May 21, 2024

Federal Judge Rules On Elections Case Brought By Democrats


OPINION: This article might comprise commentary which displays the writer’s opinion.

A federal choose in Wisconsin has dismissed a lawsuit that sought to take away the witness requirement for absentee voting within the main swing state.

On Thursday U.S. District Judge James Peterson dominated towards the lawsuit introduced by the legislation agency of Marc Elias, a Democrat elections legal professional, that sought to do away with the requirement, Just The News reported.

“Elias Law Group argued that the witness requirement violated the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and Civil Rights Act of 1964,” the report mentioned.

“According to the court’s opinion, ‘the most obvious problem’ with the attorneys’ argument ‘is that it simply does not make any sense,’” it mentioned.

The choose dominated that if the plaintiff’s interpretation of the legislation have been to be adopted that it might imply that “every witness would have to determine the voter’s age, residence, citizenship, criminal history, whether the voter is unable or unwilling to vote in person, whether the voter has voted at another location or is planning to do so, whether the voter is capable of understanding the objective of the voting process, whether the voter is under a guardianship, and, if so, whether a court has determined that the voter is competent.”


The choose mentioned that the “absurd results to which” the arguments “would lead are reason enough to reject” them.

Derek Lyons, the president of the elections integrity group RITE, celebrated the choice.

“Since its founding in 2022, RITE has been extremely active in Wisconsin and is proud to have made yet another contribution to the integrity of elections in that state. It’s essential that people voting by mail follow the law in doing so, and Wisconsin has implemented a witness signature requirement that helps ensure they do just that. This case marks another example of liberal activists’ transparent and shameful efforts to co-opt important civil rights legislation for their partisan agendas. Sadly, it is all too clear that these activists are more interested in making unfounded accusations than in ensuring impartial and accurate elections,” he mentioned.

The press launch from the group went on to clarify its stance.

“In a Thursday evening ruling, a federal court in Wisconsin denied liberal activist attorney Marc Elias’s effort to block the state from enforcing its longstanding requirement that mail voters have a witness confirm their compliance with the state’s voting laws. This continues a losing streak for Elias in his efforts to distort the Materiality Provision of the venerable Civil Rights Act into a tool to undermine America’s elections. At the end of March, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals similarly rejected his effort to use the same law to block Pennsylvania from enforcing its requirement that voters sign and date their mail ballots. The three judges who decisively rejected his arguments in these two cases were all appointed by Democrat Presidents,” it mentioned.

“The court’s opinion is a decisive rejection of Elias’s ill-conceived legal argument. As the Court put it, “the most obvious problem” with the argument “is that it simply does not make any sense.” The court docket later added that the “absurd results to which” his arguments “would lead are reason enough to reject” them. The court docket additionally emphasised the significance of the Third Circuit’s latest unequivocal rejection of his out-of-the-mainstream theories, observing that the “Third Circuit’s reasoning is persuasive” because it comprehensively ‘explains why the statute’s textual content, legislative historical past, and logic all support an interpretation that the Materiality Provision doesn’t apply to poll preparation,’” the group mentioned.

“The defeated litigants have twenty-nine days to decide if they want to test their arguments with the Court of Appeals. RITE will continue to defend election law in Wisconsin, as necessary,” it mentioned.

Honest Elections Project Executive Director Jason Snead additionally praised the choice.

“A federal judge has officially thrown out a lawsuit filed by Left-wing attorney Marc Elias challenging a key election integrity provision requiring absentee ballot signature verification, exposing his radical legal strategy to flood the zone with dozens of frivolous lawsuits,” he mentioned.

“The plaintiff’s theory in this case was yet another example of Elias and the left twisting old statutes to attack modern ballot safeguards,” the chief director mentioned. “In this case, they requested a court docket to conclude that requiring a witness signature on a mail poll was unlawful vouching underneath the Voting Rights Act.

“In the Jim Crow era, many places required a registered voter to vouch for the qualifications of a new voter in order to prevent African Americans from voting. Obviously, that law was not intended to prevent widely used election integrity measures for mail ballots. Fortunately, common sense prevailed, and an Obama appointed judge agreed, wisely dismissing the case,” he mentioned.


Test your abilities with this Quiz!