Garland threatens states' efforts to assure voting integrity

Merrick Garland

Attorney General Merrick Garland on Friday issued a threat to states that are adopting new rules and regulations intended to assure the integrity of U.S. elections.

He said, according to a report in the Washington Examiner, he’s beefing up the number of lawyers in his Civil Rights Division to investigate voter rights.

“We are scrutinizing new laws that seek to curb voter access, and where we see violations, we will not hesitate to act,” he promised.

Many state legislatures have adopted new regulations for their elections following the 2020 presidential race that was rife with accusations of election fraud and mismanagement.

“Fact-checkers” across the country repeatedly have claimed that the elections were run without significant issues, but the fact is that courts almost uniformly refused to even consider the evidence provided in hundreds of sworn statements and more.

Several states still are running audits of their results.

What is not in dispute is that in multiple states various officials simply changed state laws to accommodate the ballots during the COVID-19 pandemic, even though the Constitution allows only state legislatures to make those changes.

Further, there’s still no quantification of any impact that might have resulted from $400 million from Facebook chief Mark Zuckerberg that was turned over to various local election commissions on the condition that the leftist organizations he chose could have a hand in running the voting.

Garland claimed those voter integrity laws have been aimed at making “it harder to vote.”

And he charged that those audits “may undermine public confidence in our democracy.”

The Examiner noted the 2020 elections “saw an expansion of early and mail-in voting because of the coronavirus pandemic. When President Joe Biden claimed victory over former President Donald Trump, many Republican-led states disagreed with the results and challenged them at the Supreme Court.”

While that court did not accept that case for review, Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito said it should have been heard. Later, after the high court refused to even hear another case, Thomas said the court was in a position to calm fears about election integrity and suggested that should have happened.

“By doing nothing, we invite further confusion and erosion of voter confidence,” he warned.

Content created by the WND News Center is available for re-publication without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].


This article was originally published by the WND News Center.

Related Posts