Stacey Abrams, a candidate for governor of Georgia, and Fox News Sunday anchor Shannon Bream got into a spat over a judge’s ruling against a voting suppression lawsuit filed by Abrams’ group Fair Fight Action.
Abrams was the subject of a lengthy interview on this week’s Fox News Sunday. The Fox host grilled the candidate over a line from a verdict against her group by Obama-appointed U.S. District Court Judge Steven Jones.
In a protracted back-and-forth, Abrams argued that Judge Jones was stating the group only failed because the Voting Rights Act has been weakened by citing the remainder of the 288-page judgment in response to Bream.
Bream began the interrogation; “You are an accomplished novelist and lawyer. You mentioned how carefully chosen words are. You pick them with care. They are significant. You’ve referred to the 2018 gubernatorial election as being “rigged” and “stolen.” You can back up what you stated was appropriate. However, a federal court has recently ruled that, in his opinion, the voting procedures in Georgia that you had challenged did not contravene the Constitution or the Voting Rights Act.”
The Sunday morning Fox News anchor said; “According to the New York Times, the judge President Barack Obama nominated stated that confirmed action did not directly demonstrate that a voter was unable to cast a ballot, faced lengthier lines, or was uncertain of their voter registration status. Do you disagree with the judgment Judge Jones rendered in this case?”
Abrams responded to the reading by objecting; “With the depiction you’ve given, I disagree. According to the judge’s findings in the 288-page judgment, Georgia regularly violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act under the Greenville Standard. By 2021, the Brnovich standard was in place. There was a Greenville in 2020. And in 2021, the Voting Rights Act was being weakened because of Arizona, which is why we brought the Brnovich action. Additionally, he lacked the power to conclude that we established our case about Section 2 infractions under the new standard. But he asserted that the system was racially biased. He took a lot of time to describe how Brian Kemp presided over a racist system that disproportionately impacted Brown voters.”
Abrams persisted in supporting her failed bid for office: “While expressing his serious worry about what occurred, he said that under the Brnovich classification, he could not truly hold the offender accountable. Saying nothing occurred and what we were able to verify and what took four months is significantly different from what you just said. The voting rights lawsuit trial in Georgia lasted the longest it has in years. According to the court, he was unable to determine whether we could satisfy the requirement under the new, weaker Voting Rights Act.”
“And for that reason, I’m working so hard to revive and expand the Voting Rights Act. However, it’s also the reason I’m vying for governor. We need a governor who can’t really be accused of having presided over a discriminatory system. And Judge Jones claims that Brian Kemp oversaw and assisted in creating a racial voting suppression apparatus in the state of Georgia “Asserted Abrams.
Abrams’ response was met by Bream; “I’ve read the opinion as well, and I think the depiction differs slightly. Judge Jones, however, concludes that there was no violation of the Voting Rights Act. You also said that the Supreme Court’s case law on this subject has developed under a variety of criteria. But according to a direct quotation from his decision, there is “no proof that a voter was unable to vote, faced long lines, or was uncertain of their voter registration status. And I am aware that voting suppression is the problem here for you. So let’s examine the figures. In Georgia, there was a net gain of 763,380 voters between the most recent governor’s primary and the present. That seems like voting suppression’s polar opposite.”
Abrams retorted; “Turnout is irrelevant to voter suppression. It has to do with access restrictions and roadblocks. And that’s one of the other conflations I believe it’s crucial to separate. When it is difficult to register, remain on the rolls, cast a ballot, and have that ballot tallied, voter suppression is present.”
Abrams and Bream also discussed the well-known comments Abrams made after losing in 2018, to which Abrams responded with the same vehement defense she has always provided.
