Earlier this week, I wrote about the “DOJ’s Unprecedented Election Intervention”.
The Department of Justice is directly intervening in local elections to monitor and respond to everything from memes to ‘qualified voters’ being prevented from voting. And to quickly suppress any attempts to scrutinize and demand transparency during and after the election.
Attorney General Merrick Garland claimed that the “founding purpose” of the Justice Department was “protecting our democracy and protecting our elections”. After failing to pass HR1 and the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act to federalize elections, the Biden-Harris administration appears to be using the DOJ to influence local elections as much as possible.
The Washington Post writes about the staggering scale of the DOJ’s election ‘monitoring’ effort.
The Justice Department on Friday said it will send election monitors to 86 jurisdictions in 27 states on Tuesday, the most in two decades amid growing fears of improper partisan influence and voter suppression.
I wonder which party those accusations can be directed at?
The number of jurisdictions subject to in-person federal scrutiny this year represents a 49 percent increase from 2020. It matches the total in 2004, the first presidential election cycle after the Supreme Court helped decide the fiercely disputed 2000 contest between George W. Bush and Al Gore.
What do 2004 and 2024 have in common? Apart from the number ‘4’.
Both were coming off extensive conspiracy theories. In 2004, Dems were preparing to claim a stolen election based on ‘voter suppression’. (We’ve mostly forgotten that argument because it quickly fizzled out but Dems did try to challenge the 2004 election results in Congress based on that lie.)
But the push here is much more calculated and aimed at swing states.
All seven of the nation’s most closely contested swing states are represented on the list, with monitors planning to visit six counties in Michigan, five in Georgia, four in Wisconsin and Arizona, three in Pennsylvania and North Carolina, and one in Nevada.
That’s not a coincidence. None of this is. The Biden-Harris DOJ is acting as the extension of the Harris-Walz campaign following a unified plan.
Legal experts said the federal government lost significant legal recourse in 2013, when the Supreme Court struck down key provisions of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. The court eliminated the federal government’s preclearance authority, which required nine states and dozens of counties with a history of voter discrimination, mostly in the South, to request permission to change voting regulations.
The ruling also meant the Justice Department needed a court order or the express cooperation from state and local officials to enter polling sites. The number of federal monitors dropped significantly in the ensuing election cycles.
They’re back and they’re here for one reason.
There’s been a lot of gloating as of late among some conservatives who think the election is in the bag because Harris proved to be a weak candidate and Trump is dominating the headlines. What they forget is that the Democrats have a much better machine. A better machine with a weak candidate hasn’t paid off too well for them in the past and it may not this time, but no one should take that for granted.