Georgia republicans just made water an illegal substance

[WTF19]

There should not be lines long enough to need water and food..... Why the long wait in primarily black and brown neighborhoods?

Republican govt shenanigans.....

Scum.

There should not be ballot stuffing, mail in voting w/out proving , (notary) who you are
communist demonRAT govt shenanigans.....
Scum.

 

[WTF19]

Well folks you can now go to jail in Georgia if you offer people waiting in a long line to vote a little water and a snack thanks to republicans in that state. Other republican controlled states may follow suit..Georgia governor signs sweeping election regulations into law. There are even restrictions on snacks...

Democrats believe Black people are to stupid to bring their own drinks and snacks.

How much water do you need for a five hour wait in the Georgia sun?

And why the hell would anyone providing water to people waiting in those lines be committing a crime?

as much as you think you need to bring.....duh

 

[WTF19]

You are ignoring the Section above subsection (a)...that qualifies the "person" - to campaign activities

Incorrect. That part you refer to is merely a title of the section. It does not define “person” as someone associated with a campaign.

It specifically says no person. If they intended for it to apply to campaigns, they would have said so.

yes it does...it qualifies the subsection....yes it's the title, it specific about campaigns....not the activity of people not involved in the campaign.

Seems pretty clear and obvious to me...even state legislatures that help with the bill said that was their intent....but I suppose we will have to see how a Court views it...we obviously view it differently

No, it doesn’t. It plainly says “no person”. The plain language of the law contradicts your assertions. “No person” means “no person”. No where is a person defined as you assert.

I have my doubts about the honesty of people who pass voting restrictions just because they lost an election. Not to mention the red flag of them passing it in both houses and signing into law all in one day.

I agree it says that, but the title qualifies the topic of what the section regulates.

I share your concerns, also about people that just won an election...and ram it through as riders to legislation that suppose to be about something else..for example HR1

The title doesn’t qualify anything about who a person is and isn’t according to the law. It’s just a title.

The title, as you put it is the law, and the subsections of the law outline specific things....but the title, qualifies the topic of the law and scope.

Like I said, I guess we shall see how a Judge rules on the subject if someone is charged that's not a part of the campaign. That's why we have Courts...and fyi Courts will if need be, look at legislative intent...and in this case at least one lawmaker made clear the intent was campaigns.

It describes the intent but doesn’t change the plain language of the law.

If they intended for it to apply only to campaigns, they wouldn’t have said “no person”.

Curious...are you a legislator? An Attorney? Or are you just making an assumption and stating it as fact to defend your position.

Please...do tell....what are your credentials as it pertains to legislation and the law?

I’ve read enough laws to know that when it says “no person” it means “no person”.

Laws are not so archaic that individuals can’t understand them.

so you have no credentials. why then, would you deflect?

 

[SC Patriot]

You are ignoring the Section above subsection (a)...that qualifies the "person" - to campaign activities

Incorrect. That part you refer to is merely a title of the section. It does not define “person” as someone associated with a campaign.

It specifically says no person. If they intended for it to apply to campaigns, they would have said so.

yes it does...it qualifies the subsection....yes it's the title, it specific about campaigns....not the activity of people not involved in the campaign.

Seems pretty clear and obvious to me...even state legislatures that help with the bill said that was their intent....but I suppose we will have to see how a Court views it...we obviously view it differently

No, it doesn’t. It plainly says “no person”. The plain language of the law contradicts your assertions. “No person” means “no person”. No where is a person defined as you assert.

I have my doubts about the honesty of people who pass voting restrictions just because they lost an election. Not to mention the red flag of them passing it in both houses and signing into law all in one day.

I agree it says that, but the title qualifies the topic of what the section regulates.

I share your concerns, also about people that just won an election...and ram it through as riders to legislation that suppose to be about something else..for example HR1

The title doesn’t qualify anything about who a person is and isn’t according to the law. It’s just a title.

The title, as you put it is the law, and the subsections of the law outline specific things....but the title, qualifies the topic of the law and scope.

Like I said, I guess we shall see how a Judge rules on the subject if someone is charged that's not a part of the campaign. That's why we have Courts...and fyi Courts will if need be, look at legislative intent...and in this case at least one lawmaker made clear the intent was campaigns.

It describes the intent but doesn’t change the plain language of the law.

If they intended for it to apply only to campaigns, they wouldn’t have said “no person”.

Curious...are you a legislator? An Attorney? Or are you just making an assumption and stating it as fact to defend your position.

Please...do tell....what are your credentials as it pertains to legislation and the law?

I’ve read enough laws to know that when it says “no person” it means “no person”.

Laws are not so archaic that individuals can’t understand them.

So you only know what you think.

Im OK with that.

FYI.....you happen to be wrong in this case.....has to do with the word "person".....but I know...you know better

 

[Nostra]

They can certainly have a little water. Just bring a bottle.

Was there some crisis in Georgia with people being given water in line to vote? How was this going to address voter fraud?

That's just it..these laws are not really meant to address so called voter fraud..they are meant to suppress the number of people voting.

How does this suppress votes?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Well folks you can now go to jail in Georgia if you offer people waiting in a long line to vote a little water and a snack thanks to republicans in that state. Other republican controlled states may follow suit..Georgia governor signs sweeping election regulations into law. There are even restrictions on snacks...

Ha.

When I was a kid, I started whining about being thirsty. Grammaw said "should've gotten some before we left the house."

That was the end of it.

I find that old tires laying in vacant lots or on the side of the road typically have some water left in them.

So some old guy getting thirsty while waiting in a long line to vote should just leave and go find an old tire??

Suck it up or bring a bottle of water with you.

So what if they forget or didn't think the line would be that long. Handing someone a bottle of water is now a crime. You people are unbelievable.

18 USC 597

"Whoever makes or offers to make an expenditure to any person, either to vote or withhold his vote, or to vote for or against any candidate; and

Whoever solicits, accepts, or receives any such expenditure in consideration of his vote or the withholding of his vote—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if the violation was willful, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."

It appears the Georgia legislature was enforcing federal law. I'm pretty sure strategically placed water fountains will do just fine.

 

[colfax_m]

You are ignoring the Section above subsection (a)...that qualifies the "person" - to campaign activities

Incorrect. That part you refer to is merely a title of the section. It does not define “person” as someone associated with a campaign.

It specifically says no person. If they intended for it to apply to campaigns, they would have said so.

yes it does...it qualifies the subsection....yes it's the title, it specific about campaigns....not the activity of people not involved in the campaign.

Seems pretty clear and obvious to me...even state legislatures that help with the bill said that was their intent....but I suppose we will have to see how a Court views it...we obviously view it differently

No, it doesn’t. It plainly says “no person”. The plain language of the law contradicts your assertions. “No person” means “no person”. No where is a person defined as you assert.

I have my doubts about the honesty of people who pass voting restrictions just because they lost an election. Not to mention the red flag of them passing it in both houses and signing into law all in one day.

I agree it says that, but the title qualifies the topic of what the section regulates.

I share your concerns, also about people that just won an election...and ram it through as riders to legislation that suppose to be about something else..for example HR1

The title doesn’t qualify anything about who a person is and isn’t according to the law. It’s just a title.

The title, as you put it is the law, and the subsections of the law outline specific things....but the title, qualifies the topic of the law and scope.

Like I said, I guess we shall see how a Judge rules on the subject if someone is charged that's not a part of the campaign. That's why we have Courts...and fyi Courts will if need be, look at legislative intent...and in this case at least one lawmaker made clear the intent was campaigns.

It describes the intent but doesn’t change the plain language of the law.

If they intended for it to apply only to campaigns, they wouldn’t have said “no person”.

Curious...are you a legislator? An Attorney? Or are you just making an assumption and stating it as fact to defend your position.

Please...do tell....what are your credentials as it pertains to legislation and the law?

I’ve read enough laws to know that when it says “no person” it means “no person”.

Laws are not so archaic that individuals can’t understand them.

So you only know what you think.

Im OK with that.

FYI.....you happen to be wrong in this case.....has to do with the word "person".....but I know...you know better

Not to be too philosophical, but don’t we all only know what we think?

I don’t think I’m wrong. “Person” ain’t exactly ambiguous.

 

[struth]

You are ignoring the Section above subsection (a)...that qualifies the "person" - to campaign activities

Incorrect. That part you refer to is merely a title of the section. It does not define “person” as someone associated with a campaign.

It specifically says no person. If they intended for it to apply to campaigns, they would have said so.

yes it does...it qualifies the subsection....yes it's the title, it specific about campaigns....not the activity of people not involved in the campaign.

Seems pretty clear and obvious to me...even state legislatures that help with the bill said that was their intent....but I suppose we will have to see how a Court views it...we obviously view it differently

No, it doesn’t. It plainly says “no person”. The plain language of the law contradicts your assertions. “No person” means “no person”. No where is a person defined as you assert.

I have my doubts about the honesty of people who pass voting restrictions just because they lost an election. Not to mention the red flag of them passing it in both houses and signing into law all in one day.

I agree it says that, but the title qualifies the topic of what the section regulates.

I share your concerns, also about people that just won an election...and ram it through as riders to legislation that suppose to be about something else..for example HR1

The title doesn’t qualify anything about who a person is and isn’t according to the law. It’s just a title.

The title, as you put it is the law, and the subsections of the law outline specific things....but the title, qualifies the topic of the law and scope.

Like I said, I guess we shall see how a Judge rules on the subject if someone is charged that's not a part of the campaign. That's why we have Courts...and fyi Courts will if need be, look at legislative intent...and in this case at least one lawmaker made clear the intent was campaigns.

It describes the intent but doesn’t change the plain language of the law.

If they intended for it to apply only to campaigns, they wouldn’t have said “no person”.

The plain language decribes that I said...the law, qualifies what a persons the law is talking about.

but if that isn't enough for a Court, then the Court can look at legislative intent.

Like I said, there is no point in us arguing over this...clearly the propagandist are being dishonest about it, we know that...but as to the 25 feet, or 150 feet rule...I suppose if someone is charged for handing their mom a cracker while waiting in line together we shall see what a Court does.

It’s not enough for the court because the title is not the place where they define terms used in the law.

Sure it's plenty for the Court, but again if it's not they can go to the legislative intent which is clear as I said...a lawmaker's own words.

 

[struth]

You are ignoring the Section above subsection (a)...that qualifies the "person" - to campaign activities

Incorrect. That part you refer to is merely a title of the section. It does not define “person” as someone associated with a campaign.

It specifically says no person. If they intended for it to apply to campaigns, they would have said so.

yes it does...it qualifies the subsection....yes it's the title, it specific about campaigns....not the activity of people not involved in the campaign.

Seems pretty clear and obvious to me...even state legislatures that help with the bill said that was their intent....but I suppose we will have to see how a Court views it...we obviously view it differently

No, it doesn’t. It plainly says “no person”. The plain language of the law contradicts your assertions. “No person” means “no person”. No where is a person defined as you assert.

I have my doubts about the honesty of people who pass voting restrictions just because they lost an election. Not to mention the red flag of them passing it in both houses and signing into law all in one day.

I agree it says that, but the title qualifies the topic of what the section regulates.

I share your concerns, also about people that just won an election...and ram it through as riders to legislation that suppose to be about something else..for example HR1

The title doesn’t qualify anything about who a person is and isn’t according to the law. It’s just a title.

The title, as you put it is the law, and the subsections of the law outline specific things....but the title, qualifies the topic of the law and scope.

Like I said, I guess we shall see how a Judge rules on the subject if someone is charged that's not a part of the campaign. That's why we have Courts...and fyi Courts will if need be, look at legislative intent...and in this case at least one lawmaker made clear the intent was campaigns.

It describes the intent but doesn’t change the plain language of the law.

If they intended for it to apply only to campaigns, they wouldn’t have said “no person”.

Curious...are you a legislator? An Attorney? Or are you just making an assumption and stating it as fact to defend your position.

Please...do tell....what are your credentials as it pertains to legislation and the law?

I’ve read enough laws to know that when it says “no person” it means “no person”.

Laws are not so archaic that individuals can’t understand them.

Some laws can be...that's why we have Courts reviewing them ALL THE TIME

This law really isn't...it's clear from the text, that the law is talking about campaigns

 

[struth]

You are ignoring the Section above subsection (a)...that qualifies the "person" - to campaign activities

Incorrect. That part you refer to is merely a title of the section. It does not define “person” as someone associated with a campaign.

It specifically says no person. If they intended for it to apply to campaigns, they would have said so.

yes it does...it qualifies the subsection....yes it's the title, it specific about campaigns....not the activity of people not involved in the campaign.

Seems pretty clear and obvious to me...even state legislatures that help with the bill said that was their intent....but I suppose we will have to see how a Court views it...we obviously view it differently

No, it doesn’t. It plainly says “no person”. The plain language of the law contradicts your assertions. “No person” means “no person”. No where is a person defined as you assert.

I have my doubts about the honesty of people who pass voting restrictions just because they lost an election. Not to mention the red flag of them passing it in both houses and signing into law all in one day.

I agree it says that, but the title qualifies the topic of what the section regulates.

I share your concerns, also about people that just won an election...and ram it through as riders to legislation that suppose to be about something else..for example HR1

The title doesn’t qualify anything about who a person is and isn’t according to the law. It’s just a title.

The title, as you put it is the law, and the subsections of the law outline specific things....but the title, qualifies the topic of the law and scope.

Like I said, I guess we shall see how a Judge rules on the subject if someone is charged that's not a part of the campaign. That's why we have Courts...and fyi Courts will if need be, look at legislative intent...and in this case at least one lawmaker made clear the intent was campaigns.

It describes the intent but doesn’t change the plain language of the law.

If they intended for it to apply only to campaigns, they wouldn’t have said “no person”.

Curious...are you a legislator? An Attorney? Or are you just making an assumption and stating it as fact to defend your position.

Please...do tell....what are your credentials as it pertains to legislation and the law?

I’ve read enough laws to know that when it says “no person” it means “no person”.

Laws are not so archaic that individuals can’t understand them.

So you only know what you think.

Im OK with that.

FYI.....you happen to be wrong in this case.....has to do with the word "person".....but I know...you know better

Not to be too philosophical, but don’t we all only know what we think?

I don’t think I’m wrong. “Person” ain’t exactly ambiguous.

I don't think it is either...but if the subject is clear...for example....BLUE WHALES....and then I go on to discuss under the title..."whales" the reader, at least a reasonable reader, should understand I am discussing Blue Whales.

In this case, if the subject, is clear...as it is CAMPAIGNS...and I got on to say person in the subsection...I am referring to the people associated with the campaign.

 

[DrLove]

When giving someone water, becomes a crime....and you support such....you would think you republicans would know that you are on the wrong side....

They are officially now the Party of Trump. And Trumpublicans are on the wrong side of literally EVERY issue!

 

[DrLove]

Geez...it appears the Dembots have eaten up the lies by Xiden and his propagandist....the law doesn't ban everyone from doing this, the law bans, campaigns from handing out give aways, gifts etc within 25 feet of the polling station. The law already banned this, but water and food was a 'gray area" - that the new law cleared up. The obvious point is for campaigns not to harass, or try to purchase votes...when a voter is in line...

Yeah, I looked at the law. This isn’t true. No one can give any food or water to anyone in line within 150 feet of the building.

It has nothing to do with whether or not you’re part of a campaign.

Sorry, 150 feet from polling station (the building), 25 feet from person in line. Still, not a ban on everyone, just campaigns...and only a few feet

And yet you will no fucking DOUBT support "poll watchers" and THEIR AR-15s to intimidate to the maximum.
Because you know - Good for me ,,, NOT for Thee!

 

[colfax_m]

You are ignoring the Section above subsection (a)...that qualifies the "person" - to campaign activities

Incorrect. That part you refer to is merely a title of the section. It does not define “person” as someone associated with a campaign.

It specifically says no person. If they intended for it to apply to campaigns, they would have said so.

yes it does...it qualifies the subsection....yes it's the title, it specific about campaigns....not the activity of people not involved in the campaign.

Seems pretty clear and obvious to me...even state legislatures that help with the bill said that was their intent....but I suppose we will have to see how a Court views it...we obviously view it differently

No, it doesn’t. It plainly says “no person”. The plain language of the law contradicts your assertions. “No person” means “no person”. No where is a person defined as you assert.

I have my doubts about the honesty of people who pass voting restrictions just because they lost an election. Not to mention the red flag of them passing it in both houses and signing into law all in one day.

I agree it says that, but the title qualifies the topic of what the section regulates.

I share your concerns, also about people that just won an election...and ram it through as riders to legislation that suppose to be about something else..for example HR1

The title doesn’t qualify anything about who a person is and isn’t according to the law. It’s just a title.

The title, as you put it is the law, and the subsections of the law outline specific things....but the title, qualifies the topic of the law and scope.

Like I said, I guess we shall see how a Judge rules on the subject if someone is charged that's not a part of the campaign. That's why we have Courts...and fyi Courts will if need be, look at legislative intent...and in this case at least one lawmaker made clear the intent was campaigns.

It describes the intent but doesn’t change the plain language of the law.

If they intended for it to apply only to campaigns, they wouldn’t have said “no person”.

Curious...are you a legislator? An Attorney? Or are you just making an assumption and stating it as fact to defend your position.

Please...do tell....what are your credentials as it pertains to legislation and the law?

I’ve read enough laws to know that when it says “no person” it means “no person”.

Laws are not so archaic that individuals can’t understand them.

So you only know what you think.

Im OK with that.

FYI.....you happen to be wrong in this case.....has to do with the word "person".....but I know...you know better

Not to be too philosophical, but don’t we all only know what we think?

I don’t think I’m wrong. “Person” ain’t exactly ambiguous.

I don't think it is either...but if the subject is clear...for example....BLUE WHALES....and then I go on to discuss under the title..."whales" the reader, at least a reasonable reader, should understand I am discussing Blue Whales.

In this case, if the subject, is clear...as it is CAMPAIGNS...and I got on to say person in the subsection...I am referring to the people associated with the campaign.

No really. The subject is “campaign activity” if you actually read the title. It doesn’t say anything about “campaign members”. It would seem that the section considers giving out water to be a “campaign activity”. This is clearly the intent to apply to all people given the prohibition against all persons from campaigning in the area of the polling place. I think we can both agree that no one is allowed to campaign at the polling place regardless of whether they belong to the campaign or not. Right?

 

[SC Patriot]

You are ignoring the Section above subsection (a)...that qualifies the "person" - to campaign activities

Incorrect. That part you refer to is merely a title of the section. It does not define “person” as someone associated with a campaign.

It specifically says no person. If they intended for it to apply to campaigns, they would have said so.

yes it does...it qualifies the subsection....yes it's the title, it specific about campaigns....not the activity of people not involved in the campaign.

Seems pretty clear and obvious to me...even state legislatures that help with the bill said that was their intent....but I suppose we will have to see how a Court views it...we obviously view it differently

No, it doesn’t. It plainly says “no person”. The plain language of the law contradicts your assertions. “No person” means “no person”. No where is a person defined as you assert.

I have my doubts about the honesty of people who pass voting restrictions just because they lost an election. Not to mention the red flag of them passing it in both houses and signing into law all in one day.

I agree it says that, but the title qualifies the topic of what the section regulates.

I share your concerns, also about people that just won an election...and ram it through as riders to legislation that suppose to be about something else..for example HR1

The title doesn’t qualify anything about who a person is and isn’t according to the law. It’s just a title.

The title, as you put it is the law, and the subsections of the law outline specific things....but the title, qualifies the topic of the law and scope.

Like I said, I guess we shall see how a Judge rules on the subject if someone is charged that's not a part of the campaign. That's why we have Courts...and fyi Courts will if need be, look at legislative intent...and in this case at least one lawmaker made clear the intent was campaigns.

It describes the intent but doesn’t change the plain language of the law.

If they intended for it to apply only to campaigns, they wouldn’t have said “no person”.

Curious...are you a legislator? An Attorney? Or are you just making an assumption and stating it as fact to defend your position.

Please...do tell....what are your credentials as it pertains to legislation and the law?

I’ve read enough laws to know that when it says “no person” it means “no person”.

Laws are not so archaic that individuals can’t understand them.

So you only know what you think.

Im OK with that.

FYI.....you happen to be wrong in this case.....has to do with the word "person".....but I know...you know better

Not to be too philosophical, but don’t we all only know what we think?

I don’t think I’m wrong. “Person” ain’t exactly ambiguous.

actually, the truth is.... "People should only think what they know."
"To know what you think" opens you up to really bad decisions.

It is that philosophy that opens the door for true debate.

When I debate......I go in with the attitude of "teach me, so I know what to know."

 

[DrLove]

I can't believe they actually passed a law to make it illegal to bring grandma some water in the voting line. What a buncha freaks.

Maybe 'grandma', being an intelligent adult, and anyone else that sees a long line can bring their own damn bottle of water with them if they need it?

Perhaps black folks wouldn't anticipate a 4-6 hour line .. CLOWN

 

[DrLove]

They can certainly have a little water. Just bring a bottle.

Was there some crisis in Georgia with people being given water in line to vote? How was this going to address voter fraud?

It is NOT going to address voter fraud. We ALL know what is going on here and it CANNOT stand.

 

[SC Patriot]

I can't believe they actually passed a law to make it illegal to bring grandma some water in the voting line. What a buncha freaks.

Maybe 'grandma', being an intelligent adult, and anyone else that sees a long line can bring their own damn bottle of water with them if they need it?

Perhaps black folks wouldn't anticipate a 4-6 hour line .. CLOWN

uh...."folks of color."

Thank you.

 

[colfax_m]

You are ignoring the Section above subsection (a)...that qualifies the "person" - to campaign activities

Incorrect. That part you refer to is merely a title of the section. It does not define “person” as someone associated with a campaign.

It specifically says no person. If they intended for it to apply to campaigns, they would have said so.

yes it does...it qualifies the subsection....yes it's the title, it specific about campaigns....not the activity of people not involved in the campaign.

Seems pretty clear and obvious to me...even state legislatures that help with the bill said that was their intent....but I suppose we will have to see how a Court views it...we obviously view it differently

No, it doesn’t. It plainly says “no person”. The plain language of the law contradicts your assertions. “No person” means “no person”. No where is a person defined as you assert.

I have my doubts about the honesty of people who pass voting restrictions just because they lost an election. Not to mention the red flag of them passing it in both houses and signing into law all in one day.

I agree it says that, but the title qualifies the topic of what the section regulates.

I share your concerns, also about people that just won an election...and ram it through as riders to legislation that suppose to be about something else..for example HR1

The title doesn’t qualify anything about who a person is and isn’t according to the law. It’s just a title.

The title, as you put it is the law, and the subsections of the law outline specific things....but the title, qualifies the topic of the law and scope.

Like I said, I guess we shall see how a Judge rules on the subject if someone is charged that's not a part of the campaign. That's why we have Courts...and fyi Courts will if need be, look at legislative intent...and in this case at least one lawmaker made clear the intent was campaigns.

It describes the intent but doesn’t change the plain language of the law.

If they intended for it to apply only to campaigns, they wouldn’t have said “no person”.

Curious...are you a legislator? An Attorney? Or are you just making an assumption and stating it as fact to defend your position.

Please...do tell....what are your credentials as it pertains to legislation and the law?

I’ve read enough laws to know that when it says “no person” it means “no person”.

Laws are not so archaic that individuals can’t understand them.

So you only know what you think.

Im OK with that.

FYI.....you happen to be wrong in this case.....has to do with the word "person".....but I know...you know better

Not to be too philosophical, but don’t we all only know what we think?

I don’t think I’m wrong. “Person” ain’t exactly ambiguous.

actually, the truth is.... "People should only think what they know."
"To know what you think" opens you up to really bad decisions.

It is that philosophy that opens the door for true debate.

When I debate......I go in with the attitude of "teach me, so I know what to know."

I still don’t think I’m wrong. Person is not an ambiguous word. I haven’t heard a very compelling argument otherwise.

 

[DrLove]

Well folks you can now go to jail in Georgia if you offer people waiting in a long line to vote a little water and a snack thanks to republicans in that state. Other republican controlled states may follow suit..Georgia governor signs sweeping election regulations into law. There are even restrictions on snacks...

Ha.

When I was a kid, I started whining about being thirsty. Grammaw said "should've gotten some before we left the house."

That was the end of it.

I find that old tires laying in vacant lots or on the side of the road typically have some water left in them.

So some old guy getting thirsty while waiting in a long line to vote should just leave and go find an old tire??

Suck it up or bring a bottle of water with you.

So what if they forget or didn't think the line would be that long. Handing someone a bottle of water is now a crime. You people are unbelievable.

18 USC 597

"Whoever makes or offers to make an expenditure to any person, either to vote or withhold his vote, or to vote for or against any candidate; and

Whoever solicits, accepts, or receives any such expenditure in consideration of his vote or the withholding of his vote—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if the violation was willful, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."

It appears the Georgia legislature was enforcing federal law. I'm pretty sure strategically placed water fountains will do just fine.

Sure why not? Let those Blackeys lose their place in line and run to a freaking water fountain (which Kemp will prolly turn off being the shitstain and voter suppression EXPERT that he is).

 

[struth]

Geez...it appears the Dembots have eaten up the lies by Xiden and his propagandist....the law doesn't ban everyone from doing this, the law bans, campaigns from handing out give aways, gifts etc within 25 feet of the polling station. The law already banned this, but water and food was a 'gray area" - that the new law cleared up. The obvious point is for campaigns not to harass, or try to purchase votes...when a voter is in line...

Yeah, I looked at the law. This isn’t true. No one can give any food or water to anyone in line within 150 feet of the building.

It has nothing to do with whether or not you’re part of a campaign.

Sorry, 150 feet from polling station (the building), 25 feet from person in line. Still, not a ban on everyone, just campaigns...and only a few feet

And yet you will no fucking DOUBT support "poll watchers" and THEIR AR-15s to intimidate to the maximum.
Because you know - Good for me ,,, NOT for Thee!

I have no seen that happen.....well I take that back....the Black Panthers were outside a polling station during the Obama election....https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/07/12/team_obama_turns_blind_eye_to_voter_intimidation_106267.html

"

Voters at a precinct on Philadelphia's Fairmont Street witnessed unusual sights and sounds on Election Day Nov. 4, 2008. Two members of the New Black Panther Party, King Samir Shabazz and Jerry Jackson, stood within 15 feet of this polling station dressed in military-style black jackets, black berets and black combat boots. King Samir Shabazz wielded a 2-foot-long night stick.

"Cracker, you are about to be ruled by a black man," one of the New Black Panthers told a white voter. They taunted others as "white devils." A black couple who served as Republican poll watchers said they felt endangered when the Panthers called them "race traitors."