Peach Tree Times

The Department of Justice (DOJ) case against Georgia's new voting law is “full of holes, and reads more like a press release than a lawsuit,” Jason Snead, executive director of the Honest Elections Project, told Peach Tree Times.

The DOJ action alleging violations of an anti-discrimination provision in the 1965 Voter Rights Act, Snead adds, is further weakened by the recent Supreme Court ruling in Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee (DNC). The high court upheld two Arizona voting practices that the DNC alleged were discriminatory, barring political groups from third party collection of ballots (ballot harvesting), and nullifying votes cast in the wrong precinct on Election Day.

“The Georgia laws actually allows more leeway than Arizona when it comes to voting in the wrong precinct,” Snead said. “It’s hard to imagine much of a case there.”

The major provision in the Georgia law, as highlighted by the Wall Street Journal’s conservative-leaning editorial board, includes allowing for “three weeks of early voting, Sunday voting, two days of Saturday voting, and no-excuse absentee voting. Georgia’s new law also replaces signature matching with voter ID, in response to 2,400 ballots in 2018 being rejected because of signature issues," the Journal wrote. "In addition third parties will not be able to give gifts—such as food or drink—to voters in line, which guards against electioneering from activists. Finally, ballot drop boxes will become a permanent fixture in Georgia elections.”

The prohibition of providing voters food and drink as they wait on line has been roundly criticized by progressive groups.

In the Brnovich case, Justice Samuel Alito wrote that the election integrity laws in question in Arizona are not discriminatory and actually support pertinent state aims, including “the strength of the state interests—such as the strong and entirely legitimate state interest in preventing election fraud—served by a challenged voting rule is an important factor. Ensuring that every vote is cast freely, without intimidation or undue influence, is also a valid and important state interest.”

Snead said Section 2, the anti-discrimination provision in the Voting Rights Act is still relevant in cases of real discrimination, but said plaintiffs must show intent on the part of the legislature to discriminate when it approves changes to its voting laws.

He added that the DOJ lawsuit, and the department’s subsequent threats of legal action when legislatures approve post-election audits or when they revert to pre-COVID-19 voting practices, is little more than "saber rattling," in an attempt at a power grab.

“What they want is a bunch of unelected federal bureaucrats vetoing election laws not because of discriminatory practices because they simply don’t like them,” Snead said.

According to the Honest Elections Project, 64% of voters, including black (51%) and Hispanic (66%) voters, as well as urban (59%) and independent (61%) voters, want to increase voting safeguards that mitigate fraud, not decrease them.

Finally, the WSJ editorial board notes that “the legal and political result of the lawsuit is therefore likely to vindicate Georgia Republicans during the 2022 election season or leading up to 2024, depending how the lawsuits proceed. Attorney General Merrick Garland would be wise to drop the suit in light of Brnovich, lest his term at Justice be marred by the continuation of this patently political lawsuit.”