Georgia republicans just made water an illegal substance

[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."

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

I have. Person is actually a very ambiguous word.....it brings into play.....is a minor considered a person as it pretrains to the law...does it bring into play an undocumented immigrant as it pertains to the law...is a human fetus a person seeing as it as human DNA and requires oxygen to survive.
In my career, the word person has opened the door to many a debate strictly over the word person. It gives both sides of the debate reason to argue.

 

[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.

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?

yes so it limits it to campaign activity...sorry...so don't be campaigning for your guy within 150 feet...of the polling station or 25 feet from the people in line...that's not unreasonable...most states have some safeguards like that...I known mine does.

 

[colfax_m]

I have. Person is actually a very ambiguous word.....it brings into play.....is a minor considered a person as it pretrains to the law...does it bring into play an undocumented immigrant as it pertains to the law...is a human fetus a person seeing as it as human DNA and requires oxygen to survive.
In my career, the word person has opened the door to many a debate strictly over the word person. It gives both sides of the debate reason to argue.

The question is whether person only applies to members of a campaign. Obviously that’s an absurd proposition.

 

[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?

yes so it limits it to campaign activity...sorry...so don't be campaigning for your guy within 150 feet...of the polling station or 25 feet from the people in line...that's not unreasonable...most states have some safeguards like that...I known mine does.

So the “no person” statement doesn’t just apply to no people associated with the campaigns. It applies to everyone. Yet that statement appears in the same paragraph as “no person” as it applies to distribution of water. Yet you take that instance to have a different meaning.

Does “no person” change meaning mid-paragraph?
I don’t think so.

 

[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.

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?

yes so it limits it to campaign activity...sorry...so don't be campaigning for your guy within 150 feet...of the polling station or 25 feet from the people in line...that's not unreasonable...most states have some safeguards like that...I known mine does.

So the “no person” statement doesn’t just apply to no people associated with the campaigns. It applies to everyone. Yet that statement appears in the same paragraph as “no person” as it applies to distribution of water. Yet you take that instance to have a different meaning.

Does “no person” change meaning mid-paragraph?
I don’t think so.

everyone involved in campaign activity as the title qualifies. If you aren't involved in campaign activity feel free to hand your mom that glass of sweet ice tea...we are in gonna be in GA after all

 

[Richard-H]

You now need to scan your Drivers License and print it off to include it with your mail-in ballot.

So if you're in Georgia, go buy a scanner and a printer. Will cost you over $100 to do that so...sorry if you're poor or disabled. Thank the GOP for making it a requirement for mail-in.

What about the people that do not have a driver's license?

 

[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.

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).

Tell you what, take that up with the congress that passed it. In this case, the 89th Congress, who passed the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which at the time consisted of a Democratic majority.

Now what was that?

 

[colfax_m]

everyone involved in campaign activity as the title qualifies. If you aren't involved in campaign activity feel free to hand your mom that glass of sweet ice tea...we are in gonna be in GA after all

Then there would be no need for the section in the first place since campaign activity is already forbidden.

 

[Richard-H]

I'd bet that the Georgia supreme court strikes this law down.

For 2 reasons:

1. Having a driver's license can not be a requirement to vote by mail in ballot

2. Giving people water can not be illegal.

There are probably a few other clauses that are questionable. This is just scratching the surface.

 

[Dirk the Daring]

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?

Because idiot lefties say so...

 

[struth]

everyone involved in campaign activity as the title qualifies. If you aren't involved in campaign activity feel free to hand your mom that glass of sweet ice tea...we are in gonna be in GA after all

Then there would be no need for the section in the first place since campaign activity is already forbidden.

Then what's the issue with the law if it's just spelling out what was the law before? what's the outrage by the propagandist all about then?

 

[initforme]

They cannot fine you for a beer though so make it available. We just approved take out mixed drinks in our state. A more pleasurable ride home for all the workers who toil tirelessly and mercilessly.

 

[colfax_m]

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?

Because idiot lefties say so...

How does it prevent “voter fraud”?

 

[AFrench2]

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?

Because idiot lefties say so...

How does it prevent “voter fraud”?

Well because, if a voter wants water while waiting in their 8 hour line they can either die there in the line or get out of line and go drink water. Fraud avoided.

 

[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.

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?

yes so it limits it to campaign activity...sorry...so don't be campaigning for your guy within 150 feet...of the polling station or 25 feet from the people in line...that's not unreasonable...most states have some safeguards like that...I known mine does.

So the “no person” statement doesn’t just apply to no people associated with the campaigns. It applies to everyone. Yet that statement appears in the same paragraph as “no person” as it applies to distribution of water. Yet you take that instance to have a different meaning.

Does “no person” change meaning mid-paragraph?
I don’t think so.

actually, in law, "no person " applies to everyone because you can not argue that someone is not a person.

However, when you say "person" it opens up the debate as to who are you referring to.....and it opens up the debate as to who is a person in the eyes of the law.

Don't get me wrong. It is silly, foolish and ridiculous.

But that is how attorneys think....and an attorney of the opposite side needs to be prepared for it.

Look at how the debate of fetuses and abortion has gone. If the original argument in Roe Vs Wade was "it is a living being with human DNA that requires oxygen to survive, the whole debate may have gone a different way. Instead, the pro lifer side called it a living human being... a person......and that opened up the debate. No?

 

[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?

yes so it limits it to campaign activity...sorry...so don't be campaigning for your guy within 150 feet...of the polling station or 25 feet from the people in line...that's not unreasonable...most states have some safeguards like that...I known mine does.

So the “no person” statement doesn’t just apply to no people associated with the campaigns. It applies to everyone. Yet that statement appears in the same paragraph as “no person” as it applies to distribution of water. Yet you take that instance to have a different meaning.

Does “no person” change meaning mid-paragraph?
I don’t think so.

actually, in law, "no person " applies to everyone because you can not argue that someone is not a person.

However, when you say "person" it opens up the debate as to who are you referring to.....and it opens up the debate as to who is a person in the eyes of the law.

Don't get me wrong. It is silly, foolish and ridiculous.

But that is how attorneys think....and an attorney of the opposite side needs to be prepared for it.

Look at how the debate of fetuses and abortion has gone. If the original argument in Roe Vs Wade was "it is a living being with human DNA that requires oxygen to survive, the whole debate may have gone a different way. Instead, the pro lifer side called it a living human being... a person......and that opened up the debate. No?

Well, then in this case it says “nor shall any person” hand out water.

So it seems that it applies to everyone.

 

[Orangecat]

Georgia republicans just made water an illegal substance

That's a childish lie. Water is not illegal in Georgia.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

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?

Because idiot lefties say so...

How does it prevent “voter fraud”?

Well because, if a voter wants water while waiting in their 8 hour line they can either die there in the line or get out of line and go drink water. Fraud avoided.

If the line is an 8 hour wait they can die and shorten the line.

Link to an 8 hour wait please.

 

[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.

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?

yes so it limits it to campaign activity...sorry...so don't be campaigning for your guy within 150 feet...of the polling station or 25 feet from the people in line...that's not unreasonable...most states have some safeguards like that...I known mine does.

So the “no person” statement doesn’t just apply to no people associated with the campaigns. It applies to everyone. Yet that statement appears in the same paragraph as “no person” as it applies to distribution of water. Yet you take that instance to have a different meaning.

Does “no person” change meaning mid-paragraph?
I don’t think so.

actually, in law, "no person " applies to everyone because you can not argue that someone is not a person.

However, when you say "person" it opens up the debate as to who are you referring to.....and it opens up the debate as to who is a person in the eyes of the law.

Don't get me wrong. It is silly, foolish and ridiculous.

But that is how attorneys think....and an attorney of the opposite side needs to be prepared for it.

Look at how the debate of fetuses and abortion has gone. If the original argument in Roe Vs Wade was "it is a living being with human DNA that requires oxygen to survive, the whole debate may have gone a different way. Instead, the pro lifer side called it a living human being... a person......and that opened up the debate. No?

Well, then in this case it says “nor shall any person” hand out water.

So it seems that it applies to everyone.

doing campaign activity

 

[colfax_m]

doing campaign activity

If they intended for it to be limited to people doing campaign activity, they would have said so. You’re inserting words which aren’t in the bill.

Besides; there’s already a prohibition against campaign activity. The intent is clear that it’s not supposed to apply to just those people otherwise it would be unnecessary.