I hope copying the Indiana Voter Law is the answer, Abathar. Thanks for your insight. Your post:
“If Georgia wants to nip this in the bud and tell the feds to take a fly leap then just copy Indiana’s new election laws word for word for voter identification.
It has already been in front of the USSC and passed, you have to have a valid photo ID to vote here, even an expired license will be refused. Screw them, its a quick end-around that will work by next election because it has been fought already, any lawsuits brought about have precedence already set.”
B.S. Non-citizens can't vote. This is totally associated with the Voting Rights Act ... which if the Jim Crow south hadn't abused the power of the majority to deny voting rights to the minority blacks ... there never would have been a need for Federal intervention. This has nothing to do with allowing non-citizens to vote (because they can't and the administration is trying to let them) ... this is slight of hand / smokescreen for the real issue which is how much longer is the "special dispensation" allowing the Federal government the authority to approve voter registration and voting rights laws in a select number of former Jim Crow states. A couple years back Congress already voted to extend the program another 25 years or something like that. Just because the Administration won't approve a change for GA procedures doesn't mean they are trying to let non-citizens vote. If the procedures stay as is ... non-citizens still can't vote. So to say that just because they won't approve a change doesn't mean they are trying to give non-citizen. The Supreme Court has already ruled that Indiana's driver's license / photo ID is constitutional, particularly since there are provisional voting procedures in place. This is just another example of a deliberately INFLAMMATORY remark that obscures the truth in other to mischaracterize and paint the other side as being for something that they aren't. So let's focus on the real issue which is that the special federal dispensation was admittedly appropriate in 1970's and 1980's ... but it's time to decide how much longer such federal intrusion should be allowed to continue. There's no doubt that the special dispensation was constitutional since the constitution is VERY EXPLICIT in Article IV Section 4: "The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion." So the federal government certainly has the power under extraordinary circumstances when evidence reveals the state is not acting as a republican form of government.
It is kind of fun arguing with him, any good ideas are welcome.