Politicizing elections is the last thing America needs after a controversial 2020 election, but the Department of Justice (DOJ) is aggressively attacking Georgia’s new election law, not with substantive criticism, but with half-baked political talking points. Reasonable people can disagree on the merits of Georgia’s effort to improve election security and integrity, but painting the legislation as “Jim Crow” is intellectually dishonest and does a disservice to the American people. We need a transparent, honest debate about improving voter confidence in our election process, without unjustified allegations of racism.
Less than 24 hours after Gov. Brian Kemp signed the election integrity bill (“SB 202”) into law, Biden condemned it in an official statement, calling it, “Jim Crow in the 21st Century,” an insulting and unfair comparison to pre-civil rights movement voting restrictions that prevented people of color from voting. Then, on June 25, the DOJ filed a lawsuit against Georgia, attacking the state with arguments under the Voting Rights Act (VRA) of 1965. A careful analysis shows that the DOJ’s claims are baseless and won’t hold up in a court of law.
Lawyers for the DOJ claim that there is a discriminatory purpose behind the law, even though they have no evidence showing this. The Georgia General Assembly followed the normal legislative process, holding at least 16 public hearings, and those hearings make clear that the law is based on and furthers legitimate state interests. The DOJ provided no evidence to show a racist intent on the part of a single legislator, let alone the “legislature as a whole” as the law requires. Anyone who questions the Georgia General Assembly’s intent, including the DOJ, should simply watch the more than 19 hours of testimony and debate available online via the Georgia General Assembly’s website.
The DOJ also claims that voters of color will be disproportionately burdened by the law without showing how. While the new law does require some effort and compliance with basic voting rules, the burdens it imposes are minimal and apply equally to all, with some of its reforms reducing burdens that existed before. Unless any change that increases election security by imposing restrictions is not permitted under the VRA, the DOJ is standing on shifting sand.
Recommended
For instance, one of the provisions the DOJ opposes will ensure absentee ballot requests are made in time for the vote to count, given the time it takes for mail to make its way through the postal system. In the last election, many absentee votes were not counted even though voters submitted their ballots within the timeframe specified in the old law (which was only four days). SB 202 addresses this issue, pushing the deadline back just seven days. As a result, more absentee votes will likely be counted under the new law than were under the old. Yet, the DOJ is claiming this provision violates civil rights law.
Even more troubling are the facts that call into question the DOJ’s motive in filing this lawsuit. In February, the current administration submitted a letter to the Supreme Court confirming the government’s position that neither Arizona voting measures at issue in the recently decided case, DNC v.Brnovich, violated the VRA. However, one of the rules the DOJ now claims violates civil rights law is less burdensome than the Arizona rule the DOJ claimed did not violate civil rights law just four months ago.
Under Georgia’s law, if someone casts a provisional ballot in the wrong precinct after 5 p.m., that vote can still be counted. Under the Arizona law, if someone does the same thing, it will not. This change in the DOJ’s position is disconcerting given the President’s previous statements attacking Georgia. The fact that no lawsuits have been filed in any of the Democrat-led states which have similar election laws to Georgia, suggests this latest attack on Georgia has little to do with civil rights enforcement, and everything to do with politics.
The Biden administration has politicized Georgia's election law. The administration is using taxpayer resources to attack its political opponents, undermining the bedrock principles of Separation of Powers and Federalism embodied in the Constitution. Other states considering their own election reforms must not allow these strong-arm tactics to sway them from passing election laws they know are necessary to bring integrity to the voting process, promote efficiency, and restore voter trust in elections. The future of our nation depends on it.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member