Baseball’s Antitrust Exemption: Its Practical Effect

Back in 2015, FanGraphs ran the first two pieces in what was intended to be a three-part series examining baseball’s antitrust exemption. The first piece in the series looked at the historical evolution of the exemption, and in particular the U.S. Supreme Court’s evolving justification for baseball’s unusual antitrust immunity. The second piece then examined the various ways in which subsequent lower courts have applied and interpreted the scope of the exemption.

Then, as is so often the case, life got in the way. So the third and final installment of the series was never completed.

But with Wednesday’s news that several Republican senators were introducing legislation to strip MLB of its antitrust exemption – in response to the league’s decision to move this summer’s All-Star Game from Atlanta, following the recent passage of Georgia’s controversial voting bill – MLB’s unique status under the Sherman Antitrust Act is once again in the news.

While the latest effort to repeal the exemption faces uncertain odds of success, the proposed legislation nevertheless inspires us to consider an important question: What is the practical effect of MLB’s antitrust exemption, anyway?

Indeed, many baseball fans are often quick to blame the sport’s antitrust exemption whenever MLB does something they disagree with. If only baseball’s antitrust exemption were repealed, these fans contend, then MLB would be forced to [fill in the blank]. Lower its ticket prices. Compete with a rival league. Expand into new markets. Change its television blackout policy.

While not entirely unfounded, many of these criticisms are nevertheless often misplaced. Considering both the uncertain scope of baseball’s exemption, as well as the ways courts have applied antitrust law to the other, non-exempt major U.S. professional sports leagues, simply repealing the exemption alone is unlikely to cure many of the problems fans often believe result from the league’s antitrust immunity.

Importantly, even though the other major U.S. sports leagues all remain subject to the nation’s antitrust laws, their operations are nearly identical to MLB’s in most major respects. As with MLB, the NFL, NBA, and NHL each typically assign their teams the exclusive right to a particular geographic territory, and all four leagues require league approval before a team relocates to a new market. All four leagues also rely heavily on public subsidies when building new stadiums or arenas.

Similarly, the leagues each sign league-wide national television deals with various network and cable television stations, while selling league-wide pay-per-view television packages to allow their fans to watch out-of-market games. And like MLB, the NFL, NBA, and NHL have also historically imposed various television blackout restrictions on their fans (albeit often on a less extensive basis than MLB).

Meanwhile, none of the four major U.S. professional sports leagues have faced direct head-to-head competition from a legitimate rival in decades. The four leagues have also traditionally expanded their number of teams at approximately the same rate, with each currently featuring somewhere between 30 and 32 teams.

In fact, unlike what you’d typically expect to find from an unregulated monopoly, of the four major leagues, MLB actually provides its fans with by far the most games each season, while also charging ticket prices that are, on average, approximately half as low as those in the other three leagues.

All told, then, in many of the most important respects, MLB operates in exactly the same manner as the other U.S. professional sports leagues, despite being the only one of the four to enjoy widespread antitrust immunity. Part of the reason for this is that federal antitrust law has, arguably, failed to effectively regulate U.S. sports leagues. Sports leagues are relatively unusual economic entities, in which independently owned, competing businesses inherently must work together closely to ensure their own continued survival.

These traits have made it difficult for courts to apply antitrust law – which typically seeks to prevent competing firms from colluding together – to the sports industry. Indeed, courts have historically been reluctant to use antitrust law to meaningfully change any of the four leagues’ business models, such as by requiring them to expand their number of teams or substantially alter their television broadcasting practices.

As a result, even if baseball’s antitrust exemption were to be repealed, the loss of immunity would not have a significant effect on MLB’s operations in most respects.

That having been said, there are a couple areas where MLB does benefit from its antitrust exemption. MLB has, for instance, generally been able to exert greater control over its teams’ relocation decisions than have the other three U.S. sports leagues. While it is true that the other sports also require their teams to receive league-wide approval before moving to a new city, in cases against the NFL and NBA courts were willing to strike these restrictions down in order to allow a team to move against its league’s wishes.

Even then, however, these courts recognized that there could be legitimate reasons why a league might lawfully seek to prevent one of its teams from moving (such as to preserve a traditional rivalry or maintain a league presence in a major league market). As long as a sports league’s relocation decisions are based on these sort of reasonable factors, then its refusal to allow a team to move likely would not violate antitrust law. So while MLB has undoubtedly gained some benefit from its antitrust immunity with regards to its franchise relocation restrictions, the ultimate impact of the exemption even in this area is probably not significant as one might think.

Nevertheless, the exemption helps to explain why only one major league team has relocated in the last 49 years, by far the fewest of the four major leagues. Admittedly, for fans living in an area currently without a major league team, this may not be beneficial. But for those with allegiance to a city with an existing club, MLB’s antitrust exemption actually reduces the chances that your favorite team will move to a new market.

While MLB has thus derived some modest benefit from its exemption in the area of relocation, the doctrine’s most significant effect has probably been shielding the minor leagues from antitrust scrutiny. If MLB were subject to antitrust law, then potentially any number of aspects of the minor league system could be challenged under the Sherman Act. While no one knows for sure exactly how such a lawsuit would play out, it seems likely that the repeal of baseball’s antitrust exemption would result in some degree of change to the current minor league structure.

For example, one aspect of the minor league system that would surely be challenged if the exemption were repealed is MLB’s standard minor league pay scale. As has been highlighted in recent years via the on-going minor league wage litigation, MLB teams generally impose a rigid, uniform salary scale on their minor league prospects. Absent baseball’s exemption, this uniform salary scale would almost certainly be declared illegal under antitrust law, as it reflects an agreement between the 30 MLB teams to artificially reduce their employees’ wages that has not been agreed to via collective bargaining (since minor league players are not currently unionized).

Similarly, it is also possible that some of the terms of MLB’s agreement with the minor league teams themselves would be held in violation of the law as well. For instance, but for the antitrust exemption, a lawsuit could theoretically challenge the significant degree of control that parent clubs currently have over their minor league affiliates. Without its antitrust immunity, a court might conclude that the association between major league teams and their minor league affiliates – clubs which are themselves typically individually owned businesses – runs afoul of the Sherman Act. For better or for worse, such a suit could theoretically result in a return to the more independent minor league system of the pre-1930s, in which minor league franchises were much more loosely affiliated with the major leagues than they are today.

Again, because the minor league system has never been subjected to antitrust scrutiny, no one knows for sure what would happen if baseball’s antitrust exemption were repealed. But it would appear likely that the repeal of baseball’s immunity would result in some sort of change to the structure of the minor leagues.

Finally, one last – but often overlooked – implication of baseball’s antitrust exemption is the extent to which it gives Congress some unique leverage over MLB. Because baseball’s exemption could be legislatively repealed at any time, Congress has frequently used this threat to extract various concessions from MLB over the years.

Perhaps most notably, on several different occasions, Congress has used the threat of repealing baseball’s exemption to help persuade MLB to expand, giving rise to the San Diego Padres, Seattle Mariners, Toronto Blue Jays, Colorado Rockies, and Miami Marlins, among other franchises. Similarly, Congress used the threat of revoking the baseball exemption to help pressure the league to enact more stringent steroid testing requirements in the mid-2000s.

So if the current effort to repeal the exemption were to succeed, Congress may actually paradoxically lose much of its leverage over the sport in the future.

All in all, however, the practical effect of baseball’s antitrust exemption is often overstated. While MLB does certainly gain some benefit from the doctrine – with regards to franchise relocation and the minor leagues, in particular – in most respects the league’s operations would not necessarily change appreciably even if they were exposed to antitrust law. Consequently, fans should not expect to see as many radical changes in the sport as they might expect should the current effort to repeal the exemption be successful.





Nathaniel Grow is an Associate Professor of Business Law and Ethics at Indiana University's Kelley School of Business. He is the author of Baseball on Trial: The Origin of Baseball's Antitrust Exemption, as well as a number of sports-related law review articles. You can follow him on Twitter @NathanielGrow. The views expressed are solely those of the author and do not express the views or opinions of Indiana University.

newest oldest most voted
ccoville
Member
Member
ccoville

So maybe repealing it would actually be good for baseball? It doesn’t seem like it would spell certain doom. Georgia’s new law is still shit though.

bluerum29
Member
bluerum29

The more actual information and discussion that has come out about the Georgia law, the more it has shown that it has been a mountain made out of a mole hill and has made those calling it out look bad.

Josh
Member
Member
Josh

bluerum29 does not know the history of Jim Crow.

OddBall Herrera
Member
OddBall Herrera

Can I just petition that discussion of the merits/lack of merits of the Georgia voting law go to another forum, before this devolves?

bluerum29
Member
bluerum29

yes, those laws were created for specific races. One group of people could do something, while others could not. Extremely discriminatory and racist. These current laws have nothing about race in them.

algionfriddo
Member
algionfriddo

bluerum29 – You are mistaken. This from Newsweek…
“SB 202, Georgia’s new voter suppression law, takes power away from local officials and allows the GOP to replace them with partisan hacks of their choosing. Second, the racist bill makes voting inconvenient and uncomfortable, especially in highly populated city centers, which clearly targets African American voters. Lastly, the racist voting law makes it harder to cast the physical ballot.”
Still Jim Crow… same as the old Crow.

bluerum29
Member
bluerum29

Talk about interpreting the directives in the law the way you want and in a very inaccurate way.

metsochist
Member
metsochist

Irony, thy name is bluerum29.

bluerum29
Member
bluerum29

Irony? I’m interpreting the law for how it is actually stated and what it literally means. Not interpreting a reason why I think the legislators enacted this law. Looking at the law literally, there is no racism involved. People are interpreting that into it. That is bad faith.

metsochist
Member
metsochist

You are either trolling or arguing in bad faith.

Why would the legislators actually employ racial language when they can achieve the same objective without using such language?

This gives them the opportunity to feign innocence (good jump taking up the mantle) and actually give it a chance to not be struck down as facially invalid.

Who does the law disproportionately affect, what just happened in the last election, and what are the voting demographics of the state and its localities?

Think.

bluerum29
Member
bluerum29

The other problem with your argument is that there were not significant issues in the law that would be negatively effecting people.
There may be current issues of not enough polling places, that is a separate issue that should be addressed I would agree. There should be plenty of polling places for all so that people don’t have to wait in lines. but they do have early voting options that people could take advantage of so they don’t have to wait in lines.
What just happened in the last election? I don’t think much of the public know the truth to that. Most of the loudest voices either say there was major fraud or there was no fraud. My response is in the middle, we don’t know. Not screaming loudly from either side, unfortunately my guess is that people from both sides would not like that response because it doesn’t agree with them.

metsochist
Member
metsochist

“The other problem with your argument is that there were not significant issues in the law that would be negatively effecting people.”
*affecting. And yes, there are.

“There may be current issues of not enough polling places, that is a separate issue that should be addressed I would agree. There should be plenty of polling places for all so that people don’t have to wait in lines. but they do have early voting options that people could take advantage of so they don’t have to wait in lines.”
The law dramatically reduces drop boxes in large counties like Fulton and also curtails the ability to use absentee ballots. DO you understand the motivation there? Should I even bother to address the “food and water provisions?”

Also, you completely ignore the insane politicization of the ballot counting process. Which is kind of a big deal, since the Republican governor literally had to literally tell his own party that state law does not allow them to convene a special session to select a separate slate of presidential electors, in a blatant attempt to undo the results of an election,

“What just happened in the last election? I don’t think much of the public know the truth to that”
We sure do. The process was transparent. It has been litigated to death in court, and yet there were no findings of any meaningful or widespread voter fraud. Just the whining of a man who has never accepted defeat gracefully (he even argued that Ted Cruz engaged in fraud when he bested him in a primary in 2016) and a legion of followers that went along with it. But thank you for confirming that you are a lost cause.

bluerum29
Member
bluerum29

I have already stated multiple times that a lack of voting sites is a concern. More polling places needs to be addressed and implemented. I believe we agree on that. I don’t see it as a racial issue though. If you are focused on the fact that the issue is with inner cities and the people who mostly live in inner cities, then yes that is an issue for predominantly lower income individuals. But people choose to live there. The concept of white communities and black communities awful all on its own merit. There are higher income and lower income areas, that is not about race. Your income bracket, is not created by your race.
The food and water provision is just seemingly dumb. But, bring your own snack and water with if its a concern, problem solved. I take water with me everywhere I go.
And I knew you wouldn’t like my neutral stance on the election. I don’t care what side of the political isle you are, I think it is very hard to Not believe that both political sides have not been cheating any way they can to stay in power for decades. Those who have been in DC for so many years have so much inside power that trusting any of them as fair or honest is almost insane.

metsochist
Member
metsochist

Thank you for conceding something I was not even addressing but then walking it back and saying it is their fault anyway. First, people don’t necessarily choose to live somewhere. Again, ignorance on your part. Second, it has been shown numerous times that there are income disparities between races – more ignorance on your part.

“The food and water provision is just seemingly dumb”
Even when you admit such a basic thing, you still have to hedge yourself. Wow!

“But, bring your own snack and water with if its a concern, problem solved.”
What world do you live in? How do you know who is in a position to do that, where they are coming from and the age/physical health of the persons waiting in line.

” I don’t care what side of the political isle you are”
Yes you do.

“I think it is very hard to Not believe that both political sides have not been cheating any way they can to stay in power for decades.”
There is cheating within the system which I’d still argue is ethically wrong, and then there is cheating from without in order to suppress votes because you can no longer win.

bluerum29
Member
bluerum29

You keep claiming ignorance when I know of the things you speak. I just don’t think they are relevant. Yes, there are statistical disparities in income between races. That isn’t causation though, its a correlation. Race doesn’t matter, ones skin color doesn’t matter. Stop trying to continue to make it matter when it is not suppose to. Your income status is about the choices in life that your parents made and then the ones you subsequently made.
People can move, they choose not to because they believe it is to hard to do so. What they know is comfortable. I grew up poor and we moved a lot. My parents were always trying to find ways to improve things for us, didn’t always work, rarely worked out, and being poor, kept happening. But they moved and kept trying.
People require food and water to live, that is the world I live in. Without food and water, you die. So to say that people aren’t able to have food and water when they go to vote, they have it somewhere so they can keep surviving.
When I said I don’t care what side you are on politically, it was in reference to the comment that followed regarding both sides of those in political power cheating. And personally no, I don’t care, I have had and still do have friends on both sides as well as friends who are more independent. That is part of the freedom of choice we have in this country. What I don’t like are the extremes, from either side.

metsochist
Member
metsochist

“You keep claiming ignorance when I know of the things you speak.”
Your words indicate otherwise.

“Yes, there are statistical disparities in income between races. ”
Cool, so you were wrong.

“That isn’t causation though, its a correlation.”
Never argued that, but thanks.

“Race doesn’t matter, ones skin color doesn’t matter.”
Yeah, that’s where you once again confirmed your ignorance.

“Stop trying to continue to make it matter when it is not suppose to. ”
LALALA. Stop trying to point out my ignorance when it upsets me.

“our income status is about the choices in life that your parents made and then the ones you subsequently made.”
No, that is a blatant simplification. As a general proposition, income status is affected by myriad factors including race, gender and upbringing, etc.

“People can move, they choose not to because they believe it is to hard to do so.”
Again, no. Not everyone can move. You are on a roll.

“What they know is comfortable. I grew up poor and we moved a lot. My parents were always trying to find ways to improve things for us, didn’t always work, rarely worked out, and being poor, kept happening. But they moved and kept trying.”
Ahh, arguing from your own personal experience to “prove” your “point.” Why am I not shocked?

“People require food and water to live, that is the world I live in. Without food and water, you die. So to say that people aren’t able to have food and water when they go to vote, they have it somewhere so they can keep surviving.”
What was the point of even writing this out? They have it “somewhere.” LMAO. Cool, they don’t have it where they need it. And the point is that it criminalizes giving them food and water, a fact that seems to escape you.

“When I said I don’t care what side you are on politically, it was in reference to the comment that followed regarding both sides of those in political power cheating. And personally no, I don’t care, I have had and still do have friends on both sides as well as friends who are more independent. That is part of the freedom of choice we have in this country. What I don’t like are the extremes, from either side”
I mean, everyone here is quite aware that you troll these articles and argue radically far right views couched in ignorance and dog whistles. So whatever you say, pal.

bluerum29
Member
bluerum29

Ha. Wow. I love how you quote everything, as if we haven’t had a back and forth and are aware we are “talking” to each other. But wow. That last post of yours could have been summed up simply by saying, “I have no argument against anything you just said.” You didn’t make any points, you simply didn’t like the ones I made.
Again, I’m sorry that you care so much about the color of peoples skin and that I don’t. That seems to be the major difference here in this discussion.

metsochist
Member
metsochist

“Wow. I love how you quote everything, as if we haven’t had a back and forth and are aware we are ‘talking’ to each other.”
I am doing it to respond to each of your “points” individually.

“That last post of yours could have been summed up simply by saying, “I have no argument against anything you just said.””
Great comeback.

“You didn’t make any points, you simply didn’t like the ones I made.”
You don’t make points, you argue from feelings, ignorance and your personal experience, When you actually make a point I will take you seriously.

“Again, I’m sorry that you care so much about the color of peoples skin and that I don’t.”
It is quite obvious that you care too much.

“That seems to be the major difference here in this discussion.”
Not really. We’ve been over this, but you appear to be lost.

bluerum29
Member
bluerum29

You seem to be trying to argue that you don’t care about race and yet still arguing about race. Very strange. All of these points (mine and yours) are based on opinions regarding our interpretations of life in society. It’s like talking to wall, oh my gosh. Not getting anywhere with this because you don’t seem to care about others perspectives, just your agenda.

metsochist
Member
metsochist

“You seem to be trying to argue that you don’t care about race”
[Citation needed]

“and yet still arguing about race.”
Agreed. Important clarification, I am arguing about race with you.

“Very strange.”
Not really, you are a troll who started all of this when the article was concerned with the antitrust exemption, not the Georgia law itself.

“ll of these points (mine and yours) are based on opinions regarding our interpretations of life in society. ”
And yet yours are all ill informed and ignorant.

“It’s like talking to wall”
Irony, thy name is bluerum92.

“Not getting anywhere with this because you don’t seem to care about others perspectives, just your agenda.”
Irony, thy name is bluerum92.

Lanidrac
Member
Lanidrac

Wasn’t the lessening of restrictions of absentee voting only because of COVID in the first place? They’re only restoring the restriction to the previous level now that the vaccine is out. If there wasn’t an issue with the polls being too busy before COVID, why would that be different now?

Absentee voting only exists in the first place due to legitimate reasons you can’t vote on election day. It is NOT AND NEVER HAS BEEN a means to reduce traffic at polling places. If there’s an issue with overworked polling places, then it’s something for the election authority to correct internally, something which ironically should actually be helped by the new law.

metsochist
Member
metsochist

What are you even arguing? Absentee voting n Georgia has been taking place decades and started as far back as the Civil War. Nor are the restrictions merely being restored to the stare they were in before COVID. Please familiarize yourself before making false claims just because they suit your partisan agenda.

“It is NOT AND NEVER HAS BEEN a means to reduce traffic at polling places.”
Cool. Nobody said otherwise. Why are you so worked up?

ccoville
Member
Member
ccoville

Yes, Bluerum seems to be accepting that, because the bill does not specifically state it’s intended purpose to make it hard for certain people to vote, it must not be targeting certain people. This is either extremely ignorant or a bad faith argument. Neither of those possibilities are acceptable.

Lanidrac
Member
Lanidrac

Newsweek is flat out lying. There is zero evidence that any new officials would be “partisan hacks,” The only way it makes voting any more inconvenient is a potentially longer drive to a drop box, and even if it did it clearly doesn’t target anyone specifically. It does not make it harder to cast a physical ballot, since absentee restrictions are merely being reset to previous accepted levels, and non-drivers IDs are just as easy to obtain as it is to vote in the first place.

Sabometrics
Member
Sabometrics

None of the Jim Crow voting laws drew lines on the basis of race – they left those up to local officials to do, which is exactly what the GA law is intended to do.

bluerum29
Member
bluerum29

Whether they were state or more local laws, they were still laws that outlined what blacks could and could not do. The Georgia voting law, has nothing to do with that. It is about how everyone can vote.

metsochist
Member
metsochist

It is a law that was passed because it disproportionately will affect minorities and Democrats, making it harder for them to cast votes.
It was passed shortly after Georgia Republicans lost both the Presidency and two Senate seats, largely due to minorities who got out the vote. And it is a law that has no legitimate purpose other than to disenfranchise as there were no meaningful voter fraud in Georgia in 2020, which has been confirmed by the Republican Secretary of State.

bluerum29
Member
bluerum29

What you stated is why democrats are against the law. Personally, I want to see every knowledgeable and legal voter cast a ballot in every local or national election. And nobody should have to wait in a significant line to do it.

metsochist
Member
metsochist

“What you stated is why democrats are against the law.”
Because it is a blatant partisan attack on the franchise in the wake of electoral defeats and that does not actually solve any problem.

“Personally, I want to see every knowledgeable…”
Naah, too easy.

bluerum29
Member
bluerum29

Making an election more secure is never a bad thing.
So, you don’t like the idea of knowledgeable people voting? You would rather people who don’t pay any attention to politics and have no idea what they are voting for casting ballots. We can’t force people to research candidates and look into propositions and what they mean. But you want them voting if they don’t know anything about them?
Or you are simply trying to make a joke because you think I am not knowledgeable. Thing is, we disagree. That doesn’t make one ignorant, that just means there is a difference of opinion, which use to be considered a healthy thing in this country. Someone with a lack of knowledge often doesn’t care and doesn’t have an opinion on a given matter. Big Difference.

metsochist
Member
metsochist

“Making an election more secure is never a bad thing.”
It is when the election is already secure and is used as a means to suppress the vote of your political rivals.

“So, you don’t like the idea of knowledgeable people voting? You would rather people who don’t pay any attention to politics and have no idea what they are voting for casting ballots. We can’t force people to research candidates and look into propositions and what they mean. But you want them voting if they don’t know anything about them?
/Whoosh. That is not what I was saying. Think harder.

“Or you are simply trying to make a joke because you think I am not knowledgeable.”
We have a winner. Got it in two.

“Thing is, we disagree. That doesn’t make one ignorant, that just means there is a difference of opinion, which use to be considered a healthy thing in this country. Someone with a lack of knowledge often doesn’t care and doesn’t have an opinion on a given matter. Big Difference.”
Honest disagreement is fine. You have made several arguments that make it clear you are ignorant if not prejudiced.

bluerum29
Member
bluerum29

If it isn’t 100% secure and we all know it, then its not secure enough, can always be better. Part of why I am never very satisfied in life is because I see things as always able to be better. The comment about suppressing the vote of rivals, we disagree on the purpose, seems to have no part in the discussion. If that really were the goal, that would be wrong, I just don’t see it as part of the equation. I have made it clear I know about the things you have mentioned, I just disagree with them and think they are irrelevant. It is so often a strategy of people who don’t like what the other has to say to claim ignorance. Makes them feel superior. It is like the bully on the playground scenario. As the adult I can observe them and have pity because I know in the long run, they truly are out matched and are using their only means to try and gain a temporary win.

metsochist
Member
metsochist

“If it isn’t 100% secure and we all know it,”
You “know” a lot of things that you have not actually supported with any evidence whatsoever, just feelings.

“then its not secure enough, can always be better.”
This doesn’t actually accomplish that. What it does is to suppress the vote of political rivals. Which is pretty undemocratic.

“Part of why I am never very satisfied in life is because I see things as always able to be better.”
If I didn’t know you to be a troll, I would find this statement hilarious.

“The comment about suppressing the vote of rivals, we disagree on the purpose, seems to have no part in the discussion.”
It’s purpose is blatant and there are supporters on record admitting it.

“seems to have no part in the discussion.”
It has no part in your discussion because you live in a warped world. Here in the real world. it is crucial.

“If that really were the goal, that would be wrong,”
It is the goal.

“I just don’t see it as part of the equation. ”
Because you are trolling and/or ignorant.

“I have made it clear I know about the things you have mentioned,”
[Narrator]: “He had not.”

“I just disagree with them and think they are irrelevant.”
Because you are trolling and/or ignorant.

“It is so often a strategy of people who don’t like what the other has to say to claim ignorance.”
It is often a strategy to construct strawman arguments.

“Makes them feel superior. “It is like the bully on the playground scenario”
Okay. Would you care to describe this scenario?

“As the adult…”
[Citation needed]

“…I can observe them and have pity because I know in the long run, they truly are out matched and are using their only means to try and gain a temporary win.”
Since you can’t even express some coherent point here, I’m pretty sure you are outmatched by a turnip.

Lanidrac
Member
Lanidrac

Voter ID laws have ALWAYS been needed as a matter of principle. While the contested election was the impetus, it’s still a law that Georgia and all other states should’ve had all along. Just because there was no widespread fraud doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t stop the small amount of fraud that does exist.

Such laws do NOT make it harder to vote (except for those actually attempting to commit fraud), as it is just as easy to get a non-drivers ID as it is to vote itself.

metsochist
Member
metsochist

“Voter ID laws have ALWAYS been needed as a matter of principle”
There were already more than sufficient checks to verify identities in place.

“Just because there was no widespread fraud doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t stop the small amount of fraud that does exist.”
This won’t do that.

“While the contested election was the impetus”
Contested by persons without any evidence. Contested by people who when sued for defamation, defended themselves by arguing that no reasonable person could believe me.

“as it is just as easy to get a non-drivers ID as it is to vote itself.”
So hard then? It is already harder for minorities to get ID.

bluerum29
Member
bluerum29

Harder for minorities to get an ID? Why do you say that?

metsochist
Member
metsochist

Because facts. Google is your friend.

bluerum29
Member
bluerum29

I think you are intentionally avoiding the answer you want to say, because you know it makes you look bad and lumping minorities in that way and saying it is hard for them to get an ID, that is just rude.

metsochist
Member
metsochist

There are tons of results in google that come up immediately that support my point. Several of them are actual studies, while others are articles. Are you thick?

“Rude”
So sorry that I’ve offended your delicate sensibilities by acknowledging the simple truth that there are a number of state and local locals/regulations/fees that make it more difficult for minorities to secure an ID. I’ll try to stick to your ignorant worldview in which, as a general matter, minorities never deal with a rigged system, intentionally or otherwise.

bluerum29
Member
bluerum29

Not rude to me, I’m not a minority. You were being rude to them. Saying it is harder for them to get that ID due to regulation and fees. You don’t seem to believe in their intellect and earning ability to figure out how to get an ID or afford one. Just rude to think that way about an entire group of people based on their race.

metsochist
Member
metsochist

“Not rude to me, I’m not a minority. You were being rude to them.”
How so? And why do you think you speak for “them?”

“Saying it is harder for them to get that ID due to regulation and fees. ”
Those were two of the things I mentioned, yes. There were others as well.

“You don’t seem to believe in their intellect and earning ability to figure out how to get an ID or afford one.”
Thank you for revealing just another part of your true self in projecting this ridiculous assumption onto me. No reasonable human would interpret what I wrote according to your explanation.

“Just rude to think that way about an entire group of people based on their race.”
What? I am thinking about races as races and providing you with the very real fact that there are numerous real world things that make it harder for minorities to get state Ds. Often intentionally so. Are you stuck in some sort of a tautology of stupid?

Lanidrac
Member
Lanidrac

Jim Crow never prevented anyone who can already get a ride to the polls or a drop box to get a ride to the DMV to acquire an extremely cheap non-drivers ID.

The only concerning part of the law is the reduction of drop boxes, but even then it’s not that much trouble to just get your ride to drive a little further than usual.

ccoville
Member
Member
ccoville

So what counts as “actual information and discussion”? I’m assuming you have specific sources that have found this to not be a mountain. Could you please share those?

The main issue, in my opinion, is that this is a solution in search of a problem. There is no significant voter fraud. There are no reasons for any of these measures. What happened is that Republicans lost the election and so they are are pushing legislation in an effort to make sure it doesn’t happen again. Plain and simple.

bluerum29
Member
bluerum29

The discussion that has come out about other states having similar or even stricter voting laws than the one Georgia put in place. These types of protocols already exist and are accepted other places. But a big deal is being made because this is happening and that it is supposedly targeting a specific demographic. If it is targeting a demographic, the one you could argue would be those of the lower income brackets due to where some of the issues are stated that it is happening. That isn’t racial though. Individuals choose where they live and their life choices impact what their own personal economic situations are.

ccoville
Member
Member
ccoville

I can’t believe you could be so utterly ignorant as to believe any of that nonsense. I am going to walk away from this telling myself I accidently engaged a child on the internet and never think about the time I lost again.

Do yourself a favor, small American child, and ask yourself these questions:

1) Why did the Georgia Republican legislature choose to pass these laws?

2) What problem is being solved by these laws?

3) Which demographic groups stand to be most affected by these laws?

Good luck to you.

bluerum29
Member
bluerum29

1. and 2. After reading all of the points in the law and what it addresses, it seems they are focusing on making voting more secure and providing options to address problems if they arise in future elections. In addition they made changes to early voting options (seems to be plenty of opportunity there) and wrote specific rules for voting drop boxes.
One issue I would still have would be not directly addressing the amount of voting places there are in different areas. The last neighborhood I lived in had 2 voting spots in the neighborhood, never was a line to wait. That should be the case just about everywhere, I hate lines.
I don’t believe the goal by legislators is to make it so some legal voters don’t actually vote. Personally I want to see every legal voter who has some knowledge of what they are voting on, vote.
Interesting that you pulled the “child” remark simply because we disagree on something. Definitely an adult with multiple masters degrees who is capable of thinking for himself and not just let the news reporters do that for me. Not surprised though, you disagree with someone so you take the tactic of attempting to insult them. That’s often the method that the students I work with utilize with their peers.

sadtrombone
Member
Member
sadtrombone

lol, every single person on this site has had this nearly exact same exchange with bluerum29 over this law. the facts just do not matter here. if we hadn’t all had those exact same exchanges with him over, say, on-base percentage and ERA estimators I would think he is talking in bad faith. But, also, don’t torture yourself.

bluerum29
Member
bluerum29

The facts are what matter. Sadly, to many liberals want to paint a racist narrative all the time. We see the same thing with what happened again in Minnesota. Making something racist that isn’t to create more division. It is torture seeing how people want to continue to make things about race.

metsochist
Member
metsochist

You are sad.

Not because you are both hopelessly biased and ignorant, which you most surely are. But because you don’t even concede the possibility that you might be.

bluerum29
Member
bluerum29

How am I hopelessly biased? What am I bias for? And ignorance is about a lack of knowledge. The issue seems more to be our interpretations of the knowledge we have.

metsochist
Member
metsochist

See, told you.

bluerum29
Member
bluerum29

You didn’t even answer the question. You made a vague statement and followed it with “told you.”

metsochist
Member
metsochist

Why bother addressing your question? You just proved my point when you asked it.

bluerum29
Member
bluerum29

I was asking what you think I am bias about? I’m not even sure what you are referencing there.

metsochist
Member
metsochist

You are “biased” about something, not “bias” about something. And race, politics, etc. Take your pick.

bluerum29
Member
bluerum29

Because I don’t judge people based on their race or political beliefs and you do? Because that’s what this conversation has come across as.

metsochist
Member
metsochist

“Because I don’t judge people based on their race or political beliefs and you do?”
Going to have to fall back on “Irony, thy name is bluerum29.” You make it too easy.

“Because that’s what this conversation has come across as.”
Because you are lost.

g4
Member
Member
g4

If only we were all more like colorblind bluerum29…