States warned Biden DOJ election agenda is all politics

Attorney General Merrick Garland announces the Justice Department’s lawsuit against Georgia’s voting law June 24, 2021 (Video screenshot)

A top-flight team of many former Department of Justice experts is offering to help states fight off attacks they expect to come from Joe Biden’s current DOJ over efforts to return voting procedures to normalcy after the 2020 election’s COVID-19-impacted results.

There is no dispute that during last November’s election many state officials changed or simply ignored state laws regarding elections, mail-in ballots, and the like in order to “accommodate” the coronavirus pandemic that started in Wuhan, China, and has killed millions around the globe.

Those changes were made even though the Constitution allows only state lawmakers to make those changes, which they didn’t.

Now the DOJ has warned states against changing their procedures back to the legally defined requirements for any post-COVID races, threatening them with investigations and more.

The Public Interest Legal Foundation has responded, with letters to election officials in all 50 states, explaining the “guidance” issued by the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division is wrong, and state officials have every right to restore their legally adopted procedures.

“This overreach by DOJ is not surprising considering that the department is being run by Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Pamela Karlan, an ideological extremist with a long history of partisan enforcement of civil rights laws and Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke who has exhibited hostility toward equal enforcement of voting laws,” the PILF explained.

The legal team explained, “Audits of past elections themselves do not violate the Voting Rights Act or any other federal election law. The DOJ is exaggerating its power because they do not want any audits to occur. In fact, the DOJ in its entire history has never interfered in an election audit because it has no authority to do so. This is an abuse of power.”

“The bottom line is this: current leadership at the Civil Rights Division is trying to prevent any audits because they are satisfied with the results of the 2020 election and would prefer not to raise any questions about potential problems,” explained PILF President J. Christian Adams.

He explained how the so-called “guidance” regarding returning to pre-COVID practices and procedures is incorrect.

“A state’s decision to return to their pre-Covid election procedures does not raise any inference of illegality as the DOJ would like election officials to think,” the PILF explained.

“If you are being contacted by the Civil Rights Division, it is because they aim to hurt (or sue) your state, not help it,” he said. “Again, if you are contacted by Civil Rights Division staff related to a return to pre-COVID statutory practices, our suggestion is to not speak with them, and we are happy to assemble a team of former Justice Department lawyers to meet with you and guide you through the inquiry without cost to you.”

The DOJ’s comments came in a biased advisory that slammed state efforts to assure voters that the 2020 election was, in fact, legitimate.

Several states have considered, or launched, audits of the results, with the most advanced being Arizona, where results are expected to be released soon.

However, the DOJ used scare-quotes in describing such actions, as in “audits.”

The DOJ claimed its goal is to “ensure states fully comply with federal laws regarding elections, specifically federal statutes affecting methods of voting and federal constraints related to post-election ‘audits.'”

Attorney General Merrick Garland said, in a statement accompanying the DOJ’s announcement of its political agenda, “The guidance issued today describe certain federal laws that help ensure free, fair, and secure elections.”

And he threatened any state that would return to procedures the DOJ did not like, stating, “Where violations of such laws occur, the Justice Department will not hesitate to act.”

His specific advisories addressed laws “affecting methods of voting” and “federal constraints on post-election audits.”

He suggests there could be problems for states that want to “bar continued use” of “voting modifications” adopted during COVID.

PILF’s letter responds to Garland’s claims, explaining Garland’s charges are “on tenuous legal grounds” and are “designed more to affect your behavior than it is to provide a sober description of federal power.”

“Simply, the Justice Department overstates its power and understates yours,” the states are told. “The guidance is an effort to interfere with the rightful exercise of your power to determine how to run your own elections.”

The 2020 election resulted in many claims of election fraud from credible witnesses, with credible evidence. The bottom line is that Joe Biden won by a few thousand votes spread across multiple swing states, and Democrats in Washington are happy with that result.

They, therefore, want to keep in place the exact procedures, the extensive use of fraud-prone mail-in ballots and the like, that provided the Biden results.

Multiple states, meanwhile, alarmed by the allegations and evidence of problems, are working to clean up their systems and make sure that every vote counts – and that those who are not eligible to vote don’t skew the results.

The PILF letter explained the DOJ “does not want any audits to occur as potentially outlined and directed by state law and state courts, but federal law actually is not violated by an election audit.”

The DOJ never in its history has interfered with an audit because “past leadership has understood it has no legal authority to do so,” PILF explained.

If no voters are intimidated or denied the right to vote, “states may conduct self-examinations of their own election procedures and results,” PILF said.

“The bottom line is this: current leadership at the Civil Rights Division is tryinig to prevent any audits because they are satisfied with the results of the 2020 election and would prefer not to raise any questions about potential problems.”

The letter charged they are acting on a political bias. “They are not acting as objective law enforcement officials,” it said.

Returning to pre-COVID requirements is presumptively constitutional, the letter said.

The legal team also offered states help with a response should the DOJ officials and their “activist proclivities” come asking questions.

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