Another Bill to Give Partisan Bureaucrats Control Over State Election Laws

One of the false narratives constantly pushed by liberals is that the efforts of states to reform and fix vulnerabilities in their election systems are somehow examples of "Voter suppression."

The Census Bureau survey of the 2020 election concludes that it attracted "The highest voter turnout of the 21st century."

This latest House hearing to push the myth of voter suppression is to undergird support for legislation numbered HR 4, or "The John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act." The bill would give liberal, biased bureaucrats in the Justice Department the power to veto changes of polling place locations, voter ID and registration requirements, and the boundary lines of redistricting in every single state.

The proposed legislation also is almost certainly unconstitutional because it doesn't satisfy what the Supreme Court said was required for cover­age: The 1965 standards were obsolete, and any requirement that states obtain federal approval of election changes could be imposed only if Con­gress found "Blatantly discriminatory evasions of federal decrees;" a lack of minority officeholders; voting tests and devices; "Voting discrimination 'on a pervasive scale;'" or "Flagrant" or "Rampant" voting discrimination.

Although the stated purpose of the bill is to prevent racial dis­crimination, it would force racial gerryman­dering, make race the predominant factor in the election process, and prevent commonsense election reforms such as voter ID. The bill's new coverage formula would place jurisdictions under Justice Department preclearance if the agency determines that 15 "Vot­ing rights violations" occurred during the "Previous 25 calendar years" by local jurisdictions or that 10 "Voting rights violations" occurred during the "Previous 25 calendar years" if one of those violations was by the state government.

Even settlements of meritless litigation that a state makes to avoid the cost of litigation would count as a "Voting rights violation" for purposes of triggering preclearance coverage.

Under the bill if a plaintiff such as the ACLU simply "Raise[s] a serious question" about a voting change and a court determines that the "Hardship" imposed on the state by enjoining the change is less than the "Hardship" that would be experienced by the plaintiff if an injunction is not issued, the court must grant an injunction.

https://www.dailysignal.com/2021/05/26/another-bill-in-congress-to-give-partisan-bureaucrats-control-over-state-election-laws/