Criminal Liability Is the Wrong Tool for Enforcing Election Laws

Jay SchweikertYesterday, Georgia Governor Brian Kempsigned into law a massive overhaul of Georgia ’s elections laws. The96 ‐​page bill addresses a wide range of subjects — amongst other things, it puts strict limits on mail‐​in voting, expands access to early in‐​person voting, adds new ID requirements, and creates new regulations for poll workers at voting stations.Election law is not my field of expertise, and I will leave to others to debate whether the changes to election procedures themselves are necessary or prudent. But what I am sure about is that enforcing mundane election procedures throughcriminal liability is unnecessary, unjust, and needlessly deters people from exercising both their freedom of speech and their right to vote. And in that respect, if nothing else, the Georgia law expands on and exacerbates what was already a serious problem.Let ’s start by looking at one of the most controversial and widely discussed provisions of the new law — the criminal prohibition on passing out food and drink to voters waiting in line. Here’s what the operative language of the new bill actually says (the bolded text is the new provision):(a) No person shall solicit votes in any manner or by any means or method, nor shall any person distribute or display any campaign material,nor shall any person give, offer to give, or participate in the giving of any money or gifts, including, but not limited to, food and drink, to an elector, ...
Source: Cato-at-liberty - Category: American Health Authors: Source Type: blogs