Failed gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams, who famously refused to concede her election, has been making a name as a “voting rights” activist, particularly in the State of Georgia.
Democrats far and wide credited Abrams with Biden’s win in Georgia, as well as the special election victories of Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock. But how could a red state go so blue so quickly, specifically when all the other souther states went for Trump?
Abrams, who runs a shadowy GOTV group called Fair Fight, recently discussed the Georgia integrity law that provoked widespread fake outrage from Democrats and voting rights groups.
In an interview on PBS, Abrams spilled the beans about why she really opposes the Georgia election law.
“What do you think the impact of those laws could be when you look ahead specifically to the midterm elections?” PBS host Amna Nawaz asked Abrams. “Are you concerned that Democrats could actually lose control of the House and Senate as a result of those?”
“Yes. As a partisan, I am concerned about whether my party, which tends to be over-representative of communities of color, of communities that are disadvantaged and marginalized, that the party to which I pledge allegiance, or at least I have given my fealty, that the party could lose. she said. “But I honestly want us to return to the fundamentals of voting.”
The fundamentals of voting are this: One citizen, one legal vote. Unfortunately, this seems to be a difficult concept for Democrats to grasp, gathering from their opposition to common sense election provisions like voter IDs. The best research available on voter IDs show that they make no difference for registration or voting turnout. An estimated 95% of black citizens who live in Georgia have voter IDs, and they are free for those who request them.
Furthermore, one does not even need photo ID to cast an absentee ballot in Georgia. That doesn’t stop self-described “partisan” activists like Abrams, who leads the supposedly “non-partisan” Fair Fight, from making outrageous claims about basic voting security measures, such as they are equivalent to “Jim Crow 2.0.”
“In a nation like the U.S., with its changing demography, if the response to increased participation by communities of color, by young people, by women, if the response is to restrict their access and impede their participation, that is a very, very strong signal that we are heading in the wrong direction and that our democracy is not safe, it is not sound, and it is not resilient,” she also said.
Abrams, and the partisan media that refuses to challenge her, continues to repeat this non-sensical talking point that measures to ensure one citizen has one vote are “restrictions” on “access” to the election. In a sense, they are right: They are “restrictions” against committing fraud in U.S. elections.
OPINION: This article contains commentary which reflects the author's opinion.