Congress passed
voting rights law 1965, primarily to eliminate racial discrimination in voting in the South.Among other things, this law Use of literacy tests exclude people from voting, impose “Prior authorization” requirement New voting rules in a specific state and if you need to print your ballot and election information in your language non-English. The VRA is believed to have significantly expanded the black electorate. Registration and participation, especially in the South. The law was originally scheduled to be repealed after five years, but has been extended and amended over the decades.
The law also includes language that protects voters from intimidation, intimidation, and coercion while voting or assisting others in voting. These intimidation provisions are now being used as a weapon against election integrity. Please let me explain.
Unless Congress, the federal courts, or the U.S. Supreme Court crack down on this judicial overreach, we are sure to see more cases like the one in Georgia.
The Voting Rights Act’s intimidation provision is commonly known as “Section 11(b).”
Offers:
No person shall intimidate, intimidate, coerce, attempt to intimidate, intimidate, or coerce, or intimidate, intimidate, or coerce any person, whether acting under law or otherwise, to vote or seek to vote. Do not attempt or attempt to intimidate. , threaten, intimidate or coerce any person who encourages or assists a person to vote or attempt to vote, or intimidate, intimidate or coerce any person who exercises any power or duty under: [other sections of the law].
A simple reading of the law likely won’t alarm the average person concerned about election integrity.After all, no one should be allowed
threaten, threaten, or coerce Should voters do that? The problem lies in how leftist and activist courts interpret “threat, intimidation, and coercion.”
“Threat, intimidation, coercion” originally meant what one would expect, and often involved actual threats of physical violence.
employed by the Ku Klux Klan. But federal courts are beginning to take a broader view of what constitutes intimidation, intimidation, and coercion. In recent years, a federal court has ruled that under Section 11(b), voters can be “intimidated, intimidated, or coerced” by using only words, not any words. There is no threat of physical harm. In fact, Section 11(b) is being used even worse.
In a lawsuit arising from the January 2021 U.S. Senate runoff elections in Georgia, left-wing activists are using Section 11(b), available under state law, to challenge voter registration. They sued election integrity organizations and individuals who took advantage of the process.
considered to be illegal. Activists argued that the invocation of state law and public statements by election integrity activists constituted “intimidation, intimidation, and coercion.”
I’ll explain what happened.
After the 2020 presidential election, evidence emerged that Georgia law required voters to:
vote in the county where they live Thousands more voters than Joe Biden may have violated “Win” by 11,000 votes. Election integrity groups and activists took action to challenge some of these voters before the runoff elections, using procedures established by Georgia law.
The lawsuit included the following allegations:
fair fighta left-wing public advocacy group founded by Stacey Abrams that opposes many political parties, including: vote of truththe Election Integrity Group led by Catherine Engelbrecht.
The Fair Fight plaintiffs argued that, as the court stated, “collective challenges of voters so close to an election amount to intimidation (especially when done negligently or recklessly).” The court disagreed with Fair Fight, but did so because the Georgia law at issue left it up to county election boards to pursue or not pursue challenges.
In the court’s words, the commission’s “intermediaries” “break the chain of causation for the purpose of establishing liability for voter intimidation.” The court also found that True the Vote and the other defendants’ public statements and social media posts did not rise to the level of intimidation.
Nevertheless, while these election integrity activists successfully defended the case and won at trial, they were forced to endure two years of litigation that included extensive discovery, motion practices, and a trial on the merits. Ta. All relied on procedures provided by the state of Georgia. This law is an effort to prevent ineligible voters from voting, and was enacted because they made public statements supporting the effort.
Voters and those who use legitimate state processes to challenge voter registration and exercise their First Amendment rights in the process should not be sued under the Voting Rights Act.
Unless Congress, the federal courts, or the U.S. Supreme Court crack down on this judicial overreach, we are sure to see more cases like the one in Georgia. Those fighting for election integrity must familiarize themselves with the Voting Rights Act and hire competent legal counsel to ensure that all efforts are beyond doubt.
The fight for election integrity is a fight worth fighting, but rest assured that the left will fight it tooth and nail. The left’s discovery of Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act could be an effective weapon. Americans fighting for election integrity had better be prepared to protect it.
