Spot the Fallacy: Jim Crow 2.0
Historical archive only. New interaction is disabled.
Original Question
Another hot topic these days is Georgia’s new voting law, which critics say is racist. President Biden has called it “Jim Crow in the 21st Century” and “Jim Crow on steroids. ” ACLU Georgia Political Director Christopher Bruce labeled it “Jim Crow 2.0.”
I have been looking for arguments supporting this claim. Most politicians and pundits have preferred to use standard “guilt by association” arguments. Because the bill came from Georgia, a Southern state that used to have Jim Crow laws, and from Republicans, a party that is often accused of racism, it’s obvious this is “Jim Crow 2.0.” Etc.
That’s too easy, though, and not worthy of a “spot the fallacy” game. Just about every headline-grabbing thing politicians and pundits say these days is some form of abusive ad hominem. I wanted to find someone who went on to cite supporting facts and see how sound their argument was. That’s when I came across the following:
“Gov. Brian Kemp and a slew of Georgia Republican lawmakers sped a sweeping election bill into a Jim-Crow-like law Thursday, imposing new voting restrictions in the battleground state. The law, wrongfully dubbed The Election Integrity Act of 2021, is a poorly disguised attack against the state's minorities following President Joe Biden's victory last November ...
“As for the bill's lowlights, these two measures standout:
- New identification requirements for absentee voters, despite reports that more than 200,000 Georgia voters lack a driver's license or state ID number. This measure will push voters to scramble to show proof of identity through other means like a utility bill, bank statement, passport, among others. Nationally, 25% of Black Americans lack government-issued photo ID, compared to only 8% of Whites.
- Under the new law, giving food and water to those waiting in line to vote is now illegal. This may discourage Black Georgia voters, who historically wait in longer lines than non-minorities and often in hot weather.“
Source: “Sports world should boycott Georgia over racist voting law,” Terence Moore, CNN
Sound? If not, spot the fallacy.
Comments on Question
The question is, in what way are these voting laws like Jim Crow? I don't know enough about either to determine if this is a strong or weak analogy. But one would need to consider
1) all the ways they are alike (that matter)
2) all the ways they are not alike (that matter)
You wrote this "The new law forbids giving voters waiting in line food and water"...this is wrong....
The new law prohibits anyone currently involved as an "employee or volunteer" in any given current political campaign to hand out food and water. It could have the appearance of soliciting votes for "whatever" and is reasonable.
'"Nationally, 25% of Black Americans lack government-issued photo ID, compared to only 8% of Whites."....30% of eligible black adults don't vote. So why is your 25% stat even remotely relevant? Seems like you're attempting to poison the well by stating or implying indirectly that some black people want to vote but are too stupid to know how to get the proper ID to register.
"....This may discourage Black Georgia voters, who historically wait in longer lines than non-minorities and often in hot weather.“ since this was based on previously lying about the law, I'll assume you're saying black people are too stupid to know how to prepare themselves for being out in hot weather for an extended period of time. Of course, I'm just guessing at why you make this comment about "supposed" black ignorance. Btw, I'm hoping by hyperbole you might see why claiming this is an issue is bullshit...btw New Georgia law is even less restrictive than New York State's or even laws in Biden's home state. Where's the dem outcry? Oh yeah, Dems realize their base is mostly made up of intellectually lazy people who are easily manipulated.
Answers
2Seems pretty sound to me (what is being said rather than the idea itself). Typical 'democracy', make sure you win the election by gerrymandering the electorate, the electoral boundaries or both.
It sounds rather like what you would expect from a state whose flag is actually based upon the original actual Confederate flag (not the battle flag).
I'll tackle "re-write version 1" of the issue -- and, not having read the new law and not being particularly familiar with Jim Crow, I'll work from what's presented in the initial presentation:
The new law requires ID to vote. [As I understand it, a reasonable premise that can likely be accepted.]
Nationally 25% of Black Americans lack government-issued photo ID compared to 8% of White Americans. [ a 2-parter: Part 1: fewer Black Americans have government issued photo ID than other citizens -- as I understand it, probably a reasonable premise; Part 2: we seem to have switched from "ID" to "government-issued photo ID". If the reference to "utility bill, bank statement, among others" means that those form of ID are acceptable, the second premise becomes a non sequitur.]
Therefore, the new law is targeting Black voters. [We risk relying upon the ambiguity fallacy and an appeal to emotion when we use "target" -- an emotionally charged word that isn't defined here but in this statement implies a negative connotation.]
Also, there's also the implication that using ID other than government-issued photo ID is somehow more difficult that providing photo ID from the government -- I'm interested in knowing just what the law requires or prohibits with respect to ID. I recall that, back in the good old days, (before our drivers licences had photos and before passports were as common as they are now, I often relied upon envelopes bearing my name and address, utility bills, bank statements, etc. as forms of identification, especially when new to a community -- it seemed pretty easy, as I recall. If those same options are permitted under this new law, much of the negative part of "target" seems to have gone away.
In fact, could provisions for "utility bill, bank statement, among others" actually be making it easier for folks who don't have government-issued photo ID? I don't know enough about the exact context to answer that question, but it would seem to be important to know the answer before determining whether the ID-related parts of the new law are good or bad.
Master Logical Fallacies Online
Take the Virversity course and sharpen your reasoning skills with structured lessons.
View Online Course
So far, the consensus seems to be there are no identifiable fallacies. I submit there are, but perhaps I am seeing the arguments being made differently.
The first argument seems to be:
The second argument seems to be:
Is that a fair representation of the arguments? If so, spot the fallacy. If not, say why.