Georgia Legislature

  • August 10, 2011
    by Jonathan Arogeti

    With the redistricting debate heating up in preparation for the 2012 election, one jurisdiction that is subject to preclearance under section 5 of the Voting Rights Act is injecting partisanship into what Georgia House Minority Leader Stacey Abrams said “is not about politicians,” The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports.

    Republicans who control the process in Georgia, she explains, plan to create 49 “majority-minority” House districts, an increase of seven over the current arrangement. Abrams contends that the goal of this process is to ensure Republican two-thirds majorities so that it can enact state constitutional amendments without Democratic votes. “They accomplished this by purging the state of Georgia of white Democrats. Almost without exception in the Fulton-DeKalb area, if you are a white Democrat who is near an African-American, you were paired and you are going to have to run against one another,” said Abrams.

    Although the Voting Rights Act requires the state to preclear changes to election practices and procedures, Abrams said Republicans are using it as a weapon because the landmark law generally prevents the dilution of minority voting strength.

    “What they’ve said to every member who questioned [why] they were going to get competition … they said the Voting Rights Act made me do it,” she said. “When you use suppression by inclusion it is a violation of the Voting Rights spirit. It is a craven and cynical attempt to say we as Georgians don’t know what we’re getting.”

  • April 13, 2011
    Guest Post

    By Jerry Gonzalez. Mr. Gonzalez is executive director of the Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials (GALEO), a nonprofit organization focusing upon greater civic engagement and leadership development of the Latino community in Georgia. 


    Tomorrow, the Georgia Legislature will decide the fate of an Arizona-style legislative initiative (House Bill 87), an onerous copycat version of the infamous and controversial Arizona immigration enforcement law.

    Despite the fact that similar legislation across the country is being delayed due to serious economic concerns, Georgia's anti-immigrant legislators insist on irresponsibly moving forward with their immigration enforcement schemes. The passage of such controversial legislation would be fiscally disastrous for our state on a number of fronts.

    To begin with, any new state regulatory scheme of immigration enforcement would require scarce resources for implementation, training, maintenance and compliance. Where will Georgia — which like many other states, is in a serious fiscal crisis and considering budget cuts — come up with resources required for an implementation of such an expansive and onerous immigration enforcement scheme? How much will Georgia have to pay for the potential litigation costs associated with future lawsuits? It's both fiscally irresponsible and foolish to push such a massive proposal to expand the state government during these tight budgetary times.

    In addition, Georgia has worked hard for a reputation it would like to protect and an image it would like to promote across the country and abroad. It's the home of many multinational corporations, has the world's busiest airport, has a thirst for expanding international trade, and is the cradle of the Civil Rights Movement. Georgia's economic development efforts rely upon it being seen as a good place to do business. If HB 87 moves forward, that reputation will certainly be irreparably tarnished.