‘It’s a balancing act’
Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger on the new elections law, Jim Crow 2.0, Stacey Abrams and other items.
Times-Journal staffers recently interviewed Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger concerning Georgia’s controversial new elections law. The law has put the state in the national spotlight as Democrats denounce it as an exercise in voter suppression while Republicans call it common sense. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
Q: Why don’t we start with you sharing what you believe are the good things about this new elections law the governor signed.
Brad Raffensperger: Top of the list will be the driver’s license ID (requirement) for absentee ballots — moving away from signature match, which is a subjective measure, to driver’s license (ID numbers), which is objective . ... We’ve been sued both by Democrats and Republicans over signature match. In
fact, last year, South Carolina lost signature match when they were sued by the Democrat(ic) Party.
What we’re seeing nationwide is that many states, red and blue states, are using driver’s license (as proof of identity) because it’s a unique identifier. In fact, the Minnesota secretary of state and also the Minnesota Democrat(ic) Party have been using this and they embrace it. So I would hope that the Democrat(ic) Party here in Georgia would embrace it as well.
The second one is early voting. We have actually expanded it from a 16day minimum to a 17-day minimum. And then counties, if they want to, can add two additional weekends of Sunday voting, so that’d be 19 days total. So more early voting. So that makes it more accessible for voters. But the other thing it does, is the more people that vote early, the less people that have to show up on Tuesday on Election Day.
And then we had actually been working hard with counties, especially after the June primary in the middle of the pandemic last year, about long lines . ... And we worked really well on that because our average wait time in the November election, it was a two-minute wait time. But now we set that one hour goal. We’d like to really work towards 30 minutes, but one hour has been set in law. In other words, if you have a precinct in some county where they have long lines, they’ll have to bust that precinct in half, or they’re going to have to go ahead and add additional equipment or poll workers.
I think the other thing that comes to mind is the four-week runoff. We used to have a four-week state runoff and then an eight-week federal runoff . ... We now get a fourweek runoff for both elections. And I think that’s a good thing. It’ll be much easier on the counties, also the candidates, and particularly the candidates’ back pocket, because the elections won’t be so expensive. And from the viewers’ standpoint, there’ll be less commercials for you to have to suffer through on TV. So it’s a win-win-win all the way around, we believe.
Q: I’m wondering how you feel about being removed as chair of the state elections board. Doesn’t the law now allow the state legislature to choose who will chair the state elections board? Do you consider this an attack on you? And do you consider this good policy?
A: Let’s set aside the personality. To your question, “Do I consider this good policy?” Absolutely not. I think it’s very poor policy, and here’s why. Since 1960 ... the secretary of state, who holds an elected office as a constitutional officer, who reports to the voters every four years, was the chair of the state election board. And therefore, if the state election board made decisions that the voters did not support, they could hold them accountable. Now you have a 100% unaccountable board that is appointed . ... And that’s a very powerful board, because they’ve increased the powers of that board, to fire county election directors. If (the board) make(s) a mistake, and that doesn’t work out, who are you going to hold accountable? An unelected official? And so if the secretary of state chaired that or some other elected officer, you could then hold them accountable at the ballot box. So you lose a big accountability measure.
Q: The other four members of that board, that stays the same?
A: That stays the same. And they were always unelected. So now it’s a 100% unelected board making very big decisions for the people of Georgia.
Q: Have you talked with the county elections directors, both rural and urban, about how much it might cost to implement these changes to elections law and how those are going to be funded?
A: No, we haven’t. I hope that the General Assembly reached out to the counties and got a budget for that and looked at the impact . ... I think the four-week runoff, that helps everyone from the standpoint of budget(s).