Back in July, the United States Supreme Court issued a 6-3 decision in the case of Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee, and according to Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton, the outrage that immediately spewed forth from the left is telling in that it reveals how damaging the ruling truly is to Democrats’ efforts to reshape electoral processes to their permanent advantage.
In the Brnovich case, the high court found that Arizona statutes that outlawed ballot harvesting and also provided for the disqualification of votes cast outside of an individual’s assigned precinct did not, as Democrats claimed, represent violations of the federal Voting Rights Act.
At the time, Fitton declared the ruling a welcome one that “reaffirms that states may take action to prevent election fraud without waiting for it to occur within their own borders,” also adding that it “rightly rejects the race baiting of the leftist partisans who pretend that neutral provisions to combat voter fraud (such as voter ID and bans on ballot harvesting) are presumptively racist.”
In a recent investigative bulletin penned for Judicial Watch, Fitton noted, “The Left went bonkers over Brnovich.” with President Joe Biden himself calling it a “broad assault against voting rights,” and legal commentator Elie Mystal of The Nation went so far as to declare that the opinion basically said, “as long as you don’t say the N-word when you are taking away people’s votes, it is fine.”
In an effort to lend a sense of balance and reason to the left’s unhinged reaction to the decision, two experts from Judicial Watch testified before congressional committees and explained why the ruling was far from the voting rights armageddon liberals claimed it to be, as Fitton’s bulletin detailed.
Judicial Watch Election Integrity Project Director Robert Popper pointed out that Section Two of the Voting Rights Act had, in recent times, been used to justify lawsuits attacking what to most people are “ordinary-seeming regulations” related to absentee voting, early voting, voter ID requirements, and the like, and that in less-politicized environments, the need for such reforms was not particularly controversial.
Popper continued, saying, “One hears – and large news outlets dutifully report – that there is a ‘tsunami’ of legislation ‘restricting the right to vote,’” and that such attempts are akin to the “new Jim Crow,” and he further opined that “these claims are preposterous” and “[a]t best, they reveal a startling historical ignorance” and at worst “a startling cynicism, driven by a desire to inflame passions – and to raise funds.”
Despite the absurdity of the wailing and gnashing of teeth incited among the left by the Brnovich decision, Judicial Watch experts Popper and Russell Nobile warned that the aftermath of the ruling may make Democrats even more determined to push measures such as the John Lewis Voting Rights Act, which would center undue power in the Voting Section of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, known as a dangerous “hotbed of partisanship.”
While the Brnovich decision may indeed have been, as Fitton put it, “a home run for cleaner elections,” it seems certain that the left will remain dogged in its determination to fight to realize a “grander plan to shift control of American elections away from individual state legislatures and into the hands of a single federal bureaucratic department,” and that is an outcome against which all voters must remain vigilant.