By DEACON MIKE MANNO
The fight over election laws, expanded mail-in voting, verification requirements — and several other issues that caused a nationwide debate during the 2020 election — is being fought in two venues which could produce contradictory results.
In the East Coast corner, representing the Democrats, the House is now considering HR 1, a proposed law entitled “For the People Act of 2021” which, if passed, would effectively legalize many of the controversial “emergency rules” which opponents claim stole last year’s election from President Trump.
In the West Coast corner, representing the “Stop the Steal” crowd, is a coalition of conservative groups who are in federal court in California seeking a declaratory judgment that many of the state’s election rules are unconstitutional, and an order prohibiting their continued use.
What makes this an interesting fight is that the East Coast group is trying to legalize many of the same things that the West Coast group is trying to invalidate.
Let’s introduce the contestants. The East Coast folks are the Democrats in Congress who are trying to solidify the tactics they successfully used that put Mr. Biden in the White House. The West Coast people are led by the Election Integrity Project of California, Inc., and represented by several conservative public-interest law firms.
As the parties thrust and parry, here are their positions: The D.C. group, in its 791-page bill, claims that “racial discrimination in access to voting and the political process persists,” thus there is a need for a uniform election law that applies to all states “[t]o expand Americans’ access to the ballot box, reduce the influence of big money in politics, strengthen ethics rules for public servants, and implement other anti-corruption measures for the purpose of fortifying our democracy, and for other purposes.”
It includes requirements such as this:
“A State may not require an individual to provide any form of identification as a condition of obtaining an absentee ballot, except that nothing in this paragraph may be construed to prevent a State from requiring a signature of the individual or similar affirmation as a condition of obtaining an absentee ballot….A State may not require notarization or witness signature or other formal authentication as a condition of obtaining or casting an absentee ballot….A State shall treat the individual’s application to vote by absentee ballot by mail in an election for Federal office as an application for an absentee ballot by mail in all subsequent Federal elections held in the State.”
The bill legalizes unrestricted ballot harvesting, ends voter ID, and permits nationwide mail-in voting. It restores the voting rights for convicted felons, prohibits the use of more than the last four digits of a Social Security number for authentication, requires the use of Internet-only voter registration, and requires same-day registration whereby voters can register to vote on Election Day.
Notably, the states would be prohibited from setting their own election rules, but would be required to follow the federal law. The state could apply no restrictions on absentee voting and must allow early voting for at least 15 days prior to the election date itself. As mentioned above, vote harvesting would be allowed and the placement for drop boxes would be regulated by federal agencies.
Thus, early polling stations and drop boxes should be located to “ensure that each polling place which allows voting during an early voting period under [this] subsection is located within walking distance of a stop on a public transportation route.”
In short, everything that was complained of in the last election will be legalized by this bill.
On the other side of the ring, the Election Integrity Project argues that California’s “Practices that promote the casting of illegal or unreliable ballots fail to contain basic minimum guarantees against such conduct are a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment by leading to the diminution in value of validly cast ballots. . . .
“Predictably, the conduct of the 2020 election eviscerated citizen oversight, caused mass irregularities and opportunities for fraud, and violated the rights of lawful voters, citizen observers, and candidates. The expansion of vote-by-mail ballots and the changes in the law to send vote-by-mail ballots to all registered voters created a process where known ineligible voters (including deceased persons, non-citizens, and non-residents) were sent live ballots,” it said in a statement announcing its lawsuit.
Robert Tyler, one of the attorneys involved in the suit, and president of Advocates for Faith & Freedom, said, “COVID-19 has ushered in an unprecedented era of tyranny in state government, and fraud in our elections. Any unbiased observer can recognize that we have a serious problem in California when at least one million more persons are registered to vote than the total number of Californians who are actually eligible to vote.”
Among the complaints set out in the 44-page lawsuit:
“Over the past three decades in California, however, these rights have been intentionally eroded by an onslaught of unconstitutional statutes, regulations, and executive orders, which, taken together, are designed to create an environment in which elections could be manipulated and eligible voters disenfranchised. Among other things, they have:
“A. Eliminated absentee ballots and massively expanded vote-by-mail (VBM) through which even voters who could vote in person receive less-secure VBM ballots;
“B. Legalized unrestrained and unrestricted ballot harvesting by removing mandates of ‘chain of custody,’ unleashing the exploitation of vulnerable populations….
“C. Eviscerated protections on in-person voting;
“D. Implemented laws and procedures that automatically add non-citizens to voter rolls. . . .
“E. Failed to comply with federal laws requiring maintaining accurate voter rolls, allowing deceased persons, non-citizens, non-residents, and other ineligible voters to remain on rolls and receive ballots.”
It then argued, “These efforts culminated in new ‘emergency’ regulations and executive orders put into place without public comment or legislative authority of the State and many of its counties, often under the pretext that they were necessary due to COVID-19.”
Shades of Elections Past? Perhaps, we’ll see, but it is too early to tell how the lawsuit will play out since it was only filed early last month. HR 1, on the other hand, has a good chance of passing since the Democrats effectively have control of Congress. If it passes, however, it will undoubtedly face legal challenges in the courts. The real question here is whether they could all be resolved in time for the 2022 election.
Who said politics is dull? Frightening maybe, but not dull.
(You can reach Mike at: DeaconMike@q.com and listen to him every Thursday morning at 10 CT on Faith On Trial at IowaCatholicRadio.com
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress