During a hearing on election reform, the partisan divide was showcased as one Democrat claimed the GOP was engaging in an “insidious effort” to suppress votes, while a Republican accused the opposing party of distorting history.
The Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on Tuesday morning, titling the meeting, “Jim Crow 2021: The Latest Assault on the Right to Vote.”
Chairman Dick Durban, a Democrat speaking on behalf of his party, opened the hearing by referencing efforts across the country to disenfranchise black voters during the Jim Crow era, comparing them to the election changes Republicans hope to implement.
“Many of the most egregious voter suppression tactics were outlawed by civil rights legislation in the 1960s,” he said. “But the insidious effort to suppress the rights of voters of color has evolved and continued, most recently through a scourge of voter suppression laws introduced in state capitals across America. Just this year, just this year, more than 360 bills with restrictive voting provisions have been introduced in 47 states.”
MLB MOVES ALL-STAR GAME: WHAT DO COLORADO’S VOTING RIGHTS LOOK LIKE?
Republican ranking member Chuck Grassley pushed back on Durban’s remarks during his opening statement, beginning with the name of the hearing.
“I want to start by saying that I object to the title of this hearing. Like others on this committee, I am a fan of history. I try to learn from it. I don’t use it to insult my opponents,” he said. “As I said, the title of this hearing is offensive. And as a student of history, this title diminishes the very real challenges and unfairness that minorities endured in the Jim Crow South at the hands of Southern Democrats.“
Grassley, the senator from Iowa, accused Democrats of “polarizing rhetoric that distorts history,” which he said “is not helpful.”
The committee hearing was specifically focused on the election reform bill that Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp signed on March 25, which will require voters to show an ID for an absentee ballot instead of using signature verification and will alter the timing of runoff elections, among other changes.
The Democrats’ witnesses included Stacey Abrams, the former minority leader of the Georgia House of Representatives, Sen. Raphael Warnock, a Democrat who won a special election in Georgia, and Sherrilyn Ifill, president of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, among others. The Republican witness list was headed by Utah Rep. Burgess Owens, a black freshman Republican who supports the election law changes.
It is unclear if the committee will hold another hearing for the discussion.
Election integrity has become one of the most prominent issues following the 2020 elections in which then-President Donald Trump claimed he was the rightful winner despite countless courts, recounts, and audits confirming his loss. Trump continued to promote theories for months after, claiming that his victory was stolen from him. Many within the party echoed those sentiments.
The speculation led to a decrease in voter confidence, which Republicans argue needs to be addressed, though Democratic counterparts say the efforts are unnecessary as the claims that seemingly led to the downturn were untrue.
Democrats have also argued that their Republican colleagues are trying to create hurdles that will hurt Democratic turnout following the election that resulted in a Democratic-controlled Congress and White House. Republicans often advocate for strengthening voter ID laws and limiting absentee voting, among other changes, though Democrats say these measures will disenfranchise certain voters.
State legislatures across the country, with both Republican and Democratic majorities, have passed election reform bills in the molds they see fit.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
On March 3, the House passed H.R. 1, a Democrat-backed bill, which would drastically change the elections on a federal level. The bill would create nationwide automatic voter registration, require states to allow no-excuse absentee voting, and allow felons who have completed their incarceration to vote, among a litany of other changes. The bill is unlikely to pass in the evenly split Senate, barring a decision by the Democrats to nuke the filibuster.
