Nate Cohn

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

There are things that blur the line, where ensuring access can mitigate the risk of subversion. If I want to overturn the election by throwing out ballots purportedly cast by dead people, it would help if there's a law saying you can't disenfranchise people on such a list — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

Voter suppression affects whether or how people cast ballots. You address it with laws ensuring access to the ballot. Election subversion might entail attempting to manipulate or overturn results. You can't address it by ensuring access to voting. https://t.co/RlSRTNBBof — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

No. Election subversion is a different *kind* of risk than voter suppression, requiring different analysis and different legal remedies. (and it's *published* today... written last week...) https://t.co/dSELCQEbYM — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

It can be important to distinguish between aspects of a law for many self-evident reasons that I won't elaborate on. For the progressives, I'd note HR1 is a clear illustration of the stakes of failing to think about different kinds of risks and different solutions — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

One of the most wrong headed critiques was the notion, often implicit, that there's something problematic about examining individual aspects of a law at a time (especially when there's more coming later on those very aspects) — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

As an aside, the response here to the my piece on the voting half of this law was series of absolutely unhinged--which is not to say there weren't several valid critiques, some of which I'm sympathetic to. — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

The new Georgia law increases the risk of partisan interference in election administration, even if it doesn't make it easy. Election subversion is a risk outside of Georgia, too, and it's a risk that's being overshadowed by focus on mail voting https://t.co/ibJ0BovSrN — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

RT @SeanTrende: The reaction to @ForecasterEnten's column on the midterms is absolutely insane. Like yeah I can tell a story on why Democra… — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

RT @EricLevitz: 1) The @Nate_Cohn piece is good overall imo. Does feel a bit odd to bracket both the intent of the law and its takeover of… — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

In contrast, the GA law provisions on voting mainly effect *how* you can vote. And while restrictions on "how" can amount to disenfranchisement (imagine one site per state!), the balance of research suggests that if you can vote, you'll figure out how in typical circumstances — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

Voter reg is so important because it effects who *can* vote: if you aren't registered, you *can't* vote. In that sense, tough voter reg laws actually are kind of reminiscent of Jim Crow, which also targeted who *can* vote (can't pay poll tax? you *can't* vote) — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

@BtotheMaz if you listen to the trump call, when he said 'find' votes he meant disqualify fwiw — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

I actually agree with virtually every single thing in this thread. (But for context, my focus on advance/no-excuse abs voting is a reflection of the GA law, which restricts no-excuse absentee voting without touching things we agree do matter, like autoreg) https://t.co/QFQAi5Rkqv — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

@DLEG101 @cmMcConnaughy WA doesn't really do in-person voting, with a mere one station per county thanks to mail voting. one could call that the most grevious restriction in another context. the question is whether people have enough of an opportunity or not, not whether there are restrictions — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

@DLEG101 @cmMcConnaughy idk whether it's legitimate, but all states have restrictions on the time, place and manner of elections. you can always argue for the addition of another method, an hour longer at the polls, another week of early voting, and so on. — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

@cmMcConnaughy Then I'll reframe the question: do you think that no-excuse absentee mail voting is essential to the fundamental right to vote? — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

@cmMcConnaughy do you think there's a right to no-excuse absentee mail voting? — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

Could a partisan GA administrator, even in 2020, have successfully 'found' the 11k votes, through decertification or eligibility challenges, and survived court challenge? I don't think the answer is absolutely certain. — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

I do think there are a lot of possible powers that could be abused (yes, this risk already existed to be clear). But I don't think anyone has fully thought through either the extent that these powers could be misused--or what you could really get away if you tried — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

As an aside: after several days of hoping to have clear sense about whether or how the state legislature could abuse this law by usurping administrative powers, I did not come up with a clear and satisfactory answer. — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

Similarly, if you want to protect democracy--and make sure HR1 does--you do need to be able to prioritize, and distinguish nuisances from fundamental threats. In the worst case, reformers could overlook more severe but less self-evidently morally repugnant threats https://t.co/S5wKRWS0yW — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

Conversely, the reform bill HR1 has no chance to find bipartisan support so long as people really believe it could doom the Republican Party (it would not). — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

After all, part of why these laws are being pushed is because they think they'll do something! — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

For starters, many political actors are operating under--and even motivated by--the erroneous assumption that these laws have existential stakes for electoral outcomes. That has real world consequences. — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

I also like to say that I do think it's important for journalists to report about the consequences of these laws, not just their intent or morality, for a few reasons. — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

I've limited my analysis to the provisions affecting whether and how people can vote, not those that empower the state legislature to play a larger role in election administration. More on those later, but those provisions don't inherently affect voting access in a particular way — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

The Georgia election law's restrictions on voting are unlikely to discernibly affect turnout or the result https://t.co/SrDAFexWCN — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

@ElectProject @UpshotNYT *can be boiled down to* — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

@ElectProject @UpshotNYT maybe more importantly, this is a single example drawn from a broad body of research that--as you agree--has more or less the same basic finding — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

@ElectProject @UpshotNYT it's a natural experiment; all of social science boiled down to figuring out when a scatterplot lets you make causal inference, and here it does. the external validity point is certainly a fair one, but there's really no comparison — PolitiTweet.org