Richardcyoung.com

The Online Home of Author and Investor, Dick Young

  • Home
  • How We Are Different
  • About Us
    • Foundation Principles
    • Contributors
  • Investing
    • You’ve Read The Last Issue of Intelligence Report, Now What?
  • Your Survival Guy
  • The Great Reset
  • COVID-19
  • My Rifles
  • Dividends and Compounding
  • Your Security
  • The Swiss Way
  • Dick Young
  • Debbie Young
  • Key West
  • Paris
  • Dick’s R&B Top 100
  • Liberty & Freedom Map
  • Bank Credit & Money
  • Your Survival Guy’s Super States
  • NNT & Cholesterol
  • Work to Make Money/Invest to Save Money
  • Your Health
  • Ron Paul
  • US Treasury Yield Curve

Election Law Scholar Debunks Democrats’ False Claims

August 10, 2021 By E.J. Smith - Your Survival Guy

By Steve Heap @ Shutterstock.com

Professor Derek T. Muller an election law scholar and the Bouma Fellow in Law at the University of Iowa has taken to the pages of The Conversation to debunk some hysterical claims about recent legislation shoring of the integrity of America’s elections. He writes:

As states across the U.S. enact new laws relating to elections, there have been efforts to capture, in aggregate, the effects of those laws. Reports, found in both journalism and advocacy group statements, that new election laws will “restrict” voting or have an “anti-voter” effect misrepresent what many of the laws will do.

On July 14, 2021, a story in The Washington Post described what it called “voting restrictions,” citing figures from a website called the “Voting Rights Lab,” and noted that “17 states had enacted 32 laws with provisions that tighten rules for voting and election administration.” The Voting Rights Lab describes itself as working to “build winning state legislative campaigns that secure, protect, and defend the voting rights of all Americans.”

The Brennan Center for Justice, a nonprofit with a goal “to reform, revitalize, and when necessary, defend our country’s systems of democracy and justice,” offered a July 2021 “roundup” to assess “the full impact of efforts to suppress the vote in 2021.” The roundup concluded that “at least 18 states enacted 30 laws that restrict access to the vote,” a figure cited by Vice President Kamala Harris in comments on the anniversary of the Voting Rights Act.

Classifying a law as a voter suppression, as a voting restriction or as a tightening of a rule for voting involves judgment. It anticipates the future effect of a law, and it concludes that the law will have a negative effect.

As a scholar of election law who has examined the statutes that have been lumped together as “voting restrictions,” I have found that while some could fairly be given that label, many are ordinary rules of election administration that simply don’t merit those labels. Many bills will likely have no discernible effect, much less a negative effect, on the right to vote.

Routine procedure

Utah’s House Bill 12, for instance, was enacted unanimously by both houses of the Utah Legislature.

Utah’s bill updates a law about how to remove dead people from the list of registered voters. It increases the communication surrounding death certificates to election officials, and it requires the state election administrator to submit Social Security Administration data about those who have died to county clerks so that clerks may remove them from the list of registered voters.

The Brennan Center lists this as a law that restricts the right to vote; the Voting Rights Lab describes its effect as “unclear.” But this is not a voter purge statute, which can remove living voters from the voter roster. It only removes dead people from the list. It is a routine update to election administration.

Voting trends reflected

States also updated laws about the size of polling places. The trend toward increased absentee voting and early voting means fewer voters visit the polls on Election Day. Some states have moved toward “vote center” models, in which voters are no longer assigned to a single polling place and instead have more geographic flexibility in choosing where they vote. As these other forms of voting increase, the traditional precinct model no longer needs to be as small as it is. Slightly larger precincts allow states to shift money to these other forms of voting opportunities.

The Nevada Legislature unanimously agreed, after hearing only support from county election officials, to increase the potential maximum size of a precinct from 3,000 voters to 5,000. County officials can keep smaller precincts as appropriate. The bill closes no precincts. Counties in Nevada have moved toward vote centers, which allow voters to go to any polling place within the county. But this law, Senate Bill 84, was labeled “anti-voter” by the Voting Rights Lab and a “restriction” by the Brennan Center.

New York’s Assembly Bill 7478 is similar, increasing the potential maximum size of a precinct from 1,150 voters to 2,000. The old rule had been built around the physical limitations of lever-operated voting machines, as these voting machines could accommodate only 1,000 voters. The machines have been phased out in favor of optical scan ballots, and polling places can now accommodate more voters. The bill passed the Assembly by a vote of 148-0, and the Senate 55-8. The Voting Rights Lab called it “anti-voter.”

‘Much less dramatic’

Other bills target how elections are funded. The coronavirus pandemic brought increased costs for mailing ballots and administering a safe election. Grants, including US$300 million from Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg and his wife, Priscilla Chan, were distributed to states and localities to help with the new administrative burdens.

But the decision of a private grantor to give money to some jurisdictions raised questions about whether such efforts were politically motivated and would affect voter behavior and election results. Before the election, reporter Ken Vogel at The New York Times wrote about concerns that private subsidizing of elections “raises new legal and political questions.”

State legislatures have responded. Arkansas, Arizona, Idaho, North Dakota, Ohio, Tennessee and Texas all enacted new laws regulating or prohibiting private funds for election administration, such as buying equipment or paying personnel. Ohio included the rule as a small part of an appropriations bill that passed with wide bipartisan support. The Voting Rights Lab labels all seven laws “anti-voter.”

These efforts to label a law as pro-voter or anti-voter, then to lump those votes into a round number of “voter suppression” efforts, miss important details and context.

Too often, the label is inaccurate. Certainly, with some laws, the effect on voters is going to be more significant. Litigation in Georgia over Senate Bill 202, for instance, reveals strong differences in opinion about the bill’s effects.

But it is important to detail what a new law does and not simply offer a conclusion that is really an allegation about it.

When they are examined closely, the effect of many of these new election laws is much less dramatic. A label like “restriction” or “anti-voter” should be used when it’s likely that a voter’s experience is materially altered to make voting more difficult. My examination of these bills suggests that none of them rise to that level.

Action Line: America’s election security is too important to ignore. Only legal votes must be counted.

Originally posted on Your Survival Guy. 

If you’re willing to fight for Main Street America, click here to sign up for the Richardcyoung.com free weekly email.

Related Posts

  • Democrats Fading in Swing States
  • Are Midwest Democrats Going to Steal the Election?
  • How Democrats Risk Losing the 2020 Presidential Election
  • Why Democrats Are Terrified
  • Author
  • Recent Posts
E.J. Smith - Your Survival Guy
E.J. Smith is Founder of YourSurvivalGuy.com, Managing Director at Richard C. Young & Co., Ltd., a Managing Editor of Richardcyoung.com, and Editor-in-Chief of Youngresearch.com. His focus at all times is on preparing clients and readers for “Times Like These.” E.J. graduated from Babson College in Wellesley, Massachusetts, with a B.S. in finance and investments. In 1995, E.J. began his investment career at Fidelity Investments in Boston before joining Richard C. Young & Co., Ltd. in 1998.

E.J. has trained at Sig Sauer Academy in Epping, NH, NH, where he completed course-work in Practical and Defensive Handgun, Conceal Carry Pistol, Shotguns, Precision Scope Rifle and Kidnapping Prevention.

E.J. plays a Yamaha Recording Custom drum set with Zilldjian cymbals. His first drum set was a 5-piece Slingerland with Zildjians. He grew-up worshiping Neil Peart (RIP) of the band Rush, and loves the song Tom Sawyer—the name of his family’s boat, a Grady-White Canyon 306. He grew up in Mattapoisett, MA, an idyllic small town on the water near Cape Cod. He spends time in Newport, RI and Bartlett, NH—both as far away from Wall Street as one could mentally get. The Newport office is on a quiet, tree lined street not far from the harbor and the log cabin in Bartlett, NH, the “Live Free or Die” state, sits on the edge of the White Mountain National Forest. He enjoys spending time in Key West and Paris.

Please get in touch with E.J. at ejsmith@yoursurvivalguy.com
Latest posts by E.J. Smith - Your Survival Guy (see all)
  • Fear is a Terrible Emotion: How You Deal with It MATTERS - August 15, 2022
  • Buying A Boat: Who’s Looking Out for You? - August 12, 2022
  • Your Survival Guy’s Favorite Number is 72: Here’s Why - August 11, 2022

Dick Young’s Must Reads

  • Making America Great Again Is What America Wants
  • Are You Prepared to Run Out of Water?
  • The Case for Individual Stocks: Now More than Ever
  • Sen. Hawley Makes the Case Against U.S.-China Relationship
  • The County Sheriff: America’s Last Hope
  • How Can You Maximize Natural Immunity to Viruses?
  • The Clock is Ticking: You Must Protect Your Family
  • “An Epic Struggle Over the Definition of America”
  • My Key West Garden Office
  • Progressive Liberalism Has Dragged America near Ruination

Our Most Popular Posts

  • Who Benefits from and Orchestrated the Trump Raid?
  • CDC Admits It Was All A Lie
  • Did China Buy Land in North Dakota to Spy on Air Force Base?
  • DEMOCRATS PLAY DIRTY: Megynn Kelly Calls Bulls#$t on "Classified Documents" Story
  • The Higher Taxes, Bigger IRS, and More Inflation Act of 2022
  • BECK: The Democrats' Dangerous FBI Raid Endgame
  • DOJ Career Officers Disgusted by Garland's Political Raid on Trump
  • WATCH: Doocy Breaks Jean-Pierre with Trump Raid Questions "No Comment"
  • Republicans Acquiesce to Democrats' Abuses of Power
  • The Great Jon Rappoport on Kari Lake

Disclosure

RSS Youngresearch.com

  • Fear is a Terrible Emotion: How You Deal with It MATTERS
  • The Victims of a Decade of Easy Money
  • What Happens if the Chinese Blockade Taiwan?
  • Buying A Boat: Who’s Looking Out for You?
  • Is It Time to Talk About the Defects of Index Funds Now?
  • Your Survival Guy’s Favorite Number is 72: Here’s Why
  • Disney Catches Netflix in Streaming Wars
  • PRIMARY RESULTS: Pro-Trump Candidates Clean Up
  • Prices for Electric Vehicles Going UP
  • Europeans Closing Businesses Early to Save on Energy

CDC Admits It Was All A Lie

Nancy in Taiwan, Paul Pelosi in Court?

Fear is a Terrible Emotion: How You Deal with It MATTERS

Mises and Rothbard Finally Get Their Due

Don’t Republicans Feel Stupid Now?

Russia Holding Europe’s Largest Nuclear Reactor Hostage

Copyright © 2022 | Terms & Conditions | About Us | Dick Young | Archives