On June 25th, Attorney General Merrick Garland announced that the United States Justice Department would be suing the state of Georgia over their recently enacted voting legislation, which the current leadership of the Justice Department alleges was enacted with the direct purpose of limiting the voting rights of minorities. Georgia’s Governor, Brian Kemp, responded to this declaration, asserting that the lawsuit was illegal and would be soundly defeated in the court of law. The Justice Department is seeking for the following provisions to be struck from the legislation: “a provision banning government entities from distributing unsolicited absentee ballot applications; the imposition of costly and onerous fines on civic organizations, churches and advocacy groups that distribute follow-up absentee ballot applications; the shortening of the deadline to request absentee ballots to 11 days before Election Day; the requirement that voters who do not have identification issued by the Georgia Department of Driver Services photocopy another form of identification in order to request an absentee ballot without allowing for use of the last four digits of a social security number for such applications; significant limitations on counties’ use of absentee ballot drop boxes; the prohibition on efforts by churches and civic groups to provide food or water to persons waiting in long lines to vote; and the prohibition on counting out-of-precinct provisional ballots cast before 5 p.m. on Election Day.” For his part, Governor Kemp asserts that his state is simply following a long-standing practice of strengthening voting regulations after an election in accordance with observed and potential issues. He contends that other states, Democratic states, have election procedures less open than Georgia, yet his is the only one being targeted, largely for political reasons. He futhermore argues that the voting regulations make it easy to vote, but harder to cheat.
The conflict between State Sovereignty and Voting rights has been a long one, dating back decades. One of the more notable recent Supreme Court Cases on the subject, Shelby Counter v Holder, struck down a provision in the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which “required States to obtain federal permission before enacting any law related to voting—a drastic departure from basic principles of federalism.” In his press conference concerning the lawsuit, Attorney General Garland lamented the loss of this tool, and made clear his desire for the federal government to once again have the power to preemtively veto state legislation. Delivering the opinion of the court, Chief Justice Roberts made clear in Shelby v Holder that the law had only been constitutional in the first place because “exceptional conditions can justify legislative measures not otherwise appropriate,” but the exceptional conditions that existed in the 1960s that required the federal government to interfere in matters explicitly delegated to the states by the Constitution were no longer present when Shelby was decided. Should the Justice Department’s case against Georgia make its own way to the Supreme Court, the justices will once again be forced to render a decision regarding the federal government’s authority to oversee state elections.
CIMA Law Group Blog 