Category Archives: Federalist

Nearly 90 percent of the 50,000 migrants released by the Biden administration have not yet reported to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement within the required 60-day window.

While at least 27,000 of the illegal aliens still have time within their allotted 60 days to report to ICE, Axios reported that at least 16,000 of those whose window of time has expired have disregarded the honor system and not showed up.

Thats 2.4 no-shows for every one that has checked in, the report states.

Bidens Department of Homeland Security spokeswoman Meira Bernstein maintains that many [migrants] are proactively reaching out to ICE to begin their official immigration processing, including by receiving a Notice to Appear, but noted that those who do not report, like anyone who is in our country without legal status, are subject to removal by ICE.

Border officials first began releasing asylum-seeking illegal aliens from custody without issuing them an official court date in March due to limited space in already overwhelmed holding facilities. Instead of giving migrants a formal notice to appear in court to determine if they will be deported, as normal Customs and Border Protection policy requires, illegal aliens were given the contact information for ICE offices across the country and instructed to finish their processes there.

This system was pitched as a temporary one to accommodate the large influx of border crossings occurring during the spring months but has continued throughout the summer as illegal immigration skyrockets. In the Rio Grande Valley alone, where border apprehensions have risen as high as 20,000 a day, at least 7,300 illegal aliens were released this past week without official court dates.

For months, the border officials have struggled to handle surging illegal immigration at the southern U.S. border. Despite frustrations from legislators on both sides of the political aisle, Bidens open-border attitude is not stopping illegal aliens from flooding into the country.

This is what opens borders looks like, Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas tweeted. Biden lets in tens of thousands of illegal aliens WITHOUT court dates, and now only about 1 in 10 have checked in with ICE. This isnt an accident.

Jordan Davidson is a staff writer at The Federalist. She graduated from Baylor University where she majored in political science and minored in journalism.

Read this article:

Nearly 90 Percent Of Illegals Biden Let In Have Refused To Report To ICE - The Federalist

Hidalgo County Judge Richard Cortez is calling on the Biden administration to stop releasing COVID-19 positive illegal immigrants into Texas.

We have been doing well as a community in slowing the spread of this deadly virus, Cortez said. But ill-conceived policies by both the federal and state governments are beginning to have serious consequences on Hidalgo County. I call on federal immigration officials to stop releasing infected migrants into our community.

We now face a potential crisis because of the federal policy of releasing infected migrants into our community, he added.

Cortezs remarks come on the heals of the Biden administration releasing thousands of illegal immigrants into American communities. According to a report from Axios, the administration has released roughly 50,000 illegal immigrants into the United States without a court date. Moreover, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has also recorded over 21,000 COVID-19 cases within their detention facilities.

During his remarks, Cortez also appealed to Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, asking that he return to Hidalgo County safety tools such as the ability to implement mask mandates.

I am further calling on Governor Abbott to return to Hidalgo County the safety tools he took away that would help us slow the spread of this disease, he said.

Back in May, Abbott signed an executive order that prohibits government entities from implementing mask mandates, including in public schools.

The Lone Star State continues to defeat COVID-19 through the use of widely-available vaccines, antibody therapeutic drugs, and safe practices utilized by Texans in our communities, he said. Texans, not government, should decide their best health practices, which is why masks will not be mandated by public school districts or government entities. We can continue to mitigate COVID-19 while defending Texans liberty to choose whether or not they mask up.

Shawn Fleetwood is an intern at The Federalist and a student at the University of Mary Washington, where he plans to major in Political Science and minor in Journalism. He also serves as a state content writer for Convention of States Action. Follow him on Twitter @ShawnFleetwood

Read the original post:

Judge Tells Biden Admin To Stop Releasing COVID-19 Positive Illegal Immigrants Into Texas Communities - The Federalist

After months of promising to crush COVID-19, President Joe Biden threatened Americans with yet another round of lockdowns that would doom the economy already struggling with skyrocketing inflation.

We have the tools to prevent this new wave of COVID, the Democrat president said after announcing that he would mandate vaccines for all federal employees. From shutting down our businesses, our schools, our society, as we saw happen last year. Ive said from the beginning that we will be guided by the science.

The president also advocated for Americans to follow the CDCs flip-flop guidelines on masking even if they are vaccinated and for children to wear masks shortly after he advised vaccinated Americans to contradict the guidelines.

Shortly before Biden announced his endorsement for more government-mandated shutdowns, White House Deputy Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre indicated that the administration would fully support a new wave of lockdowns if the CDC told them it was necessary.

If scientists come to you, at some point down the line and say it is our opinion that there should be shutdowns and there should be school closures, you would do that? Fox Newss Peeter Doocy asked.

Like I said, we listen to the CDC and the experts and their guidance. The CDC is a body that is very well respected and we follow their guidance, Jean-Pierre said.

On the campaign trail and after being elected, Biden promised numerous times not to shut down the country or the economy but instead use his energy to shut down the virus.

I am not going to shut down the economy, period. Im going to shut down the virus. Thats what Im going to shut down, so thats, again, no national shutdown, no national shutdown, Biden said in October.

Theres no circumstances which I can see that would require total national shutdown. I think that would becounterproductive, he said.

Jordan Davidson is a staff writer at The Federalist. She graduated from Baylor University where she majored in political science and minored in journalism.

View post:

After Promising To Crush COVID-19, Biden Instead Threatens To Crush Economy With More Lockdowns - The Federalist

The EU-wide exercise on the future of the bloc could give new impetus to the federalist-minded group in the European Parliament who have been struggling in the past years to connect with young Europeans.

The Conference on the Future of Europe has so far received widespread criticism for its potential to turn into a largely futile exercise of the Brussels elite speaking to itself.

Im a bit concerned that it would be just a communication tool and not a tool that really allows citizens to be involved and people everywhere to really embrace the European sphere, Gwendoline Delbos-Corfield told EURACTIV. She is part of the Spinelli Group gathering federally-minded lawmakers in the European Parliament.

To involve real people in the discussion the EU institutions will organise citizens panels gathering 200 randomly selected Europeans while reflecting the EUs diversity. However, many fear this will not be enough.

Delbos-Corfield expressed scepticism about the ability of the conference to advance the European agenda.

For the Spinelli Group, the challenge is for the conference to not become a chat between MEPs who live in the Brussels bubble, dont get out of it and convince themselves of things that they are already convinced of, the green MEP added.

Delbos-Corfield described one of the first meetings of the Spinelli Group in the current parliamentary mandate, in 2019, which was supposed to make the transition between the older and newer members as very concerning. This was due to a lack of younger lawmakers of the previous generation, long and boring speeches as well as gender imbalance.

I felt it was my duty to go to the Spinelli group, but I wasnt that enthusiastic, to be honest, she told this website.

In her view, the conference can give a new purpose to the group, which for years was a bit of federalist think tank next to the Brussels bubble.

What I can say is today, we have new energy on the age point of view, there has been real renewal, she added, stressing, however, that we are still not there.

The change is reflected in the composition of the groups board. A quarter of its 16 members are women, four are aged under 37. In comparison, only one MEP was under 37 in the previous parliamentary mandate.

That one young MEP was a social democrat from Italy, Brando Benifei, who now chairs the Spinelli group.

For Benifei, nationalists want to reduce the debate on the future of Europe to a discussion where we seek the least common denominator.

In contrast, he said, his group needs to show an alternative to citizens and open a real conflict of ideas, allowing Europeans to choose a path forward.

According to him, one way forward is to usher in the age of more enhanced cooperation, which would see a coalition of willing member states integrate further in areas where there is a will to move forward, which is seen in many but not all EU countries.

Asked if this could lead to more fragmentation, he said we already have a multi-speed Europe with many exemptions and opt-outs and the bloc cannot afford to wait for a consensus on all issues.

Young Europeans take charge

Meanwhile, while Brussels is trying to involve citizens in the debate on the future of the bloc, some Europeans took matters into their own hands.

Last month, a group of European youth travelled to a simulation in Brussels that implemented a new bloc constitution written by their peers for a dry run of a possible new Union, with federal institutions.

I was not that engaged with federalism, but I wanted to see how it works, said Anas Faucher, a European law student who helped to organise the event and took part in it as president of the lower chamber of parliament.

Describing the simulations as the greatest experience of my life, she remained sombre about the likelihood of achieving federated European institutions in the near future.

I think its very utopian right now because people see federalism as a loss of nationality and community, she told EURACTIV.

Nevertheless, she said, a federated union could be even more effective at protecting national minorities because a more general structure could represent little scales better than states, which tend to leave minorities blurred out.

Lamenting the power member states still wield, she said federalism is ultimately about decision-making. Its not about just everyone being the same, its about acting together way stronger, she said.

[Edited by Zoran Radosavljevic]

Read more:

Conference on bloc future could give new purpose to federalists in European Parliament - EURACTIV

On the heels of Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi issuing a directive mandating masks in Congress, with threats of arrest for anyone who is not a lawmaker, footage emerged of New York Democrat Rep. Jerry Nadler reading the newspaper without one.

The video, posted by Montana Republican Rep. Matt Rosendale, shows Nadler without a mask flipping through his daily reading. Looks like mask mandates and threats of arrests dont apply to senior Democrats. #hypocrisy, Rosendale tweeted.

New rules published Wednesday, Wearing of Masks Mandatory at All Times for USCP Personnel in Interior Spaces on Capitol Ground, note that all Capitol personnel must mask up.

Therefore, effective immediately, to promote the good health and well-being of our employees, all USCP personnel must wear a mask at all times when in interior spaces throughout the Capitol Grounds, the document states, saying the policy should be enforced for all staff and visitors. Any person who fails to either comply or leave the premises after being asked to do so would be subject to an arrest for unlawful entry.

Although this applies to Members of Congress, officers should not arrest any Member for failure to wear a mask or to comply with the mask mandate. Any Member who fails to comply with a request to wear a mask should be reported to the House Sergeant at Arms office, the document prescribes.If a staffer, who is accompanying a Member, refuses to wear a mask, that refusal should be noted and reported to a supervisor who will, in turn, refer the matter to the House Sergeant at Arms.

As The Federalist reported on Wednesday, the top physician in Congress was caught without a mask while lecturing Republicans on Pelosis new mandate.

Nadlers office did not respond to a request for comment.

See the original post here:

Jerry Nadler Busted Without A Mask Right After Pelosi Mandated Them - The Federalist

This list will be updated regularly.

Schools across the country closed their doors for months to fit the demands of anti-science andhypocritical teachers unions. President Joe Biden and his team in the White House repeatedly ignored scientific data that recommended students immediately return to classrooms to cater to these unions that held taxpayers hostage with demands unrelated to COVID-19.

Now government schools are evaluating if they should require masks in light of the Centers for Disease Control and Preventions most recent flip-flop on face coverings, even for those who are vaccinated, due to the Delta variant.

While 21.4 percent of U.S. school districts still require masks, 19.5 percent are banned from issuing mask mandates on children or teachers who do not wish to wear them when their next semester begins.

Here are the states where public schools cant force your kid to wear a mask.

Republican Gov. Greg Abbott signed an executive order in May prohibiting mask mandates in government schools across the Lone Star State beginning in June. The executive order not only supersedes any mask requirements that public schools might try to impose but also threatens any entity that doesnt comply with a fine as high as $1,000.

Abbott also ordered the Texas Education Agency to revise its masking guidance starting on June 4 to reinforce that no student,teacher, parent, or other staff member or visitor may be required to wear a face-covering on public school property.

The Lone Star State continues to defeat COVID-19 through the use of widely-available vaccines, antibody therapeutic drugs, and safe practices utilized by Texans in our communities, Abbott said. Texans, not government, should decide their best health practices, which is why masks will not be mandated by public school districts or government entities. We can continue to mitigate COVID-19 while defending Texans liberty to choose whether or not they mask up.

The Arizona state legislature passed legislation in June banning public schools from imposing mask mandates or regular COVID-19 testing. Republican Gov. Doug Ducey also took executive action to prevent any state colleges and universities from forcing face coverings on students.

Shortly after the release of the CDCs newest guidelines telling vaccinated adults and children to mask up in schools, Ducey reaffirmed that the state does not allow mask mandates, vaccine mandates, vaccine passports or discrimination in schools based on who is or isnt vaccinated. He called out the Biden administration for failing to effectively confront the COVID-19 pandemic and for sowing doubt about the COVID vaccine, and criticized the CDC for issuing unnecessary and unhelpful guidance.

While Utahs Department of Health claimsmasks are still required in all K-12 schools in the state, the state legislature passed a measure banning public schools and state universities from imposing mask mandates in May.

Despite his previous support for masking requirements, Republican Gov. Spencer Cox cut the states mask mandate for schools short at the end of the semester and said he has no plans to reinstate it for the fall semester.

The Oklahoma state legislature passed a law that banned government school districts from mandating masks unless the governor chooses to enact a new state of emergency. Republican Gov. Kevin Stitt already promised not to implement another round of emergency orders and said he believes this is about personal responsibility. This is about freedoms.

Another bill prohibits any schools or universities from requiring students or faculty to get the COVID-19 vaccine or wear masks if they are unvaccinated.

The difference is, were not going to mandate that somebody else has to send their 4-year-old to school with a mask or someone else has to get their 4-year-old vaccinated, Stitt said.

The Arkansas state legislature and Republican Gov. Asa Hutchinson teamed up in April to pass and enact legislation banning state-funded schools from requiring masks.

While students currently cant be forced to don a face covering while in school, Hutchison hinted that hewill be evaluating options for legislative changes to Act 1002 that will give our schools more local control on meeting the health needs of the students as we enter a new school year in the face of the delta variant.

When the Iowa state legislature enacted a ban on mask mandates in public schools in May, Republican Gov. Kim Reynolds was quick to sign the legislation.

Shortly after the CDC issued its newest masking guidelines,Reynolds dismissed the face-covering suggestions as not grounded in reality or common sense.

Im concerned that this guidance will be used as a vehicle to mandate masks in states and schools across the country, something I do not support, Reynolds said.

The South Carolina state legislature passed a budget bill this summer with conditions prohibiting school districts from using government funds to require that its students and/or employees wear a face mask at any of its education facilities.

Other state legislatures, whose states make up the 55 percent that allow local flexibility for mask mandates, are considering action to further prevent schools from dictating if students must cover their faces.

In Florida, Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis hinted at future legislation to push back on the federal government or local school districts that try to push for mandatory masking of school children.

I know our legislature feels strongly about it such that if you started to see a push from the feds or some of these local school districts, I know theyre interested in coming in, even in this special session to be able to provide protections for parents who just want to breathe freely, dont want to be suffering under these masks, during the school year, DeSantis said.

Jordan Davidson is a staff writer at The Federalist. She graduated from Baylor University where she majored in political science and minored in journalism.

Read the original post:

Here Are The States Where Schools Can't Force Your Kid To Wear A Mask - The Federalist

After months of advocating for critical race theory in classrooms throughout the country, the Democratic Party is rapidly losing ground with voters over this controversial issue.

Recent polling indicates that the Democratic Party has overplayed its hand on this deeply contentious topic, with a recent poll from YouGov, sponsored by The Economist, found that 58 percent of Americans had an unfavorable view of critical race theory, while only 38 percent of Americans had a favorable view.

An overwhelming 85 percent of Republicans who were surveyed had a very unfavorable view of critical race theory, with another 6 percent reporting that they had a somewhat unfavorable view. The split was notable partisan, with 58 percent of Democrats having a very favorable view in addition to 28 percent who self-reported a somewhat favorable view.

Meanwhile, Independents had a distinctly negative view of the theory, with 71 percent reporting a very unfavorable view and another 5 percent answering that they had a somewhat unfavorable view of critical race theory.

With just over three-quarters of Independent voters opposing critical race theory, the vast majority of whom were staunchly against it, the Democratic Party could likely face serious electoral troubles as the theory becomes a hot button topic at the center of various elections.

Politico reports that the Democratic Partys appeal to suburban voters may be particularly threatened as grassroots movements crop up to combat the Marxist ideology in school districts the country while the Democratic Party has remained largely unresponsive to such concerns. Virginias Democrat gubernatorial candidate Terry McAuliffe hastily dismissed parents concerns surrounding critical race theory by calling it a right-wing conspiracy theory that was concocted by Donald Trump and McAuliffes Republican opponent Glenn Youngkin.

While other Democrats and left-wing teachers unions claim the theory isnt being taught at all, Politicos reporting indicates that Democratic leadership is deeply underestimating the breadth and depth of parents opposition to critical race theory, noting:

Objections to new equity plans are not the sole province of conservatives but extend to many moderate and independent voters, according to POLITICO interviews with school board members, political operatives and activists in Democratic and left-leaning communities including the Northern Virginia suburbs of Washington, D.C.; Palm Beach County, Fla.; New Yorks Westchester County; Maricopa County covering Phoenix, Ariz.; and suburban Detroit.

It remains to be seen whether or not the Democratic Party will be able to effectively walk back their support for critical race theory, or if their attempts to push the theory in K-12 schools will cost them at the ballot box.

Read more:

Democrats Rapidly Losing Ground In Fight Over Critical Race Theory - The Federalist

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) introduced legislation Wednesday to combat the censorship campaign orchestrated by colluding Big Tech companies and governments all over the world, including the Biden Administration.

Americans should know when governments especially their own request or pressure internet companies to censor legal speech, Rubio said.

Rubio explained in a FOX NewsarticleWednesday that the bill, thePRESERVE Online Speech Act, would require technology companies to disclose any U.S. or foreign government requests or recommendations regarding content moderation within seven days of the request.

It would also force theFederal Communications Commission(FCC) to submit an annual report to Congress covering all government censorship requests and resulting actions from that year. Non-compliant firms will receive a daily fine of $50,000 that will be directed to the FCC to provide rural broadband access.

The legislationcomes nearly two weeks afterWhite House Press Secretary Jen Psakiopenly admitted that the Biden administration is conspiring with Big Tech oligarchs to suppress dissent on social media platforms.

We already know that Big Tech companies pick and choose which viewpoints are allowed on their platforms, and now the Biden administration expressed their willingness to help them censor the American people, said Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.), one of the bills cosponsors.

Indeed, it is obvious bywhoandwhattech companies choose to censor that their disinformation campaigns are ideological vendettas against conservatives.

Transparency is critical, wrote Rubio, but it alone will not change the poisonous role that Big Tech and social media corporations are playing in our national politics.

For this reason, Rubio said he has also introduced the DISCOURSE Act, which would strip Section 230 protections from large tech companies that drop the pretense of neutrality by censoring specific viewpoints or creating and developing content, including through algorithmic amplification.

We need to step up to the plate to stop Silicon Valley-Democrat collusion before its too late, said Rubio.

Evita Duffy is an intern at The Federalist, co-founder of the Chicago Thinker, and a senior at the University of Chicago. Follow her on Twitter at @evitaduffy_1

Continue reading here:

New Bill Would Force Big Tech Firms To Disclose Censorship Requests From Governments - The Federalist

When Nicole Solas, a Rhode Island mom, was preparing to enroll her daughter in kindergarten this year, she had one simple question: did the school teach critical race theory and gender theory to five-year-olds?

The answer to that question was not so simple, or at least, the South Kingstown, Rhode Island school district didnt want it to be. Both the principal and chair of the school committee told Solas she would need to submit public records requests in order to find out the content of her daughters taxpayer-provided education.

When Solas submitted the requests, the school rejected them, claimed the requests were unclear. The school even held a meeting to discuss threats to sue Solas. When attorneys from the Goldwater Institute submitted another request on Solass behalf, the school said they could hand over the documents but only if Solas paid more than $74,000 in processing fees.

The Goldwater Institutes request was for any school communications that included terms such as CRT, white privilege, gender theory, 1619 project, and systemic racism. The school district estimated it would take 4,954 hours more than 619 business days to retrieve the documents mentioning those terms.

Jonathan Riches, the director of national litigation at the Goldwater Institute, said the fact that the district claimed it would take so many hours to comb through the documents indicated high levels of CRT in the curriculum.

Theyre clearly speaking out of both sides of their mouth here. You have a situation where they have suggested that theyre not teaching things like CRT, but then when you ask for real specific records of emails that include the phrase CRT, and curriculum and lesson plans that include that phrase, theyre saying its 5,000 hours of time to go through all that, Riches said. Obviously theres a lot of materials that are out there, a lot of communications that are out there that are discussing many of the very things that the school district is disavowing teaching.

Solas said the Goldwater Institute reached out to represent her after learning that the school district was evading her records requests.

We believe the school is engaging in a pattern of obstructionism to prevent me from getting the information that I had requested on my own, Solas told the Federalist. I felt like I was an enemy of the state from the beginning. This was my first experience with public school as a parent. I didnt think that I would be treated like an adversary but Im getting more and more information from other parents who say that theyre treated in similar ways too.

According to Solas, many other local parents have reached out to her privately to share their experiences of what their children learned in the South Kingstown district. The school refrains from calling students boys or girls, supports Black Lives Matter, and shames kindergartners for American ideals and traditions.

They asked the students what couldve been done differently on Thanksgiving, Solas said. That is obviously a way to shame children for their American heritage. And its really a ridiculous question to ask five-year-olds because they dont have a sense of history at all. To ask them what couldve been done differently on Thanksgiving is impossible for a five-year-old to answer I dont even know if an adult could answer that.

Riches told Fox News there was no reason it should be difficult for parents to find out what is being taught to their own children at taxpayer-funded schools.

What our children learn in school shouldnt be a government secret, he said. I dont think its a controversial proposition to say we should have open and transparent government, especially when were talking about publicly funded schools using our tax dollars and here you just have a conscientious parent asking Hey, whats my child going to learn?

The Goldwater Institute has responded to the school district and is in the process of determining next steps.

Under Rhode Island law any request for fees has to be reasonable and thats the language thats used in the statute, according to Riches. It seems to us that asking a parent to pay $74,000 to see what their kid is learning is not reasonable under any circumstances.

Maggie Hroncich is an intern at The Federalist and a student at Hillsdale College.

Original post:

School Tells Mom Pay $74000 To Find Out If They're Teaching CRT - The Federalist

Yesterday, the U.S. Department of Justice issued two guidance documents purportedly to ensure states fully comply with federal laws regarding election. Those documents, however, really represent the Biden administrations latest attempt to squelch investigations into potential voting irregularities, silence critics of the 2020 election, and cement forever the free-for-all COVID voting procedures implemented last voting cycle.

Wednesdays guidance came in the form of two documents entitled, respectively, Federal Law Constraints on Post-Election Audits and Guidance Concerning Federal Statutes Affecting Methods of Voting. In the DOJs guidance on post-election audits, the Biden administration began with its familiar refrain that the November 3rd election was the most secure in American history, and that notwithstanding automatic recounts or canvasses, there was no evidence of either wrongdoing or mistakes that casts any doubt on the outcome of the national election results.

Yet, as the DOJ put it, there has since been an unusual second round of examinations by states looking at certain ballots, election records, and election systems used to conduct elections in 2020. Then, with a not-so-veiled threat, the Biden administration rattled off the federal constraints, which are enforced by the Department of Justice, on these audits.

Among other laws, the federal guidance on post-election audits highlighted Section 301 of the Civil Rights Act of 1960 that requires state and local election officials to retain and preserve all records relating to any act requisite to voting for twenty-two months after the covered election. This mandate, the DOJ explained, means that election records must be retained either physically by election officials themselves, or under their direct administrative supervision, the latter of which requires election officials to have physical access to the records, according to the DOJ.

While not singled out by name, the detail contained in its guidance statements suggest the DOJ has in its sights the Arizona Republicans leading the probe into Maricopa County voting. Just Monday, the Republican-led Arizona Senate served another subpoena on officials in Maricopa County, seeking its routers and other information necessary for the legislature to complete its audit.

The DOJs guidance will likely provide the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, which has resisted attempts by the state Senate to obtain the equipment and other data, an excuse to keep a close hold on the information. The guidance from the Biden administration, however, seems also to seek to scare off state officials from pursing such investigation, as seen by the DOJs reference to the criminal penalties that attach to willful violations of the Civil Rights Act.

The DOJ referenced criminal penalties again later in its guidance statement when discussing federal laws that prohibit the intimidation of voters. Then, after providing some examples of non-physical intimidation, the Biden administration suggests that work apparently planned as part of the Arizona audit qualifies as intimidation.

There have been reports, with respect to some of the post-2020 ballot examinations, of proposals to contact individuals face to face to see whether the individuals were qualified voters who had actually voted, the DOJ wrote, citing a Cyber Ninjas Statement of Work. Cyber Ninjas is the Florida-based company hired by the Arizona Senate to conduct the audit. It reportedly had proposed using a combination of phone calls and physical canvassing to collect information on voters in three urban precincts.

The Biden administration claims this sort of activity raises concerns regarding potential intimidation of voters, especially when such investigative efforts are directed, or are perceived to be directed, at minority voters or minority communities. States that authorize or conduct audits must ensure that the way those reviews are conducted has neither the purpose nor the effect of dissuading qualified citizens from participating in the electoral process, the DOJ continues, before warning that if they do not, the Department will act to ensure that all eligible citizens feel safe in exercising their right to register and cast a ballot in future elections.

The DOJs closer seems a sure signal that it intends to shut down any real analysis of voting in Arizona because it claims that investigative efforts that are merely perceived to be directed at minority communities qualify as intimidation under federal law.

Arizona is not the DOJs only target, however, as the second guidance document issued yesterday shows. Rather, in Guidance Concerning Federal Statutes Affecting Methods of Voting, the Biden administration, while hiding behind a litany of legal citations and legalese, exposes its intent to target any state that tightens voting procedures from the pandemic period.

After noting favorably the record turnout seen in 2020, stemming from the increased use of vote by mail and early voting, the DOJ explained that since then, some States have responded by permanently adopting their COVID-19 modifications; by contrast, other States have barred continued use of those practices or have imposed additional restrictions on voting by mail or early voting.

While one would think that returning to pre-COVID voting procedures would pose no legal problemafter all, if a voting rule was valid before COVID, why would it be illegal nowthe Biden Department of Justice sees things differently.

The Departments enforcement policy does not consider a jurisdictions re-adoption of prior voting laws or procedures to be presumptively lawful, the guidance document reads. Rather, the Department will review a jurisdictions changes in voting laws or procedures for compliance with all federal laws regarding elections, as the facts and circumstances warrant.

In other words: Red states, prepare to be sued.

The DOJ already targeted Georgia last month with litigation under the Voters Right Act, claiming Georgias mainstream regulations of the time, place, and manner of elections result in a denial or abridgment of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color. At the time the Biden administration filed suit against Georgia, the allegations against the state were pretty insane, but the entire case became a burning dumpster after the Supreme Court issued its decision in Brnovich v. DNC, shortly after the DOJ filed the case.

In Brnovich, the Supreme Court upheld Arizonas in-precinct voting requirement and ban on ballot harvesting against a Voting Rights Act challenge. In doing so, the high court delineated several guideposts to address whether a voting regulation abridges the right of citizens to vote on account of race, including the size of the burden; the degree to which the voting rule departed from the standard in 1982 when Congress amended [the Voting Rights Act]; the size of the disparity of the rule on minorities; the opportunities provided by the states entire voting system; and the strength of the states interests in the law.

While yesterdays guidance does not explicitly conflict with the courts holding in Brnovich, that the Biden administration stressed in its summary that the Voting Right Acts demand that election systems be equally open to voters of all races reaches rules involving the availability of vote by mail, deadlines, application and ballot formalities, or drop boxes for returning ballots, suggests the DOJ intends to push more frivolous lawsuits, like the one filed against Georgia.

At least in the Georgia case, though, the DOJ did not have the benefit of the Supreme Courts decision in Brnovich. Should the Biden administration execute on the not-so-subtle threats conveyed in Wednesdays guidance, it will be doing so with full knowledge that the voting-integrity laws passed by Republican-controlled states fully comply with the Voting Rights Act.

Unfortunately, the Biden administration and the Democratic Party have decided that they score a victory just by pretending Republicans seek to disenfranchise voters of color and by portraying voting-integrity laws as Jim Crow 2.0, whether they win in court (or success in passing H.R. 1). Here, the left is playing with fire, because our country is too divided to withstand many more elections where half the populace believes the election was rigged.

That reality represents the clear and present dangernot Arizonas audit or any of the other complaints put forth by the Biden administration in yesterdays guidelines.

Margot Cleveland is a senior contributor to The Federalist. Cleveland served nearly 25 years as a permanent law clerk to a federal appellate judge and is a former full-time faculty member and adjunct instructor at the college of business at the University of Notre Dame.The views expressed here are those of Cleveland in her private capacity.

See original here:

Department Of Justice Threatens To Sue To Keep 2020 Election Chaos - The Federalist