Attorney General Merrick Garland’s announcement Friday that the Department of Justice was filing a lawsuit against the state of Georgia over its Election Integrity Act is proof that Garland is either incompetent or a political hack — if not both.
It also proved that we dodged the bullet in 2016 when the Senate refused elevate him to the U.S. Supreme Court.
"This lawsuit is the first of many steps we are taking to ensure that all eligible voters can cast a vote," Garland said during the announcement.
The law prohibits ballot harvesting, in which third party groups collect ballots door-to-door from voters — generally the elderly. What happens to them before they eventually reach the election office is anybody’s guess.
It also prevents outside groups from distributing food or water to voters waiting in line. But they may deliver it to the polls for election workers to distribute.
The new Georgia law also requires identification to vote, but not necessarily photo ID. Voters can provide something as simple as a utility bill.
"The complaint alleges that the state enacted those restrictions with the purpose of denying or abridging the right to vote on the basis of race of color," Garland added.
The new law does nothing of the sort. It even extends the time for early voting. So what’s really going on here?
The 46-page complaint is filled with irrelevant, immaterial claims causing the reader to ask, “so what?” Lawyer and clerk for the 7th Judicial Circuit Court Margot Cleveland demonstrated this in a Twitter thread.
For example, paragraph 91 alleges that the 2020 election resulted in America’s “first Black and Indian- American Vice President.” So what?
Similarly, paragraph 105 alleges that some of the Georgia senators “who subsequently helped draft, promote, and pass SB 202, issued a statement in support of an unsuccessful lawsuit brought by the State of Texas asking the United States Supreme Court to overturn Georgia’s election results.” So what?
Paragraph 115 states that the bill “was introduced in the Senate with only white sponsors,” and 130 alleges that once it reached the House, it was passed “along party lines and … No Black representative voted for the bill.” So what?
Of course, the complaint wouldn’t be complete without including the soft racism of low expectations, which appears in paragraphs 142 and 143:
“In addition, Black voters have been more likely than white voters to submit absentee ballot applications closer to Election Day, including during the final week of the request period, which SB 202 eliminates.
“143. Because Black voters are less likely than white voters to have a DDS-issued identification number associated with their voter record, they will be disproportionately burdened by the obligation to include a copy of an alternative identification when requesting an absentee ballot. …”
The timing of the lawsuit raises questions also. It came right on the heels of former Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams claiming she supports voter ID.
“No one has ever objected to having to prove who you are to vote," Abrams told CNN a week before the lawsuit was filed. "It's been part of our nation's history since the inception of voting.”
And Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp doesn’t appear worried about the lawsuit, as a GOP official related to Atlanta Journal Constitution political reporter Greg Bluestein.
“And re: the political implications for Kemp, who continues to try to shore up a conservative base still uneasy with how he handled Trump’s appeals to illegally overturn his election defeat: ‘It’s like Christmas morning…' says a GOP official,” Bluestein said.
Ken Cuccinelli, former Trump administration acting Department of Homeland Security deputy secretary and current chairman of the Election Transparency Initiative, called the lawsuit “a purely political stunt.”
“This lawsuit was not filed to win, as it is going to lose. It is a purely political stunt. Pathetic,” Cuccinelli said, who was also a former Virginia attorney general.
“Merrick Garland Good and Fully Jumps the Shark With Admission on DOJ Targeting Red States,” he continued.
But beyond a “political stunt,” jumping the shark, or a sign of incompetence or hackery, the lawsuit suggests something else.
It’s proof that when then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell blocked Garland’s confirmation to the Supreme Court, the Kentucky Republican was working in America’s best interests — whether he knew it at the time or not.
If it weren’t for McConnell’s decision, we could have had an incompetent political dupe sitting on the high court; instead we got Justice Neil Gorsuch.
Although former President Trump has expressed some disappointment in his Supreme Court nominees, this latest stunt proves that Gorsuch is far more competent and principled than Garland.
And if this lawsuit makes it to the high court, Gorsuch and the other eight justices may have the chance to tell Garland that.
Michael Dorstewitz is a retired lawyer and has been a frequent contributor to BizPac Review and Liberty Unyielding. He is also a former U.S. Merchant Marine officer and an enthusiastic Second Amendment supporter, who can often be found honing his skills at the range. Read Dorstewitz's Reports — More Here