Legit three years ago, I was at the local property records office and there was some old bag conservative in there with no job cross-referencing the voter rolls with the land records, just looking for people who might not be registered at the correct address, or who have recently moved but haven’t reregistered in a new town yet, to challenge their names on the roll.

That’s a different tactic than what is being discussed in this article. It is happening – and what’s worse, they’ve made it easier/automated it – but we need to be figuring out countermeasures for this problem, not distracting ourselves by making everything about the other thing.

On the other side of the coin, to the Republicans in the state legislature keep trying to raise a bill that’s filled with all these loaded terms about transparency and the right to petition and open government, and what the law does is says that at any public meeting, members of the public have a right to be heard up to fifteen minutes. Under the current law, there is only a right to be heard at one or two public meetings on a subject and limited to three minutes. Like, I’m not sure exactly how the law is written now, but it’s something like public comment is only required when the item is added to the public agenda for public discussion/hearing and before it’s voted on. The new law would give numbers of the public the right to speak at any public meeting in which the topic is discussed.

Public comment at meetings is good, actually. This is why you earned my downvote.

See also: https://atlantadailyworld.com/2023/05/17/hundreds-of-atlantans-oppose-cop-city-in-record-breaking-7-hour-public-comment/

These aren’t even new tactics.

To be clear: the tactic that this article is about is new.