This is the editorial that caused Jonathan Capehart to resign
Conn Carroll
Video Embed
Washington Post columnist Jonathan Capehart reportedly resigned from the Washington Post editorial board, although he has stayed on as a columnist, over a Dec. 6 editorial that they published over his objection.
What position did the Washington Post editorial board take that was so offensive to Capehart?
RON DESANTIS IS BREAKING DEMOCRAT BRAINS
They had the temerity to endorse Georgia as an early primary state for the Democratic Party’s presidential selection process. Taking Sen. Raphael Warnock’s (D-GA) runoff election victory over Heisman Trophy winner Herschel Walker, the Washington Post editorial board wrote:
Georgia, with 11 million residents and 16 electoral votes, is becoming in American politics what Ohio and Florida used to be: a genuinely competitive battleground. The state is more reflective of the United States than Iowa, which through poorly administered caucuses squandered any claim to its role as the starting gate of the quadrennial nominating process. This is why we applaud the Democratic National Committee’s move last week to make Georgia an early primary state, following South Carolina, Nevada and New Hampshire.
Leaving aside the Washington Post’s attack on Iowa as not being reflective of the U.S., the rest of the paragraph sounds pretty reasonable. So why did Capehart get so upset? Probably because of this paragraph:
People in both parties rewarded Mr. Kemp and Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger (R) for resisting presidential pressure to “find” votes that didn’t exist. Both defeated Trump-backed primary challengers in May and secured second terms in November. And turnout remained high despite hyperbolic warnings by President Biden and other Democrats that updated voting rules amounted to Jim Crow 2.0.
Capehart has been particularly vocal in his embrace of the false Democratic messaging that Georgia’s voting reform laws amount to “Jim Crow 2.0.” He is deeply invested. In a Nov. 9, 2022, column immediately after the election, Capehart wrote:
Now that votes have been cast in record numbers and the people have spoken in a wonderful display of democracy, I need to take a sledgehammer to a narrative taking hold about Georgia. It’s the one that says the state’s onerous voter law implemented after the 2020 presidential election didn’t live up to its “Jim Crow 2.0” reputation because it didn’t manage to suppress huge turnout for early voting. … Stacey Abrams, who on Tuesday lost her rematch against Gov. Brian Kemp, perhaps best captured the pernicious power of voting restrictions. As she said during a 2019 interview with me, “The challenge of voter suppression is it not only blocks you from voting — it convinces you it’s not worth trying.” “Jim Crow 2.0” might not have blocked as many people from the voting booth as feared. But have no doubt it did its insidious convincing. And if allies of democracy don’t keep objecting to Georgia’s law — even on principle — expect that insidiousness to spread.
Does Capehart have any evidence that Georgia’s law convinced anyone not to vote? Of course not.
In fact, what has been shown is that twice-failed George gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams spent $9.4 million trying to identify voters that were prevented from voting by Georgia election law. She could only find one, and even that voter would have been able to vote if she had been able to wait longer than 15 minutes at a polling station.
The reality is that the election reform laws passed in Georgia under Kemp are wildly popular and sensible. A recent University of Georgia poll found that 95% of Georgia voters said their voting experience was “good,” while just 0.6% said their experience was “poor.” So are you going to believe Capehart, or are you going to believe the universal consensus of Georgia voters?
Capehart’s exit from the Washington Post editorial board has reportedly left it without any black members. That’s too bad. But I am very confident they will easily be able to find a black person to replace Capehart and who is perfectly fine with Georgia’s election law. Apparently, there are millions of them in Georgia.