Peach Tree Times

An analysis of the new Georgia elections law cited in numerous lawsuits as discriminatory shows that the law, rather than suppress votes, is “in many respects far more progressive than most states,” Harvey Tettlebaum, president of the conservative-leaning Lawyers Democracy Fund (LDF), told the Peach Tree Times.

Tettlebaum said that the law – Senate Bill 202 signed by Gov. Brian Kemp, a Republican, in March – does not violate the anti-discrimination provision, Section 2 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, or the 14th Amendment, as alleged by the U.S. Department of Justice in a lawsuit filed against the law.

“It is instructive that while the Department of Justice chose to challenge provisions of Georgia's SB 202 as violating Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and the 14th Amendment by allegedly placing an unconstitutional burden on the fundamental right to vote, it has chosen not to sue yet even comment on the provisions in an overwhelming number of states that are similar provisions in place in Georgia,” Tettlebaum wrote in an email.

The LDF compiled a list of provisions in the Georgia that are similar to those in many other states.

These include the provisions limit ballot harvesting (third party ballot collection) and place restrictions on who can return a completed absentee ballot application on behalf of a voter, election officials not authorized to mail absentee ballots or applications to voters who don't request them, have common-sense measures to verify absentee ballots and allow voters to challenge the eligibility of non-qualified voters.

Forty-six states permit private citizens to make voter eligibility challenges.

Tettlebaum added that Georgia’s new law enacts important integrity safeguards without hindering voters' ability to participate.

“Georgia is now one of only around a dozen states to let voters return their mail ballots to a designated drop box [something that was not authorized in Georgia prior to emergency enactment in 2020],” he said. “Georgia has a generous, 17-day early voting period. It is among the minority of states that offer early voting on weekends and also roughly a dozen states that offer early voting on Sundays. Georgia counts eligible races for some ballots cast out of precinct, whereas most states wholly discard out of precinct ballots.”

In addition, more than 100 counties in Georgia never offered voting on Sunday before SB 202. Many offered only a single day of weekend voting. SB 202 requires counties to hold two separate Saturday and allows two optional Sunday voting days, which the act's sponsors said greatly increases voting opportunities in the state.

Finally, Tettlebaum said that DOJ was “wise to file its lawsuit before the Supreme Court decided Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee,” the decision that upheld two Arizona voting rules against DNC claims of discrimination.   

“I do not believe the DOJ could have, in good faith, filed its lawsuit after Brnovich and still claim that Georgia’s SB 202 violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act,” he said. “The Brnovich decision validates Georgia’s authority to enact many of SB 202’s provisions, such as Georgia’s limits on who can handle completed absentee ballot applications and Georgia’s requirement that in-person voters cast their ballots in the right precinct.”