Image 01 Image 03

DOJ Lawsuit Against Georgia Over Voting Law May Backfire

DOJ Lawsuit Against Georgia Over Voting Law May Backfire

“I’m highly skeptical and I think they may ultimately regret this move. It could indeed clarify this issue in a way the Biden administration does not want” – Professor Jonathan Turley

Biden’s Justice Department is launching a lawsuit against the state of Georgia over their new voting law, but people are already speculating that it might not stand up to legal scrutiny.

Democrats are very emotionally invested in the politics of the issue, but that doesn’t necessarily translate to a sound legal argument.

Professor Jonathan Turley of George Washington University discussed the issue on FOX News this weekend:

Biden DOJ lawsuit over Georgia election law may backfire, legal scholar Jonathan Turley says

Attorney General Merrick Garland announced that the Department of Justice is suing the state of Georgia Friday over their passing of a law to ensure election integrity and security. President Biden has been highly critical of the new law comparing it to Jim Crow. George Washington University Law Professor and Fox News contributor Jonathan Turley sat down with “Fox & Friends” Saturday to analyze the DOJ lawsuit.

“I’m highly skeptical and I think they may ultimately regret this move. It could indeed clarify this issue in a way the Biden administration does not want,” Turley said.

Turley raised questions over the merit of the lawsuit citing similarities between Georgia and other states such as Delaware. “But, this is a very dubious case in my view. Because the Georgia law has great overlap with other states like Delaware” he said.

Turley also mentioned the popularity of requiring identification when going to the polls to vote, a key component of the Georgia voting law. “Voter identification as an example is extremely popular with voters And you now see a lot of democratic members beginning to say really, ‘we are not questioning that anymore.’” he added.

Ed Morrissey of Hot Air made a great point about this. He suggests that the White House played along as Democrats whipped their base up into a frenzy about this, but that won’t matter in court:

The courts won’t be interested in the political history; they will want to review the final version of the bill itself. As fact-checkers have repeatedly pointed out, Joe Biden and his administration have repeatedly and ridiculously mischaracterized the law. For instance, the claim that the bill restricted early voting is entirely rubbish, as the Washington Post’s Glenn Kessler pointed out in March:

One of the biggest changes in the bill would expand early voting access for most counties, adding an additional mandatory Saturday and formally codifying Sunday voting hours as optional. Counties can have early voting open as long as 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., or 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. at minimum. If you live in a larger metropolitan county, you might not notice a change. For most other counties, you will have an extra weekend day, and your weekday early voting hours will likely be longer.

Last word goes to this guy:


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


SCOTUS will ultimately rule that the DOJ lacks standing to sue. Since no one has been hurt by the 202o stolen elections except for the separate corrupt states themselves, the same will apply here. I know this because our resident graduates of the Homer Simpson School of Law keep telling me so.

There is no protection for the honest states from the massive vote fraud being perpetuated by so many other states. The Constitution says one thing but Homer Simpson rules now apply.

    Milhouse in reply to Pasadena Phil. | June 27, 2021 at 6:00 pm

    You’re an idiot. DOJ’s standing comes from the 15th amendment and the Voting Rights Act. Nobody questions their standing, but their case ought to fail because it has no legs.

It’s a setup. When they lose, it will then be the final nail in the filibuster’s coffin. How could they stand by idly while the SC upholds Jim Crow/Eagle/etc. legislation? A “racist” SC must be reformed.

    Olinser in reply to trubtastic. | June 27, 2021 at 1:44 pm

    And all of the True Conservative jackasses that have been breathlessly assuring us that Sinema and Manchin are ‘moderates’ that would never EVER get rid of the filibuster are going to be absolutely SHOCKED.

      Milhouse in reply to Olinser. | June 27, 2021 at 6:01 pm

      No, you will be, except that you really won’t be, because you don’t actually believe the crap that you sling.

Always worry on the first go around that Democrats will get THEIR judge. No faith the Supreme Beings will rule against the Leftists no matter what comes before them.
But no doubt by me this is to keep the racism charges going at full tilt.

They won’t mind losing — they’ll just fundraise off it, claiming they need a bigger Senate majority so they can pack the Court.

Basically what the Republicans have done in past decades when they were in the majority in Congress, excusing their lack of success and pleading for more money and bigger majorities, except that even a 100% Republican Congress still wouldn’t have been enough.

    CommoChief in reply to McGehee. | June 27, 2021 at 11:47 am


    Agreed. This is the d/progressive version of kubuki theatre.

    Unfortunately they have chosen to compound their loss n the legislative branch and have shifted to the Judicial branch.

    The consequences of their ultimate failure here will set a precedent that prevents further election related shenanigans by a political DoJ, at least to some degree.

    Additionally it will serve to highlight how expansive the franchise actually is in GA and other States who have tightened ballot security in contrast to deep blue States like NY and Delaware.

This is an opportunity for the Republicans to go all out with the history of Jim Crow and force the Dems to own it.

    Subotai Bahadur in reply to TX-rifraph. | June 27, 2021 at 4:48 pm

    When was the last time that the Republicans did not fail to take an opportunity to make the Democrats do something not in the interest of the Democrats?

    Subotai Bahadur

This Garland clown has a face made for a grapefruit smash.

Apparently the legal arguments in the actual lawsuit are not up to the standards the court will expect, from what I have read elsewhere. Garland will end up being mightily embarrassed by the nearly instant dismissal of the suit, unless one of Obama’s hard core leftist appointees ends up being the trial judge and even then it may not fly.

Remember that shortly after MLB announced that they were taking the All Star game out of Atlanta and taking it to Colorado that many pundits (even some on both sides) acknowledged that the Colorado laws were no more lenient than the new Georgia laws and might, in fact, have been more stringent on voters! Wonder if the Supremes have a ruling that deals with hypocrisy?
BTW, I would bet that this “lawsuit” was filed in DC rather than in Georgia. Georgia should immediately seek a change of venue to Georgia!

    Rick in reply to 20keto20. | June 27, 2021 at 1:20 pm

    Filed in federal court in Atlanta.

      Bruce Hayden in reply to Rick. | June 27, 2021 at 1:37 pm

      Which means the 11th Circuit, with Republicans holding a 7/4 edge (6 of 7 appointed by Trump) in active judges, and 5/4 in Senior Status judges.

      Bet that Garland wishes that they could try this case in the 9th, or even the DC Circuit, where Dems still have small majorities on the appeals court bench. But they are trying to invalidate GA law, which means filing in a GA district court.

casualobserver | June 27, 2021 at 12:46 pm

Perhaps more evidence that the only strategy the Dem leadership has any confidence in to win elections is just continuing to shriek the R word over and over. Winning or losing lawsuits isn’t a priority. Just having plenty for the media to track and repeat and repeat and repeat the R charge in support of the left appears to be the strategy.

Bruce Hayden | June 27, 2021 at 1:22 pm

What AG Garland and his Dem friends seem to be ignoring is Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181 (2008)
(Wikipedia), which essentially affirmed that photo ID laws were Constitutional. The Stevens/ Roberts/ Kennedy majority opinion upheld the photo ID requirement on the grounds that it was a de minimis burden. The Scalia/ Alito/ Thomas Concurrence essentially said that these sort of laws are up to state legislatures to decide.

I do agree with the commenter above who suggested dismissal on standing grounds. Garland’s case, at least so far, seems to be based purely on speculation, with the harm justifying federal court interference being purely hypothetical, at this point. Yes, there is some weak evidence that a slightly smaller percentage of old black people having government issued photo IDs. Could they get them? Probably. At least if they were mentally competent to vote.

Ignoring the politics, this would be a perfect vehicle for dismissal based on standing. Garland’s DOJ would have to show that the law was facially invalid. Sure, a couple years down the road, they might be able to pose an As Applied challenge. But that will require showing GA voters actually disenfranchised by the photo ID requirement. But now, all they have is a Facial challenge based on a weak hypothesis and scanty supporting data. Facially, the photo ID provision appears to be racially neutral. The burden is on the plaintiff here to show that it isn’t. Absent that, there appears to be no Case Or Controversy.

    Ben Kent in reply to Bruce Hayden. | June 27, 2021 at 2:12 pm

    Bruce – you state a clear and compelling case for a dismissal. DOJ is not stupid – they know this. This is clearly abuse of process for political gain. Any judge presented with this should sanction the DOJ for filing frivolous litigation merely for political gain which should include enjoining DOJ from further conduct.

    Milhouse in reply to Bruce Hayden. | June 27, 2021 at 6:05 pm

    I think the DOJ has automatic standing in this sort of case. But standing only gets you so far. It gets you in the door, but once there it’s your case that has to stand up, and this one doesn’t.

    iowan2 in reply to Bruce Hayden. | June 27, 2021 at 8:13 pm

    a slightly smaller percentage of old black people having government issued photo IDs. Could they get them? Probably.

    The real question. Is that slightly lower percentage because of the color of their skin. I am forced by the left, to believe that the criteria is racist and disparity of success is due to skin color. Or blacks lack the ability to follow direction, ie, stupid.

This article is not encouraging. It would only be a mistake if we had Federal judges who actually know what the Constitution says – and are willing to apply it. Is that a reasonable assumption?

Maybe the Biden* regime is doing this because they know the fix is in.

If there’s one thing I praise McConnell for, it’s keeping Garland off the Supreme Court

Couple of thoughts from a non-lawyer:

(1) I find the filing a shot across the bow to the SCOTUS. The DOJ knows that the SCOTUS heard oral arguments in March on Brnovich v. DNC which could limit Section 2.

(2) I think Ms. Clarke’s remarks make it clear what the DOJ wants is discovery; emails, memos, notes and so on that can be used to show GA Legislators intended to limit the black vote. IOW; I think this is completely political to tie an albatross around the GOP as “rrrracist”.

It smells like a PR stunt to me.
Hopeless case, but they will talk it up.
And, they will get a lot of air time to push their narrative.