Democrats Try To Turn Their Election Cheating Into Law

HR4 is the vehicle.

Stalin reportedly said it doesn’t matter who votes. It matters who counts the votes. Jason Snead, the executive director of the Honest Elections Project, knows that. He also knows what the Democrats are up to with HR4.

Snead: Democrats in Congress are about to launch their next attempt at a federal takeover of elections. The Senate is locked in a tense debate over HR4, recently passed by the House of Representatives.

Do you support individual military members being able to opt out of getting the COVID vaccine?

By completing the poll, you agree to receive emails from LifeZette, occasional offers from our partners and that you've read and agree to our privacy policy and legal statement.

Lawmakers spent months rewriting an earlier version of H.R. 4. Pelosi insisted the work was being done to make the bill more moderate and constitutionally defensible. But the end product is even more partisan than the original, jammed with anti-democratic provisions meant to consolidate federal control over elections, eliminate voter ID requirements, and even to rig the courts to favor the progressive litigators who challenge voting laws.

If Democrats were being honest, they’d name this bill the “Nancy Pelosi power grab” instead. H.R. 4 aims to put Washington in control of elections through a process called “preclearance.” Congress created preclearance in 1965 as part of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) to deal with the threat posed by poll taxes, literacy tests and other odious devices used to enforce Jim Crow disenfranchisement.

Congress developed a “formula” to identify states and localities that had these tests and devices on the books, along with extremely low voter turnout, and bar them from modifying their voting laws without getting those changes pre-approved by the federal government.

In the nearly 60 years since then, the landscape has shifted dramatically. Jim Crow laws have been banished to the dust bin of history. States no longer evade court orders. Minority turnout rates in states that once were covered by preclearance have reached parity with White turnout, and in some cases exceeded it. This is partly why the Supreme Court struck down preclearance in 2013 in Shelby County v. Holder: States were held under federal control based on turnout data that was decades out of date since Congress never updated the formula to reflect current conditions.

After Shelby, states were free to pass laws that made it easier to vote, but harder to cheat. Progressives claim that Shelby opened the floodgates of “voter suppression,” The data says otherwise. Studies confirm that voter ID laws do not depress turnout.

The 2018 and 2020 elections set turnout and diversity records – despite 35 states having voter ID laws. But facts don’t matter to Democrats, the narrative does – and they want red states under federal control. To do that, H.R. 4 overturns Shelby. The bill creates a new “practice-based preclearance” that applies nationwide.

Existing voter ID requirements would be instantly invalidated. No state could adopt a new ID law, improve voter roll maintenance, or make certain other changes without first giving federal bureaucrats a chance to veto it. Not even the proposed compromise by Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., to use a utility bill as ID would pass muster under H.R. 4. An incredible 81% of Americans want everyone to show a photo ID to vote, but progressives are once again trying to eliminate them.

David Kamioner
meet the author

David Kamioner is a veteran of U.S. Army Intelligence and an honors graduate of the University of Maryland's European Division. He also served with the Pershing Nuclear Brigade and the First Infantry Division. Subsequent to that he worked for two decades as a political consultant, was part of the American Red Cross Hurricane Katrina disaster relief effort in Louisiana, ran a homeless shelter for veterans in Philadelphia, and taught as a college instructor. He serves as a Contributing Editor for LifeZette.

Join the Discussion

COMMENTS POLICY: We have no tolerance for messages of violence, racism, vulgarity, obscenity or other such discourteous behavior. Thank you for contributing to a respectful and useful online dialogue.

Notify of
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Cindy Hayes
Cindy Hayes
10 months ago

So if our paid fools in DC vote and work against our Constitution and the vast majority of citizens they are paid to serve who wish for secure voting, can we take them to court for violating basically everything?

7 months ago

My best friend’s sister gets $92 an hour on the internet…She’s been laid off for two months, the previous month her paycheck was $20328 only working at home for a couple of hours each day……….Www.live124.com