During a hearing by the Senate Judiciary Committee on Voting Rights, Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, questioned Georgian activist Stacey Abrams about the controversial new law on her state.
Video transcription
JOHN CORNYN: My first question is to Miss Abrams. Miss Abrams, is the Georgia election law that Speaker Jones talked about – is it racist legislation?
STACEY ABRAMS: I think components of it are indeed racist because they use racial animus as a way to direct the behavior of certain voters to eliminate them – or limit their participation in elections.
JOHN CORNYN: So you believe the Georgian legislature made deliberate efforts to suppress the minority vote?
STACEY ABRAMS: Yes.
JOHN CORNYN: Georgia has a no-excuse in the law for the absence of votes. As Miss Jones said, Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York certainly did not say so in her written statement. Are the voting laws in Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and New York racist?
STACEY ABRAMS: I would say they are behind the eight ball and they need to improve. And that is why I support the provisions of the right to vote for the People’s Act, which will extend access to no-excuses without absence. But as we explained earlier, this is how this behavior is targeted. The state of Georgia has targeted communities that have used these resources to their advantage for the first time. And so, after 15 years of Republican domination of the absence of votes, it abruptly changed its mind about utility, processing, timeliness, and ability –
JOHN CORNYN: So you think – excuse me. We only have five minutes to ask questions, and so if you would respond to my question. Just to be clear, you think Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and New York, which have more restrictions without abolition of absenteeism, are voting, do you think the election laws are racist.
STACEY ABRAMS: Senator, I’m responding to your question. Your question is:
JOHN CORNYN: No, Miss Adams, you’re filtering. Can you answer yes or no?
STACEY ABRAMS: I’m not. Sir, I’m not filtering. I state very specifically that I believe that restrictive voting laws should be addressed by the For the People Act. I believe that the Georgian decision –
JOHN CORNYN: Just to be clear, whether you are racist or not, you just think you need to change because you do not agree with them, right?
STACEY ABRAMS: No, that’s not what I said.
JOHN CORNYN: OK.
STACEY ABRAMS: I said that the laws that were changed in 2021 in response to an increasing use by coloreds – laws that were introduced by Republicans 15 years ago and that they were completely satisfied with the usefulness of these laws until they were successfully used by people of color – the intention is important.
JOHN CORNYN: And you think–
STACEY ABRAMS: And the intent behind these laws –
JOHN CORNYN: Do you think that–
STACEY ABRAMS: case in the state of Georgia.
JOHN CORNYN: Do you think the requirement for voter IDs is racist?
STACEY ABRAMS: No, sir. I’ve always said I wrote a book about it –
JOHN CORNYN: Do not limit it–
STACEY ABRAMS: – that I support voter identification.
JOHN CORNYN: Does it not restrict the vote, the requirement of a voter ID?
STACEY ABRAMS: I support voter identification. What I object to are restrictive forms of voter identification that restrict who may use their identifications and who create narrower and narrower –
JOHN CORNYN: And Georgia gives a – so you can use a free ID or a utility bill or something. You do not believe, therefore, that Georgia law restricts votes because of the required voter identification if I –
STACEY ABRAMS: That’s not what I said, sir. What I have said is that the absentee ballot requires that the voter ID be now extremely rare, as it will now push nearly 200,000 voters who do not have access or who do not currently have the IDs out of the process.
JOHN CORNYN: So voter ID
STACEY ABRAMS: And these are disproportionate people of color.
JOHN CORNYN: Sometimes it’s racist, sometimes not racist?
STACEY ABRAMS: The intention always matters, sir. And that’s the point of this conversation. This is the point of the Jim Crow story, that Jim Crow did not simply look at the activities. The intention was looked at. It looked at the behavior. And it targeted behavior that was used excessively by people of color.
JOHN CORNYN: Do you know that Gallup says that 69% of black voters support the right to vote, and 75% of voters in general?
STACEY ABRAMS: Sir, I’m one of those who supports voter identity. I have never objected to the voter ID. I object to carefully adjusting and reducing the allowable capacity –
JOHN CORNYN: So do you agree with voter ID in some circumstances and not in others?
STACEY ABRAMS: That’s not what I said, sir. I said …
JOHN CORNYN: No, you said on purpose. So is voter ID without malicious OK?
STACEY ABRAMS: No, sir. That’s not what I said.
JOHN CORNYN: Well–
STACEY ABRAMS: Senator–
JOHN CORNYN: Mr.–
STACEY ABRAMS: – I would like to respond to your questions.
JOHN CORNYN: Miss Jones–
STACEY ABRAMS: But if you go–
JOHN CORNYN: – I have a question for you in my remaining time.
STACEY ABRAMS: – characterize my answers, it is inappropriate.