States “Smarten Up” their Voting Laws

In the wake of the 2020 Presidential election, a plethora of remedial election procedures have either already been signed into law or are working their way through the legislatures of more than half of the states in the US. In Michigan alone, no fewer than 39 bills to change election rules are progressing through that state’s legislature. Some states, like Michigan, have progressive Democrat Governors who have vowed to veto any such bills. Others however, like Georgia and Kentucky¹, have already signed new election rules into law with large majorities in these state’s legislatures voting “yea”. This might appear odd, since we citizens have been admonished repeatedly by the Democrat/media complex that there was absolutely nothing amiss in the 2020 election.  So why are all these new state election laws thought necessary?

We believe there are two reasons:

1. It is plain as day to the legislatures and the electorate at large that there were election irregularities.² Any objective look at the various statistical analyses of the vote, both nationally and in several “swing” states, undeniably confirms this. The existing media blackout on these irregularities, and a “cancel” culture that ostracizes anyone who even mentions the possibility of election fraud doesn’t change the fact that it occurred.
2. Shortsightedly, those state legislatures relied far too heavily on the courts to assure the integrity of an election system that was wholly unprepared for a massive mail-in vote. The courts refused to engage; they chose not to hear most of the fraud cases, not upon analysis of the merits, but by declaring the plaintiffs didn’t have “standing”. Thus, it became clear the only way to fix the problem was for the legislatures to change their election laws after the fact.

Progressives have reacted to these corrective bills with alarm and one massive Death Star countermeasure. The Democrat controlled House of Representatives recently passed a new bill labeled “HR1”. In a nutshell, this bill is an attempt to supersede specific elements of individual state election laws, particularly regarding mail-in voting and ID requirements. Article 1 Section 4 of the Constitution says the following regarding state election rules   – “…The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Place of Chusing Senators…” The second part of this statement would seem to justify the federal government’s ability to pass laws such as HR1. However, all federal election laws that have been passed under this provision in the last 200+ years address solicitation, coercion, and intimidation at polling places. These federal laws do not try to micro-manage the “…The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives…”. These state-held functions include the details and mechanisms for how to hold an election. These specifics have always been the domain of the individual states, not imposed by the federal government. HR1 is a significant departure from that precedent. Among other things, HR1 seeks to force upon all states a federalized, one-size-fits all methodology for voter registration, early voting, and absentee balloting. Worse, the mechanisms proposed in HR1 undermine election integrity by needlessly limiting the ability of states to positively determine the identity of their voters.

The simple requirement of having to prove your identity, ubiquitous in other aspects of our society, is apparently too much to ask of voters according to HR1 and its Democrat supporters. The text of HR1 is nearly 800 pages long, but the singular issue of voter identification underpins it all. Supporters of HR1 argue that having to procure proof of who you are in order to vote is a hardship for certain people. From there, the false and subtly demeaning accusation is made that this hardship is disproportionately suffered by minority groups. Thus, any election law with a strong ID requirement is racist. This is as absurd and illogical as the famous Monty Python sketch describing how to identify a witch – they burn. Why do witches burn? Because they’re made of wood, and since wood floats like a duck, a woman is a witch if she weighs the same as a duck.

Currently, HR1 has passed the House but has not yet been voted on in the Senate. HR1 has only a slim chance of passing the Senate while the filibuster rule is still in effect. Significant bipartisan support, which HR1 does not have, is required to break a filibuster (60 senate votes). And while the proposition of eliminating the filibuster has been raised, even some Democrats can’t stomach that kind of naked and shameful federal power grab. Thus, with the filibuster in place, it will be a steep uphill climb for HR1 to ever get to Biden’s desk. And if it does, it would be the biggest infringement on state sovereignty in more than a century.

Were the filibuster to fall, signing HR1 into law would not have a good outcome. There is no compelling reason or objective logic for the federal government to run roughshod over this element of state sovereignty. That fact alone will likely be why this farcical bill would die an ugly, protracted courtroom death if it ever became law. If courts refuse to hear a challenge to HR1 (assuming it became law), as happened with most of the election lawsuits this past fall, chaos will ensue. It is a near certainty that many states would not comply with such an overreach by the federal government.

There is no more fundamental issue to our form of government than the integrity of our elections and voting processes. How could we possibly have a representative form of government if our “elected representatives” are not elected fairly? This issue, like most these days, divides cleanly along ideological party lines. The Constitution leaves control of the election processes to the individual states for a very good reason. It is a defense against exactly the scenario playing out before us now in real time. Anticipating the possibility of one party controlling each branch of government, and that party trying to pass laws that would keep them in power forever, the founders knew that state sovereignty in running elections was critical. Otherwise, the whole election process could be nationally skewed to forever favor one party. This is precisely what progressive Democrats seek to accomplish with HR1.

For now, the states have the upper hand. With HR1 stuck in the Senate, the state of Georgia has temporarily become ground zero in this battle. Despite the seriousness of the situation, the “woke” reaction to Georgia’s new election law from the media and others is not without entertainment value. It has caused all manner of uninformed and unintelligent commentary, particularly by race baiters who seem to have no other purpose in life than to sow hatred. Right on cue, the new George election law has led to yet another galactically stupid decision by a professional sports league. Like the rest of us, Major League Baseball (MLB) has seen just how destructive to business it is to go too far with the racial justice narrative. The substantially lower viewership and revenue suffered by both the NFL and NBA prove it. Nevertheless, the MLB decided to join the fray in a big way by moving their All-Star game out of the state of Georgia because of the new “racist” election law there. That instantly led to reactive calls for boycotts of MLB games and merchandise. If the MLB thinks those are idle threats, just look at what has already happened to both the NFL and NBA.

When Joe Biden was sworn in as President, we didn’t think it was possible to divide the country any further. We were wrong. If by chance HR1 becomes law and the courts nullify the existing Georgia election law, we’re in for a very rough ride.

This is how civil wars get started.

¹ The new Kentucky election law received significant bipartisan support. It passed by a vote of 91-3 in the Kentucky House and 33-3 in the Senate.

² We went through some of these irregularities in a previous post – If Biden won, then..