General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: The NY Times is wrong and here is why: elections don't happen in a vacuum. [View all]pnwmom
(108,925 posts)had been systematically suppressed.
Voter suppression didn't affect both parties equally. If it had, then the margin would've been the same. But it mostly suppressed Democratic votes. Without that suppression, the outcome in the EC would have flipped to Hillary.
Even in a "red" state like Georgia, voter suppression of Democrats/black voters might have affected the results.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/nov/10/georgia-election-recount-stacey-abrams-brian-kemp
Furthermore from 2012 to 2016, 1.5 million voters were purged more than 10% of all voters from records, according to a 2018 report from the Brennan Center for Justice. In comparison, 750,000 were purged from 2008 to 2012.
Kemp took office in 2010 and he and fellow conservatives argue the law requires ineligible voters who move or die to be cleared from rolls. But voting rights advocates say the removals disproportionately affect groups who tend to vote at lower rates, like minorities and low-income voters the same groups who generally support Democrats.
Its a fundamental problem that stretches back into the history of Georgia and the wider south where racial tensions and the fight over who can vote persists from the days of civil rights struggles.
Sophia Lakin, a staff attorney on the ACLUs Voting Rights Project, points to the fact that until 2013 Georgia was covered by a section of the Voting Rights Act that stipulated it submit election changes to get pre-clearance from the federal government a regulation meant to protect minority voters.