The DOJ’s suit against Georgia’s new voting laws is a joke

On Friday, the Department of Justice, through its Civil Rights Division, which is headed by an anti-White, antisemitic radical, sued Georgia, claiming its new voting laws are racist. The suit is a patent attempt to achieve through lawfare what the Democrats were unable to do via legislation; namely, federalize voting laws across America and build into them easy ways to commit voter fraud. On close review, the suit is even more ridiculous than it first appeared. The allegations make clear that the law is above reproach. It’s just that the DOJ is darn sure that Georgia’s legislators had racist hate in their hearts.

Margot Cleveland, law professor and lawyer who worked for around twenty-five years in the Seventh Circuit, was the first to figure out how utterly ludicrous the complaint is. Based on the paragraphs she highlighted, it should instantly be dismissed at the pleading stage without ever really revving up the case.

Before getting to Cleveland’s finding, a word about one aspect of Civil Rights law. A law or rule that is racist on its face is obviously invalid (e.g., a rule saying only Black farmers can get federal funds.). It is true, though, that a law can be facially neutral but nevertheless violate the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The question is whether it has a disparate impact on minorities.

For example, a law that redistricts a community may look neutral insofar as it just describes streets and boundaries. However, if plaintiffs allege that the law’s practical effect is to destroy a specific race’s ability to vote, that claim, if proven, will justify striking down the law (as the Supreme Court held in Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 339 (1960).)

It’s apparent that the DOJ is trying to make that case: Namely, that the Georgia voting act may look innocent, but its intent is racist. However, as Margot Cleveland discovered, the DOJ cannot allege that the law, which is manifestly neutral on its face, is racist in its effect – because it isn’t. Instead, all that the DOJ’s complaint manages to assert is that bad people wrote the law. Therefore, the DOJ contends, even though the law is neither racist in language nor in effect, it’s still racist.

As I said, this case shouldn’t make it past the pleading stage because it’s a joke. When I studied law, a first-year student would have known better than to write that, but it’s now coming out of the United States Department of Justice, which has effectively and officially announced that it is now a subsidiary of the Democrat party – and staffed with clowns. 

Because Cleveland’s Twitter thread is acting funky when transferred to our server, I’ve run it through Spooler to make it more readable.

The DOJ's complaint against Georgia is surreal. 

So, basically, the DOJ is now litigating because legislators opposed to the legislation lost.

OMgosh....Maybe the guy who called the law Jim Crow 2.0 wasn't invited for a reason???

And, sure, GA is responsible for some wacko white supremacist group that everyone denounced!

WTFudge?

And finally the substantive claim: "with the PURPOSE of denying or abridging..."

If this is an example of the quality of Biden’s DOJ, they all should be summarily disbarred for incompetence.

IMAGE: Kristen Clarke (cropped), Senate Democrats CC BY 2.0; Merrick Garland (cropped), public domain.

To comment, you can find the MeWe post for this article here.