Here we go. Should be an interesting Election Day. No Decatur City Commission seats up for reelection this time, but we’ve got glose races for the Governor’s seat and U.S. Senate. Decatur resident Valarie Wison up for State Superintendent. Clayton County’s voting on MARTA. Etc, etc.
Use this thread to report lines at polling stations, ballot questions, etc etc.
Don’t know your precinct? Click here!
Amendment B is meant to fix what has become a loophole. Several years ago, there was a stiff surcharge levied on convicted DUIs to go to a victims’ restitution fund. It hasn’t generated nearly the expected revenue because many offenders have gotten the charge reduced to Reckless Driving, which carries no surcharge. The Amendment expands the surcharge to those convicted of lesser offenses. If someone causes injury, the victims should be compensated. Keep in mind that, despite the law, many of those offenders do not have insurance, so there is no recourse there.
Sounds more like plea bargaining than a loophole to me. And reading the language of the amendment below, what are the additional penalties, and how is recklessness determined? Too much left unsaid for my tastes, so I’m going with “no.”
Looked into it a bit more and it’s 10% of the fine, or a max of $100 paid to the fund. Still, applying the fee to drunk driving convictions had the benefit of being objective — we can determine blood alcohol levels with certainty. Recklessness is inherently subjective and can be overcharged and abused by police. Not to mention, if the additional fine ends up causing more people to fight reckless driving charges (which already carry a 4 point penalty and threaten jail time), you could have more jury trials over traffic violations, which would cost the state more than it would bring in.
Another problem is that much of the support for this surcharge has been based on an assumption that prosecutors and judges have been handing out reckless driving pleas to drunk drivers willy nilly. The trend is completely opposite. It used to be MUCH easier to get a DUI reduced to reckless driving in most courts in Georgia than it is now. Whether or not the surcharge is a good or bad thing on its own merits, I’m inherently skeptical when such basic facts are misrepresented.
” Recklessness is inherently subjective and can be overcharged and abused by police.”
This is exactly why I voted against this. I would probably have voted yes if the charge were DUI, but reckless driving could be simply incompetence (which, imo, we should be doing more about before someone is handed a license).
“Keep in mind that, despite the law, many of those offenders do not have insurance, so there is no recourse there.”
I’d guess it’s not likely much in the way of financial restitution could be extracted from those who don’t even have car insurance.
“If someone causes injury, the victims should be compensated.”
Just to clarify. This would apply to anyone convicted of Reckless Driving, whether they cause injury or not.
I’m not an attorney, so my understanding is a broad one. Here’s the summary:
Ballot title
The official ballot title is as follows:[2]
“ Adding reckless driving penalties or fees to the brain and spinal injury trust fund (House Resolution 1183).[3] ”
Ballot summary
The official ballot text is as follows:[4]
“ Shall the Constitution of Georgia be amended to allow additional reckless driving penalties or fees to be added to the Brain and Spinal Injury Trust Fund to pay for care and rehabilitative services for Georgia citizens who have survived neurotrauma with head or spinal cord injuries?
( ) YES
( ) NO[3]
I read it to mean that additional penalties or fees could be added to all reckless driving, regardless of whether or not it actually resulted in injury.
That is correct. It applies to all violations of Reckless Driving, and goes to a fund that helps those that have experienced neurotrauma.
I was pleased to see it hopping at 7:05 this morning. Hope the turnout continues to be good.
It was crowded at 10 AM. Looks like a good turnout.
I voted a split ticket. Everybody hates me.
This whole voter ID thing really irks me. My ID was checked three times before I was allowed to vote.
this is perhaps the quintessential #firstworldproblem
Agreed. I am equally irked by showing my ID (repeatedly) at Hartsfield and in the Turner Field beer line, but have learned to live with it, albeit reluctantly.
On the plus side, if you forget who you are maybe someone else will know.
I think the difference in this case, is that many states have no Voter ID laws. You get your ID checked for beer everywhere, you show your ID at every airport. Pick a Northeastern state and it’s likely you won’t find anyone asking for ID at the polls. Voting should be uniform for everyone, everywhere.
You are right. Every voter should be required to produce an ID before voting.
and a great way to make that nice and easy and standardized across the land for every one is to have a national id card. you turn 18, you have the right to vote, and here’s your card that will allow you to do just that.
So you are volunteering to drive the oldsters who no longer drive to get a state issued ID, that they need for NOTHING else? We have several around me who grew up in Georgia when they weren’t allowed to attend school, who were delivered at home, and have SSN’s but no birth certificates, certainly no passports. How are you going to help them vote?
I am not going to help them. If they want to exercise their privilege to vote, they need to figure it out, even it means some effort and expense. There is no constitutional right to vote.
That depends on how the Constitution is interpreted. It’s supported textually more than some rights, though it’s true it isn’t expressly granted in the Bill of Rights (though, again, it depends on how one interprets ).
To clarify the above, it’s difficult to look at the 15th Amendment which begins with “the RIGHT of U.S. citizens to vote” and then call it a mere privilege, like a driver’s license (now if we want to talk about limiting that privilege, I’m all for it!).
In addition, Art. 1 Section 2 says that members of the house are to be chosen by the people. Ditto for the 17th amendment (I hope I have the number right) providing for the direct election of senators. To say there is no constitutional right to vote would make nonsense out of those two provisions, at the very least. IMO there is clearly a constitutional right to vote.
And the 26th Amendment, which doesn’t read “the privilege of citizens of the U.S., who are eighteen years of age or older…” but the “the right of citizens…”
I’ll throw in there the 19th Amendment which states, “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.”
We might as well throw in the most relevant Amendment (24th) as well which states, “The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.”
Unfortunately, “right” doesn’t think what you think it means. It means what Scalia, Alito and Thomas think it means!
I should not comment before coffee…
“Screw you, I got mine.”
Second verse, same as the first, huh?
I think less #firstworldproblem and more voter suppression under the guise of reducing voter fraud.
Ding ding ding. In Texas, student IDs aren’t on the list of acceptable voter identifications, while gun owners in Texas are allowed to use their concealed-carry permits as valid proof of the right to vote.
Uh, ok. One is state issued, and one is possibly privately issued (private schools).
Schools don’t require a background check, a million forms of ID, passport, etc, particularly if they are private… A lot harder to make a fake CCP than Student ID.
I don’t buy the conspiracy theory stuff that Voter ID is all about the man keeping folks down. Give me a break — want a cocktail? get on a plane? open a bank account? Better have a valid ID.
“I don’t buy the conspiracy theory stuff that Voter ID is all about the man keeping folks down. ”
Even when several Republican officials have admitted that this is indeed the motivation? Regardless, I think it actually helps Democrats, who can use it as a rallying point. Rand Paul seems smart enough to know this.
“Even when several Republican officials have admitted that this is indeed the motivation?”
Who? When?
“Voter ID, which is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done.”
Mike Turzai, state House Republican leader, PA. June 2012.
politico.com/news/stories/0612/77811.html
Of course he was wrong, but it’s clear what his implication was.
There are more obvious ones (with direct mentions of race) that are attributed to former Republican officials with an axe to grind (doesn’t mean they’re lying though). I just picked the first one that came up in a search.
I guess I missed the part where he “admitted that this was indeed the motivation,” since the article expressly says otherwise. You’re entitled to your opinion though.
My opinion is these laws are clearly aimed at constituencies who disproportionately support Democrats. That was clearly the hope of Mr. Turzai; but I guess they just didn’t weed out enough “fraud” to tip things his party’s way. But as I said elsewhere, I think these laws help Democratic turnout.
Or, what he meant was that the crooks in Penn couldn’t keep loading people up in buses and driving them around to 12 different precincts to vote 12 different times. I forget, was it a pack or a carton of cigarettes they got per vote.
So when other Republican officials talk about using voter ID to limit the voting of “lazy blacks” and “lazy college students”, that’s just about fraud too, right?
Nope, those guys are fools.
BrianC sourced his claim. You do the same.
you don’t have a right to do any of those just by being a citizen and 18.
Sure, asking for an easily obtainable ID to prove you are the person you say you are is voter suppression. Nevermind that you need an ID to say… purchase alcohol or cigarettes, get on a plane-train-or bus, adopt a pet, cash a check, or even to get a library card! But to have to provide an ID to vote? Suppression! Oh, the tyranny!
“Sure, asking for an easily obtainable ID to prove you are the person you say you are is voter suppression.”
Easily obtainable for most, but not necessarily the poor and elderly. And if voter fraud is really the concern, then why has there been an emphasis on voting place ID and not on absentee ballots, which are more vulnerable to fraud?
Valid point. Studies have shown that voter id laws do very little to prevent fraud (as in-person fraud very seldom occurs), BUT they also show that they do not cause voter suppression. My thoughts are that the laws are fairly useless, so I tend to not care for them. On the other hand, it does seem like showing an id to vote under your name is a common sense measure…
“Studies have shown that voter id laws do very little to prevent fraud (as in-person fraud very seldom occurs), BUT they also show that they do not cause voter suppression. ”
And I think even some Republicans are realizing that, while the rhetoric around the issue might appeal to their base, it actually gives Democrats an issue to rally their base around.
“I think less #firstworldproblem and more voter suppression under the guise of reducing voter fraud.”
Yep. And I suppose limiting early voting is about “voter fraud” too. At least that’s how they’ll try to spin it.
At a meeting last week, former Gov. Sonny Perdue said he opposed the amendment prohibiting the legislature from raising taxes, saying it was not much more than political grandstanding. So, if a prominent Republican thinks it’s garbage, y’all better vote against it!
Just like you voted for McCain based on Perdue’s endorsement?
My usual election day post: no vote, no complaining. I’ll extend that to: no vote, no complaining, pontificating, finger-pointing, hating, blaming, ranting, snarking, flag-waving, judging, moralizing, or even loud sighs.
And, you can’t make Dentist jokes if you’re not a dentist.
Anti-dentite
or dantite for short
Your position assumes that there is a real policy or governance difference between “Bad choice A” and “Bad Choice B” in state and federal elections.
Until we stop voting for the “least bad” candidate there will continue to be little substantive difference in outcome, whether I vote or not. I might as well be voting for my favorite football team. I think that the abysmally low voter participation rates are a testament to the fact that voting just doesn’t matter that much.
This is why a closed primary is a bad idea – the party votes for the best candidate for their views, instead of the candidate that can win /and/ represent all of the populous.
I also think we should be able to vote “no confidence” in a set of candidate choices, and force the candidates in the vote out.
I like to write in cartoon characters for races in which I don’t like either candidate.
One day, Mighty Mouse will hold office. And the world will be better for it.
Why isn’t Farm Burger offering free fries to people who voted? Things were so much better in the old days.
It is against the law to offer goods or services to any person to either vote or withhold his/her vote. Starbucks tried to offer voters free coffee in 2008 but had a rescind offer because of the legal issue. If I recall correctly they removed the voting stipulation and offered a free coffee to anyone who wanted one on election day.
Then isn’t it illegal to give me the “I Voted” sticker?
You paid for those with taxes.
And I paid for that Starbucks coffee with corporate tax credits.
Ooooooh. Good one!
Saw that coming a mile away. I love when people think that the government confiscating less of what people/corporations earn somehow translates to us “paying”.*
*This statement should in no way be read to infer that I support “corporate welfare.” I do not.
Re voter fraud: there may be some but it’s much less common than people not voting at all. I consider that the bigger problem. I wish everyone was required to vote just like male registration for the draft and filing an income tax form are not optional. Or if that’s too coercive, I wish there was a huge incentive or social/cultural pressure to vote such that hardly anyone opted out. (What would that be? I’m drawing a blank.) I’d even be ok with there being more options on the ballot, e.g. a check box for “Not willing to vote for any candidate” or “Do not understand what this office (or amendment or initiative) is”. Whenever I’ve moved to a new area, it always feels strange to vote when you’ve never heard of most of the candidates or even the offices, especially in local elections. Local governments vary widely in types of offices. But it tells our government one thing when we show up but decline to vote for issues or offices we don’t understand vs. when we do not show up at all.
I like to write in cartoon characters for races in which I don’t like either candidate.
One day, Mighty Mouse will hold office. And the world will be better for it.
I was suffering from coffee deprivation this morning, and couldn’t come up with an inspired, creative write-in opposed to John Lewis. At least I can say I still have never cast a vote for him.
I wish less people would vote. Too many folks are uninformed.
I have a different take on that. I think too many candidates are uninformed. The general public has an excuse–they are busy being the general public. But when I see candidates saying ignorant things or not doing their homework, it seems like an abrogation of their duty to serve.
What’s kind of scary is that actually voters have more information than they’ve ever had before–with the internet in everyone’s phone plus all the other media. But the way the information is coming to us and how we are using it is not the thoughtful, serious, sincere, weighty discourse that should occur in a democracy.
You’re exactly right.
Rent seeking special interests have a substantially larger interest in campaigns and politicians than do the individual voter most of the time.
The only real way to counter that is by taking away the power of the state to confiscate resources from the masses and redistribute them to favored parties.
Hank Johnson seems a perfect example of the misinformed, mentally ill-equipped politician, yet he ran unopposed.
Luckily those counterweights installed on Guam!
Well, I certainly agree with you on those points.
Don’t get me started on this. Having a heart that has been beating for 18 years shouldn’t qualify one to vote.
What should? A poll tax? Literacy test, mayhap?
So someone who is informed, lived here for much longer than 18 years, but is not a citizen, maybe they shouldn’t be disqualified from voting?
If they choose to not seek citizenship, then no, they shouldn’t be able to vote. Voting is a privilege reserved for citizens.
Well being a “citizen” (natural born) is no less arbitrary a distinction than being alive for 18 years. My point is the law doesn’t recognize these distinctions. An 18 year old citizen can vote, period.
It looks like it’s going to be a long night for Democratic supporters. But for local transit supporters, it appears to be certain that at long last a county other than DeKalb and Fulton is going to be paying the MARTA sales tax, as Clayton votes to join the system.
I’m going to say a prayer for the folks who are going to die because the Medicaid expansion ain’t gonna happen.
Close – but the appropriate response to losing an election is that *Women and children, and especially minorities* will die because Republicans were elected.
Wouldn’t have happened anyway, since the state legislature took that decision out of the governor’s hands.