Merrick Garland, the solicitor general, discusses voting rights extensively. He promised in August that the Justice Department had “use every authority we have to defend the right to vote.” In 2021, he said the division had “rededicate” itself to “enforcing national legislation to protect the company for all eligible electors”.
A few Pennsylvania districts racialized voters this past week by counting improper ballots that invalidated legitimate votes. It’s a huge incident.
As Democrat Sen. Bob Casey is refusing to accept a losing competition to his Republican opponent Dave McCormick, authorities in Bucks, Philadelphia, Monroe, Erie, Chester, and Montgomery Counties have flouted the laws in an obvious attempt to deliver Casey some more votes. However, it is impossible to identify the DOJ.
In Bucks County, election authorities decided to matter more than 400 unsigned or poorly dated votes, and 100 votes that failed to meet personal requirements. In Philadelphia County, authorities are accused of counting more than 600 irrelevant votes that failed to comply with the date requirement, as well as 663 ballots missing signatures from vote officials, 227 ballots missing a purpose for casting a temporary poll, and 50 with inadequate voting affidavits.
McCormick sued the elections board in Monroe County for 24 temporary ballots without voter signatures and 42 non-existent ballots in Monroe County. Erie County and Chester County experience claims for counting 120 votes and 58 ballots, both, that have election officials ‘ signatures. McCormick is suing the elections committee in Montgomery County for counting 414 temporary ballots without the names of the vote or election officials.
Press Assistant Julia Hartnett refrained from commenting on The Federalist’s question regarding whether the DOJ would look into any of these regions.
When voting to count the unlawful vote, Bucks County Commissioner Diane Ellis-Marseglia, a Democrat, said,” Citizens violate laws whenever they want. For me, it’s because I want a judge to be interested in how I violate this law.
Also, a jury did pay attention. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reaffirmed its earlier ruling on Monday night regarding the unsigned vote and ordered the regions to do so in response to the lawful fight over the absent and mail-in vote.
But why did the DOJ decide to sit this one out despite the fact that it has shown itself only to be too eager to participate in election campaigns when doing so benefits Democrats? We all know why.
Last month, the state of Virginia was quick to sue the DOJ for removing noncitizens from its voter rolls, which are not eligible to cast ballots in federal or Virginia elections. In compliance with a law signed 18 years ago by a Democrat governor, Gov. From his inauguration in 2022 to his election in July 2024, Glenn Youngkin oversaw the removal of more than 6, 000 noncitizens from Virginia’s voter rolls. Virginia’s DOJ sued the state to stop it from continuing, alleging that the voter roll maintenance violated the National Voter Registration Act’s ban on some removals made within 90 days of an election.
However, Hans von Spakovsky, a former federal election commissioner, noted that the NVRA provision deals specifically with individuals whose addresses have changed. According to Spakovsky, the statute does n’t apply to removing people who have died or have been found guilty of a crime because it does n’t apply to noncitizens, who were never eligible to register in the first place, as the statute states.
On Oct. 30, in a smackdown of the DOJ’s lawfare, the U. S. Supreme Court issued a temporary order allowing Virginia to keep the noncitizens it had removed off the voter rolls for the 2024 election.
Alabama was the subject of a similar lawsuit in September, according to the DOJ. Additionally, Arizona and it fought over the state’s voter registration requirements that required a copy of their U.S. citizenship. Because it did n’t consider race a significant factor in the redistricting process for county commissioner precincts, it pursued a small Texas county.
Elon Musk, a Trump ally, was targeted for a giveaway that his PAC organized for swing state voters who signed a pledge supporting constitutional liberties. In order to compare popular state laws like those that apply to Jim Crow laws in March, Garland made a commitment to attack them. And of course, his department has had the opportunity to conduct two politicized prosecutions of Trump, both of which were obviously intended to hurt the Republican’s electoral chances.
But somehow, the DOJ just does n’t have the time to check out the lawbreaking going on in Pennsylvania. Maybe they’re too busy packing their bags and hiring lawyers.
Elle Purnell is the elections editor at The Federalist. Her work has been featured by Fox Business, RealClearPolitics, the Tampa Bay Times, and the Independent Women’s Forum. She received a B. Patrick Henry College offers an A. in government with a journalism minor. Follow her on Twitter @_etreynolds.
