ballot drop off boxes. Many claim that the reduction of drop off locations directly targets voter accessibility. In reality drop boxes will be reduced in some areas but expanded in others, especially rural areas, ensuring no advantage to any party over another. Note that these boxes only existed in greater numbers because of COVID and the need to social distance, therefore this would no longer apply without that specific protocol. The boxes will now only be available during early voting and not 24/7, helping to increase security measures. Because there was a lack of security in drop off locations and anyone could drop off ballots or take ballots, the bill states more protections, demanding that the box be well lit, under surveillance by an election official, and assigned a delegate, guard or law enforcement official. To avoid any tampering the box must be labeled with proper instructions on who is allowed to handle it. The ballot collection process is also more detailed and streamlined for a more secure chain of custody. There must be at least TWO PEOPLE handling the ballots, noting the date, time, number of ballots, location, the names of handlers, and ensuring the box is locked after the ballots are taken. The ballots are then handed to the board of registrars, absentee ballot clerk, or designated person, and there shall be a signature upon receipt. At start of the next voting day the manager of the location must open the drop box and check that it is empty. If it is not empty they are instructed to tell the superintendent. All of this should be common practice but for some reason security in elections has come last to the polarization of U.S Electoralism for political capital.
There will also be changes in the process of vote counting. Drastic delays in vote counting led to the suspicion of election fraud in 2020. Officials will now begin processing but not counting absentee ballots two weeks before the election. Georgia counties must count all ballots as soon as the polls close and finish by 5 p.m the next day or risk facing an investigation. Local officials must also report the number of ballots counted per day, including during early voting, via absentee voting and provisional ballots, all by 10:00 p.m. on election night. This gives the public an idea of the total number of possible votes. The election certification deadline is six days after polls close instead of ten. Reminder that this also because they’re not operating under COVID measures. A vital element is that scanned ballot images will now be subject to public records disclosures and the Secretary of State’s office is set to create a pilot program for postings said ballot images online. This of course allows for more transparency with the public.
To understand why election security in America is an issue it’s necessary to look at how other nations conduct their elections. Most countries in the world do not allow mail-in ballots for all but only for minimal populations and they require ID if so. Interestingly other countries have far more transparent elections than we do. One thing I want to clarify ad nauseam is that election fraud is done by an institution and is prevalent, whereas voter fraud is highly unlikely and nearly nonexistent because it is done by an individual. I cannot stress how important it is to know the difference because liberals rightly dismiss voter fraud but wrongly equate it to being the same as election fraud, and the right often makes no differentiation between the two. To put it in perspective, other than the United States there are 36 countries who are members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and about 47 percent of them ban mail-in voting unless the citizen is living abroad, while 30 percent of them require a photo ID to receive a mail-in ballot. About 14 percent of the countries ban mail-in voting even for those living abroad which would seem extreme by U.S standards. Japan and Poland only have limited mail-in voting for those who have proof verifying that they are disabled. France made an exception on its long time ban of mail-in ballots to allow those who were sick or at risk during COVID to vote, while Poland also allowed for mail-in ballots for all but only during COVID. Reportedly France banned mail-in voting in 1975 because of election fraud in Corsica, where they found that postal ballots were stolen or bought and that voters cast multiple votes, using mail-in ballots to cast the votes for dead people. Brazil and Russia have entirely banned mail-in voting and require photo IDs for in-person voting. Across all 27 countries that form the E.U, 63 percent ban mail-in voting except for those living abroad, 22 percent require a photo ID to get a mail-in ballot, and 22 percent ban mail-ins even for those living abroad. The rest of the countries in Europe that are not part of the E.U are even more strict. All ban mail-in voting for those living in the country or require a photo ID for a mail-in ballot while 63 percent do not allow mail-in ballots even for those living outside of the country. Most nations in the global south including Venezuela, who has some of the best elections per the Jimmy Carter Institute, never allow absentee ballots & have ID laws, even thumbprints. In truth, mail-in ballots are not available in most African and Caribbean countries and certainly not in Middle Eastern or Latin American countries. The International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (International IDEA), a nongovernmental organization in Sweden states, “in granting the voter this flexibility, the risks of voter identification and physical transport of the vote are more acute. To guarantee postal voting, it is essential that voter identification and authentication are carried out in a reliable way.” To recap, if you allow more flexibility in voting via mechanisms like vote by mail, absentee, online, etc, you must add security. This is not undemocratic but it does ensure more security through transparency & a chain of custody. Bottom line: Most countries that allow absentees have paper ballots, transparency, or strong voter ID laws. So are all of these nations “right-wing fascist” countries for wanting to track or secure elections?
In another sector of election reform in SB 202, counties must provide logic and accuracy testing of machines and equipment. It’s worth mentioning that these tests are not audits and should not be promoted as such. Real audits count ballots, look at software, verify signatures and look into machines using nonpartisan staff, while logic and accuracy tests focus on the machine’s accuracy at that time and vendors of said machines usually conduct them. Polling locations with longer wait times must hire more staff or split up the precinct. Poll observers must be trained and not disrupt with partisan behavior, as was the experience this past year where many poll observers were interfering with the event.
The Secretary of State which has long been a position vulnerable to corruption or conflict of interest, will no longer be in charge of the State Election Board. This is key. The new chair MUST be non-partisan and will be appointed by majority of State House & Senate. The chair cannot have been a candidate, participated in a political party organization or campaign, or made campaign contributions for two years prior to their appointment. The bill also states that the governor is due to appoint someone if the position becomes vacant when lawmakers are not in session. The issue of a corrupt SOS has long been a heavy cross on the shoulders of the progressive left and the candidates they have often supported. In 2016 then California Secretary of State Alex Padilla was fundraising for Hillary Clinton while serving as SOS, a clear conflict of interest. In 2020 not only were Padilla and Dean Logan, the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk, in hot water for there handling of the L.A County elections but they were also accused of obstructing the public from reviewing election information, with Padilla denying ballot images to candidates dissatisfied with the election procedures and turn out. The reforms in Georgia would greatly help those frustrated candidates and voters if they were implemented in California, a state suffering from a dire lack of election transparency.
Lastly the Biden administration and many Democrats lied and exploited the narrative that SB 202 would prohibit people waiting in line from attaining water or food. This is false as the law specifies that poll workers just not campaign staff can provide water to voters. According to the literal text, "(a) No person shall solicit votes in any manner or by any means or method, nor shall any person distribute or display any campaign material, nor shall any person give, offer to give, or participate in the giving of any money or gifts, including, but not limited to, food and drink, to an elector, nor shall any person solicit signatures for any petition, nor shall any person, other than election officials discharging their duties, establish or set up any tables or booths on any day in which ballots are being cast: (1) Within 150 feet of the outer edge of any building within which a polling place is established; (2) Within any polling place; or (3) Within 25 feet of any voter standing in line to vote at any polling place. These restrictions shall not apply to conduct occurring in private offices or areas which cannot be seen or heard by such electors. (e) This Code section shall not be construed to prohibit a poll officer from distributing materials, as required by law, which are necessary for the purpose of instructing electors or from distributing materials prepared by the Secretary of State which are designed solely for the purpose of encouraging voter participation in the election being conducted or from making available self-service water from an unattended receptacle to an elector waiting in line to vote." The intent of the bill’s statute is to deter electioneering at the polls, which has happened many times. It should not be legal for candidates or campaign staff to influence voters at the polls. In Los Angeles County there are many documented instances of buses of people being dumped in precincts to vote for candidates after being given breakfasts and lunches. There are other instances where the handing out of food or materials is an exchange for votes. Moreover the focus should be to find solutions for avoiding long lines rather than attempting to accept the system’s failure as the norm.
Overall the bill is not bad but fails to touch on Black Box voting, proprietary software issues (said companies mentioned above are still in charge), the need for open source software, REAL 100% public audits with backed paper ballots, the tracking of ballots, voter roll issues, public counting and more. Still, to call it the new “Jim Crow 2.0” is a blatant fabrication. Many journalists who actually reported on this properly were called “right-wingers”. It is that idiotic emotional response that focuses on who says it and if they match a perceived ideology, rather than the content of the issue that can be so harmful. Glenn Greenwald, for instance, was right on the fact that this is an issue about truth instead of where you lie on the political spectrum.
In this era where too many constantly label anything challenging the status quo as “disinformation,” it’s imperative to fight back against propaganda. This especially applies to the kind of faux journalism that thrives in complete narrative management to create confusion, chaos, and anger between Americans on issues that should be beyond the left-right paradigm. It’s very easy to look at the hyperbolic and inaccurate claims of SB 202 and buy into them, especially on such a wonky, misunderstood and controversial topic like election integrity. What’s far more difficult but obviously absolutely necessary is to offer the perspective of the truth, based on data, text, and reality rather than a desired scenario. Perhaps through the decimation and exposure of the corporate propagandists, we can educate the public and open their eyes.