MSNBC correspondent Sam Brock conceded this week he’s not sure how Florida’s new voting bill suppresses the vote. He just knows critics say it’s bad, and that’s good enough for the network’s prime-time news coverage.
Groucho Marx sang a song once to this effect. This was probably the most instructive MSNBC news segment in a long while.
“I spoke with a voting law expert who said it’s like 1,000 paper cuts,” said Brock, weirdly declining to give the name of the so-called expert. “It’s not clear what any one of the components of S.B. 90 will actually do in terms of suppressing the vote. When you add them all up together, it could make for a lot of bleeding when it comes to voter access.”
MSNBC host Hallie Jackson pressed Brock to clarify.
“Tell us more about what some of the opponents of this bill, now law, are saying about it and trying to do about it, specifically, besides just filing lawsuits,” she said. “Is that what they believe is their best chance at trying to undo what Florida has put in place is lawsuits?”
Brock responded, “Yes. Of course, there’s the question of severability. Can parts of the law be struck down while others are maintained in place? Democracy Docket is made up of voting rights activists, League of Women’s Voters, some other groups in there challenging this court immediately after it took effect. Their argument is this affects First Amendment rights, free speech, 14th Amendment, equal protection under the law, what communities are impacted by not being able to potentially mail in their ballots or another component that I didn’t mention: You can only bring two mail-in ballots per person now.”
For the record, here’s what the Florida law does, per Reuters:
The law also gives partisan election observers more power to raise objections and requires people offering voters assistance to stay at least 150 feet (45 meters) away from polling places, an increase from the previous 100-foot (30-meter) radius.
“So,” Brock continued, “in larger households that are diverse, potentially of color, with less economic means, will they get their ballots to the box in time or will they be able to do it at all? Those are concerns voiced right now. The proponents of the lawsuits feel they have a strong argument to be made.”
He is certainly well versed in the counterarguments to the bill. Funny how he can’t speak to whether the bill does any of those things its critics claim it does.
Jackson then turned her attention to a new voting law measure proposed in Texas.
“We know protesters have been getting together there,” the host said. “There’s this show of opposition against what they see as a restrictive voting bill in Texas.”
Jackson then turned the floor over to correspondent Jane Timm.
“Advocates and Democrats, Hallie, are trying to make this as painful as possible for the Republicans to pass this bill, H.B. 6,” said the journalist. “They know they don’t have the votes to stop the law, but they want to highlight various issues about it.”
Timm added, “So, now, the bill makes it harder — it adds a bunch of criminal penalties to various parts of the election process, making it harder for things like election officials to talk to voters about absentee ballots and empowering partisan poll watchers and adding protections for them, numerous criminal penalties with felony penalties for various parts of the election process. People say this is a chilling effect.”
Ah, a “chilling effect.” What are the penalties for? They have no idea. That’s close enough for MSNBC work.
They can’t say whether the bills are actually as bad as critics say they are. They don’t know what the bills do. They just know the bills are probably bad, according to anonymous critics.
That’s some solid reporting.
