Court: Georgia’s 2020 voter roll challenges not voter intimidation
Election Integrity Activists’ Challenge of Georgia’s Voting Eligibility Ruled Not Voter Intimidation
Activists fighting for election integrity in Georgia have been cleared of voter intimidation charges by a federal district court. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, led by Judge Steve Jones, an Obama appointee, determined that True the Vote (TTV) and other activists did not violate the Voting Rights Act (VRA) when they challenged potentially ineligible voters ahead of the state’s 2021 Senate runoffs. The lawsuit against TTV and its co-defendants was brought by Georgia residents and Fair Fight, a left-wing nonprofit founded by Stacey Abrams, a prominent Democrat.
“There is insufficient evidence to show voter intimidation or attempted voter intimidation by Defendants against the voters in this case,” wrote Judge Jones. “Plaintiffs failed to overcome the fact that their actions did not result in any direct voter contact or alone include or direct county Boards of Elections to pursue an eligibility inquiry. There is no evidence that Defendants’ actions caused (or attempted to cause) any voter to be intimidated, coerced, or threatened in voting.”
Challenging Voter Eligibility Under Georgia Law
Georgia law allows voters to challenge the eligibility of others if they suspect that person no longer lives in the county. There is no limit on the number of voter eligibility challenges allowed in the state.
The Efforts of True the Vote and Co-Defendants
TTV announced plans to challenge the eligibility of over 364,000 Georgia voters before the 2021 Senate runoff elections. Derek Somerville, a former Marine, and Mark Davis, a voter data analytics and residency issues expert, worked with TTV on this endeavor. However, their efforts were separate from TTV’s. Somerville and Davis compiled a list of approximately 39,000 potentially ineligible voters, noting that TTV’s list was too large and systemic. They aimed to challenge as few people as possible and ensure that their challenges were legitimate.
The Process of Identifying Ineligible Voters
Somerville and Davis used data from the National Change of Address (NCOA) database, which identified Georgia residents who had confirmed moves with the U.S. Postal Service. They combined this information with Georgia’s voter file, the absentee voter file, and geospatial data to narrow down their challenges.
“The Court finds that Davis and Somerville took reasonable efforts to remove eligible voters as part of their overall desire to narrow their challenge file as much as possible and not overly burden the counties where they facilitated Section 230 challenges,” stated Judge Jones.
Controversy and Future Actions
While it remains uncertain whether the plaintiffs will appeal the ruling, Fair Fight Executive Director Cianti Stewart-Reid has indicated that the group will continue to push back against the challenges.
Shawn Fleetwood is a staff writer for The Federalist and a graduate of the University of Mary Washington. He previously served as a state content writer for Convention of States Action and his work has been featured in numerous outlets, including RealClearPolitics, RealClearHealth, and Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @ShawnFleetwood
What is the purpose of voter challenges in ensuring the integrity of elections?
Umber of challenges one can make, but the challengers must have “a good and sufficient reason” to believe that the person is not eligible to vote in that particular county. If a challenge is made, the county Board of Elections is required to investigate the claim and determine whether the voter is eligible or not.
In the case of the 2021 Senate runoffs in Georgia, True the Vote and other activists sought to exercise their rights under Georgia law by filing challenges against potentially ineligible voters. They argued that these challenges were necessary to ensure the integrity of the elections and prevent voter fraud.
This led to a lawsuit filed by Georgia residents and Fair Fight, who accused True the Vote and its co-defendants of voter intimidation. They claimed that the challenges were a deliberate attempt to suppress the votes of certain communities, particularly minority and Democratic-leaning voters.
The Court’s Ruling
In his ruling, Judge Steve Jones acknowledged that the plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient evidence to support their claims of voter intimidation. He emphasized that the actions of True the Vote and its co-defendants did not involve direct voter contact or coercion.
The judge further stated that the defendants’ actions did not cause or attempt to cause any voter to be intimidated, coerced, or threatened in voting. He pointed out that the challenges filed by True the Vote were within the bounds of Georgia law and did not violate the Voting Rights Act.
The Importance of Election Integrity
The ruling in this case highlights the importance of protecting election integrity while ensuring every eligible voter has the right to cast their ballot. Voter challenges can be a legitimate tool for maintaining the accuracy and fairness of elections, as long as they are carried out in accordance with the law and without any intent to intimidate or disenfranchise voters.
It is crucial to strike a balance between preventing voter fraud and protecting the rights of minorities and marginalized communities. Election integrity activists play a crucial role in this process by holding election officials accountable and ensuring that the electoral process is fair and transparent for all.
The outcome of this case should not discourage activists from challenging potential voter eligibility issues. Instead, it should serve as a reminder that such challenges must be supported by strong evidence and conducted within the boundaries of the law.
Conclusion
The clearance of activists fighting for election integrity in Georgia from voter intimidation charges is a significant victory for those seeking to safeguard the fairness and accuracy of elections. The court’s ruling reaffirms the importance of allowing eligible voters to exercise their rights while also upholding the integrity of the electoral process.
Moving forward, it is crucial for all stakeholders — activists, election officials, and lawmakers — to work together to address any legitimate concerns regarding voter eligibility without infringing upon the rights of individuals to participate in the democratic process. This case serves as a reminder of the need for a balanced approach to ensure both election integrity and voter inclusivity.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
Now loading...