Staff Reports
The Biden administration’s recent attempt to meddle in Arizona’s election law is just another example of its ongoing effort to undermine state sovereignty under the guise of “voter access.” The Department of Justice has asked the Supreme Court to allow absentee voters in Arizona to skip the documentation of their citizenship. This move seems more about providing loopholes than safeguarding the integrity of the electoral process.
This isn’t an isolated incident; the DOJ seems to have caught the election reform bug and is also pushing for lenient mail-in voting rules in Ohio and Alabama while even working to ensure more Spanish-speaking poll workers in Rhode Island. Rather than focusing on real issues, they instead seem determined to create the impression that Republicans are plotting to disenfranchise voters—an obvious narrative designed to paint anyone advocating for election integrity as a villain.
Must Read: Biden DOJ’s 2024 voting battles raise alarm for election integrity advocateshttps://t.co/GbdSZlorFt
— Honest Elections Project (@honestelections) August 22, 2024
Historically, the DOJ’s involvement in enforcing voting rights dates back to the civil rights movement, when it aimed to ensure that African Americans could exercise their right to vote without undue burden. Fast forward to today, and the department is taking a decidedly more partisan approach, aggressively pursuing policies that would open the floodgates to potential voter fraud. In stark contrast, the Trump era favored methods prioritizing election security and transparency. The current push aligns perfectly with the Democrats’ talking points, which effectively boil down to: the more voters, the better—regardless of who those voters are.
Chad Ennis, a notable figure from the Honest Elections Project, has highlighted the real danger lurking behind these “expansion” initiatives. Everyone knows that expanding voting access sounds nice on the surface, but beneath that facade lies an assault on common sense rules meant to ensure elections run fairly and smoothly. A simple checkbox may seem innocuous, but in practice, it could lead to clerical errors, misrepresentations, or worse—a pathway for non-citizens to influence U.S. elections.
Republicans have understandably ramped up their concerns regarding voter fraud, particularly after the tumultuous 2020 election cycle. Aiming recent claims from the GOP, one must remember that during the last presidential race, states changed voting laws on a whim due to COVID-19, creating an environment rife with opportunities for exploitation. In fact, the Trump administration famously raised concerns about a “rigged” election, correlating the rise of mail-in voting with potential fraud. Meanwhile, Democrats wield the term “election deniers” like a weapon, hoping to vilify those seeking to protect American elections as if they want to restrict access to the ballot box.
The latest maneuver by the Republican National Committee to secure proof of citizenship for absentee ballot requests underscores the urgent need for tighter controls in Arizona, a battleground state grappling with the fallout from an ongoing illegal immigration crisis. The justification for proof is simple—it’s illegal for non-citizens to vote, and states like Arizona should be able to uphold that law without interference from a federal government intent on diluting election safeguards. The DOJ’s challenges to these laws only highlight its distorted sense of priorities, which appear to involve ignoring the border crisis while actively enabling potential voting mishaps—an odd recipe for democracy.
The impetus behind the differing election strategies of the Biden and Trump administrations couldn’t be clearer. Republicans want to reinforce laws to ensure electoral fairness, while Democrats prefer a system that welcomes all as long as they vote the “right” way. As the 2024 election looms ever closer, the stakes for both parties are high, with Republicans standing firm on the principle that American citizens should conduct American elections. This ongoing legal tussle will define the electoral landscape moving forward as citizens grapple with whose priorities should truly shape the future of voting in this country.
