On June 25, the U.S. Justice Department's civil rights division was led by Kristen Clarke (radical assistant attorney general). The Justice Department claimed that the recent election reform law (SB 202) was discriminatory against black Georgian voters. This complaint looks more like a press release from the Democratic National Committee than a serious lawsuit brought by an apolitical Justice Department.Clarke asserts that the new law is discriminatory and that Georgia legislators meant to deny or abbreviate the right of black Georgians vote. This claim seems to have been driven by disagreements between the Biden administration and Georgia's policy choices. According to the Voting Rights Act, the law does not discriminate.Contrary to what the Justice Department claims, it is not discriminatory to require individuals to request an absentee vote at least 11 days prior to Election Day, instead of the previous deadline of only 4 days. In the lawsuit, it is not mentioned that in July 2020, U.S. The Postal Service wrote to all states, including Georgia's Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger. It strongly recommended that they change the deadlines for absentee ballot requests.According to the Postal Service, states should allow at least 15 days prior to Election Day in order to comply with [USPS delivery standards].After courts ruled that the voter ID requirement in Georgia for in-person voting was constitutionally valid and didn't discriminate under Section 201 of the Voting Rights Act, it has been in effect without problems since 2008. The Justice Department filed a lawsuit claiming that the ID requirement for absentee voting should be extended to include racially discriminating voters.This claim is especially bizarre because Georgia's voter identification requirement is very similar to Alabama's law. It applies to absentee and in-person balloting. The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed a lawsuit against Alabama last year that used the same arguments as the Justice Department against Georgia. The court ruled that the law was not in violation of the Voting Rights Act, and that absentee ballots require a voter ID.Both Georgia and Alabama fall under the jurisdiction of the 11th Circuits, where the issue is already decided.The Justice Department claims that Georgia's ban on providing food or water to voters in line for voting is racially discriminatory. This prohibition, according to the Justice Department, will prevent churches, non profit organizations, and other groups, from providing food and water to encourage voters to not abandon long lines in order to vote because they are hungry or thirsty.Every state prohibits the electioneering of voters and polling places near them. It is sensible and reasonable to prohibit the giving of money, gifts, including food, to prevent voters from waiting in line to cast their ballots. The Justice Department recognizes that SB 202 permits poll workers to give water to voters in line. Voters can also bring their own water and snacks.Georgian voters are not left in the Sahara Desert. To avoid electioneering by candidates or supposedly nonpartisan (wink wink, nod), organizations, the prohibition is only applicable close to polling stations.This prohibition is not racially discriminatory as it applies equally to all voters. The Georgia's new ban on water and food is almost identical to the New York law prohibiting voters from receiving any type of meat, drink, tobacco, refreshment, or provision with a retail value less than $1.New York has not been sued by the Justice Department over this long-standing ban or claimed it is racially discriminatory. It could be that it is a blue state represented in part by Senator Chuck Schumer, D.N.Y., who is an important political ally to Attorney General Merrick Garland, and his boss, President Joe Biden.Georgia allows government officials to mail absentee ballot request forms only to voters after they have been requested by a voter or a relative authorized to do so. This is a discriminatory act by the Justice Department, which prohibits third parties from sending unsolicited absentee vote request forms to voters. It is also discriminatory that Georgia has banned permanent absencee ballot lists, according to the Justice Department. A voter must request an absentee vote for every election. This is a good practice in elections.A reasonable person wouldn't believe that these provisions regarding absentee voting requests are discriminatory, especially considering how inaccurate voter registration lists are and how difficult it is for states and individuals to update them and remove those who have moved away or died. This complaint is devoid of any common sense.The Justice Department claims that Georgia's refusal to count provisional votes cast outside of a precinct assigned to voters on Election Day, unless a voter signs a statement explaining why, is racially discriminatory. However, Georgia already offers an accommodation for counting such ballots.The majority of states require that an individual vote in the precinct he has been assigned. They do not count votes cast outside that precinct. The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a claim in 2004 that refusing to count votes cast outside a precinct assigned to voters violated federal law. It noted that there are many benefits to the precinct system.Is it discriminatory to ask for explanations from voters before they extend this accommodation?This very question is being considered by the Supreme Court in Brnovich, v. Democratic National Committee. It is likely that the court will issue its decision within the next week. The Justice Department couldn't wait any longer to file its lawsuit and see if the court would resolve the issue.Ballot drop boxes are another issue. Absentee ballot drop boxes are not allowed under the Voting rights Act. Drop boxes were not allowed in Georgia until the last election. This was only after an emergency rule was issued by State Election Board. SB 202 legalized drop-boxes, allowing each county to have one drop box, and another number for every 100,000 registered voters or advanced voting locations.The Justice Department claims that restricting the number of drop-off boxes is discriminatory racially. This claim is absurd, as the two quantitative standards used to determine how many drop boxes a county can use are completely independent of race.Also, the Justice Department seems to not like the requirement that drop boxes be monitored by an election official, law enforcement officer or license security guard. This is a basic security protocol. The ballot boxes at polling stations are monitored constantly. Aren't they even more important when they are out on the streets?The Justice Department's complaint lists random comments and incidents it believes prove that state legislators were deliberately trying to discriminate against voters. The complaint alleges that a U.S. The Senate candidate mispronounced Kamala Harris' first name and mocked it during a campaign event. Despite being her Senate colleague for four year.Garlands Justice Department says that this is evidence that the Voting rights Act has been violated. However, it is not relevant to any other actions taken in the state Legislature.Another example is Ebenezer Baptist Church, which was home to Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.), an anonymous, hateful, and threatening racist. This is a shameful act that no one should condone.What does this have to do the Georgia Legislature's legislation? Sometimes, hateful, racist messages are also sent to Heritage Foundation by anonymous people who don't know anything about our efforts to ensure the integrity and security in the election process using common-sense reforms. Is this a sign that Clarke and Garland, who are opponents to election reform, are engaging in racially-discriminatory behavior by bringing this suit?>>> The Daily Signal is The Heritage Foundation's news and commentary platform.This is nothing but a partisan lawsuit. It also reflects an abuse of the Justice Department's enforcement authority under Section 202 of the Voting Rights Act. The lawsuit alleges that voters in black and other minorities are not capable of complying with electoral rules and procedures.This is clearly false, but it's the embarrassing and shameful position that the Justice Department finds itself in today.Do you have a comment about this article? Send us an email at [email protected] with your comments. We may publish them in our We Hear You section. Include the URL of the article or the headline, along with your name and the town/state.
