Georgia punches back with a cheerful move to dismiss the integrity lawsuit in the Justice Department elections

Georgia Petition for dismissal The Department of Justice (DOJ) proceedings are aimed at the new, highly malicious election integrity law. SB 202Calls the proceedings “a political invasion of Georgia’s constitutional authorities that regulate the” time, place, and method “of elections.”

Georgia Secretary of State Brad Lafenceparger said in an interview on Friday: National Review To that “left” was the “agenda” they were trying to push, regardless of what the legislature did.

“No matter what was passed, they would oppose it, and the DOJ effectively confused what was already there with false and disinformation,” he claimed. “You saw that Stacey Abrams and his allies bought Jim Crow 2.0 two weeks before the bill was passed and hadn’t finalized how to read the bill. “

Both Raffensperger and the motion itself claim that the proceedings failed to pass the convocation in many ways. Most importantly, plaintiffs predict that the law will prevent African-Americans and other racial minorities from voting, but the law exists long enough for such results to be achieved. Not.

“The Department of Justice talked about what will happen in the future, but Section 2 [of the Civil Rights Act] Never talk about what can happen, it’s based on claims of results. There are no results, “explained Raffensperger.

Section 2 of the Civil Rights Act states: Of the United States to vote for race or color. “

Supreme Court decision Brunovich case Seeing support for Arizona’s election law, he upheld the Georgia proceedings. Not only did the dissenting judge reject the idea that the law could be withdrawn based on the “intention” of discrimination, but it also voted more inaccurately than contained in Georgia law. Supported the stricter measures related to. Unlike Arizona, Peach allows voters to cast ballots from their assigned polling stations five days later. afternoon To accommodate special situations.

Arizona isn’t the only state with more restricted voting laws on books than Georgia. Georgia has more voting opportunities than some Democratic states, such as New York, New Jersey, and Delaware, and the DOJ claims Brunovich..

“The burden imposed by the requirements of SB202 is at best minimal when compared to the overall voting system,” Brief claims.

Raffensperger was dissatisfied with being considered hypocrisy by Attorney General Merrick Garland’s Department of Justice.

“Comparing other states, such as the number of days for early voting, we can see that Georgia is the mainstream. Still, the Justice Department doesn’t think it’s appropriate to go ahead and prosecute the Democratic state. … It’s just a selective anger on the part of the Justice Department. ”

To justify that anger, the federal government relies on what the Georgia movement calls “exaggeration and innuendo.” This includes past Robocalls made during past election cycles and the fact that Governor Brian Kemp signed SB202 “without voters” around him, “and no black lawmakers voted for it. and.

“But certainly, the DOJ isn’t asking this court to infer discriminatory animas based solely on the skin color of these lawmakers,” he outlines Georgia.

In this regard, the Secretary of State said, “You can’t control what the campaign says, you can’t control other external organizations from the left or right. You have to look at the fact that it’s actually written in the law. “.

“DOJ is based on media reports, unfounded claims. It’s really just a play for promotion. And after all, the Justice Department says they’re not going to win in court. You know. I think this was submitted due to political pressure from the left side of the aisle, the left end of the party’s base. This is because they just lost the takeover of the federal elections in HR1. It’s a way to soften the foundation of

He is also convinced that Georgia will win in public opinion courts.

“I think people are looking for someone who is thoughtful, hardworking, and sincere. I think our office and I have shown a harsh call to support the integrity of the election. Our job is not to choose winners and losers, but to ensure fair and honest elections. “

More from National Review