Skip to main content
You have permission to edit this article.
New Georgia voting law doesn't restore Jim Crow

New Georgia voting law doesn't restore Jim Crow

  • 0

I am so glad the whole white supremacy and gun nut narrative is over, so we can get back to the one about voter suppression. Those horrific shootings late last month diverted our attention away from what President Joe Biden has called “Jim Crow on steroids,” namely the recent controversial voting reform legislation passed in Georgia and signed by Gov. Brian Kemp.

Anyone who actually has read the almost 100 pages of the Georgia law would know that it is not an attempt to keep Black voters from voting. It is not akin to the KKK roadblocks that my father encountered in Mississippi in 1967. It is not anywhere near as egregious as the murder of Viola Liuzzo, a white woman assassinated by the Klan in Alabama because she was accompanying Black friends to the airport after a voting rights rally. It doesn’t come close to creating the atmosphere on the Edmund Pettus bridge, the site of the late John Lewis’ near fatal beating.

It simply doesn’t measure up to being “Jim Crow on steroids.”

I think that phrase is what angered me the most. Biden tried to play politics when he compared what Georgia did to what happened during the 1950s and ’60s.

The reason I felt that rage is because so many people who were born after Andrew Goodman, James Chaney and Michael “Mickey” Schwerner were murdered and thrown into a Philadelphia, Mississippi, ditch will take what the president is saying at face value.

The sort of folk who get their news in tweets and social media spasms actually might believe that forcing someone to bring their own water to stand in a voting line is a human rights violation. They have no first-hand memory of crowds mowed down by Bull Connor’s water hoses, more powerful and at least as damaging as pepper spray. They’d have to google the name “Medgar Evers” to realize that needing some form of readily available ID to cast a vote is not the same thing as getting gunned down in your driveway. They like the poetry of Amanda Gorman, their generation’s Maya Anjelou, appreciate the stylized words of woke rappers such as Common, and love the music played on a loop (Rise up, Rise up!) on the saccharine promos of self-interested cable networks.

They think they are warriors because of the things they post on Tik Tok and Instagram, and the elders on the left let them think that they are part of a movement as big and as great as what came before.

And now they have a president telling them that Jim Crow is back, and better than ever. Or bigger than ever. Or whatever he needs to say to get people to love him and hate his predecessor.

The problem is when you actually read the law and its provisions, you will see that nothing in it comes close to destroying the right to vote. In some cases it makes it more inconvenient when, for example, it limits the number of drop boxes you can have, or reduces the amount of time within which to request an absentee ballot. In other cases, it actually allows the state to increase the hours polls can be kept open, a provision that has gotten very little attention by the industrial grievance complex. Early voting, and Sunday voting, is also expanded in some cases under the new legislation.

But the focus has been on the sexy parts of the law, the parts that pundits can point to and say, “See, they want to silence us!” The perennial fight over whether voters should be forced to provide ID is highlighted as being, what some critics suggested in a CNN column, “disproportionately likely to burden Black voters.”

Of course, no one ever has a good explanation why that’s the case. The law provides for at least six alternative forms of identification, from Social Security numbers to driver’s licenses to utility bills. Georgia is not requiring, as far as I know, proof that someone holds a hereditary title or a DNA test.

Yes, my tongue is back in my cheek. When you really look at what Georgia did, the wailing from critics rings hollow. More importantly, and as I mentioned on social media, Joe Biden’s suggestion that this is anything like Jim Crow is akin to peeing on the graves of the murdered boys of Mississippi.

You can question why Georgia made the changes it did, and look for a sober discussion of the facts.

But the ghosts of Mississippi and Alabama, among them a fellow named Ted Flowers, will haunt your waking hours if you dare suggest that Mr. Crow is still around.

Christine Flowers is an attorney and a columnist for the Delaware County Daily Times, and can be reached at

Catch the latest in Opinion

* I understand and agree that registration on or use of this site constitutes agreement to its user agreement and privacy policy.

Related to this story

Most Popular

  • +3

On Aug. 3, both parties hold primaries for two open Ohio congressional seats. But the outcome of the Democratic clash in the Cleveland-area 11th District may have greater significance than the identity of any of the day’s other winners. That’s because the race between former state Sen. Nina Turner and Cuyahoga County Councilwoman Shontel Brown, both African Americans, is the latest in a series ...

The inventory of fairly useless labels in modern journalism is both robust and accessible, labels such as "deep dive," which, translated literally, means "look out, we might actually spend more than a minute or two on this story." Journalists designate a "deep dive," at their peril of course, because many consumers of news still prefer the shallow end of the info pool, while the rest simply ...

Get up-to-the-minute news sent straight to your device.


Breaking News

Weekend Things to Do

News Alert