Liberal Students Praise Voting Reforms, Then Discover its Georgia's New Law - WATCH
Georgetown University students unwittingly support election integrity measures from GA law
Several liberal students say they support voting reform measures that were explained to them, until they were told they were from Georgia's new election integrity law.
Students at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C. were told about specific measures regarding voting integrity and then asked their opinion on those rules.
On the whole, they almost all agreed with the measures that, unbeknown to them at the time, were directly from the new Georgia voting law.
Campus Reform visited the university to read students the component of Georgia’s new law and film their responses.
"Most students were widely supportive of the bill, applauding its voter expansion,” Campus Reform found.
SCROLL DOWN FOR VIDEO
Early in the video, one student, who is white, said she was from Georgia and that there was “a lot of voter suppression” in her home state.
She explains that she believes there needs to be a lot more “freedom and accessibility” for voters, such as “extending hours.”
Campus Reform’s video reporter Addison Smith then explained to the students some measures of “new legislation going around,” which would require weekend early voting for two Saturdays instead of just one, giving counties the option to expand early voting for two Sundays, clarify voting hours, ban electioneering within 150 feet of a polling location, and require identification to ensure people can’t cast multiple ballots.
The students agreed with those measures.
“Making sure people aren’t casting more than one vote sounds kinda commonsense to me,” said one student.
“I think that allowing voters more time to vote is never a bad thing,” said another, who also appeared to be in favor of voter identification to prevent illegal voting.
“The ability to vote on the weekend, specifically, makes a lot of sense,” said yet another student.
The student who claimed there was “a lot of voter suppression” in Georgia also agreed on the measures relating to early voting and electioneering, but fell back on the debunked left-wing talking point that “not everyone has access to an ID or the ability to get one,” adding that “not everyone has a static location where they live.”
Smith then asked the students if the bill he described would be a good substitute for the Georgia law.
The student from Georgia said, “yeah, anything’s better than that.”
When informed that he actually described the Georgia bill, the student barely reacted, claiming the bill also included “less locations” to vote.
She then claimed it was “classist” to require an ID to vote and that three years wasn’t enough time for people to get an ID.
When Smith told her that more than 70% of black voters support showing an ID at the polls, she said “Okay, I don’t.”
She failed to explain why proving your identity is "classist" or why she believes black and minority Americans are incapable of acquiring ID.
Other students were surprised to learn what was actually in the Georgia bill, admitting they hadn’t actually read it.
One student tried to claim people weren’t deliberately misrepresenting the bill, but when asked if the measures Smith described amounted to “Jim Crow on steroids,” she changed her tune.
The Georgia law expands early voting and requires voter IDs.
It does not prohibit people from getting food or drink while waiting in line, they just can’t receive it from candidates or staff (poll workers can hand it out and people can order or bring it themselves).