<mediadc-video-embed data-state="{"cms.site.owner":{"_ref":"00000161-3486-d333-a9e9-76c6fbf30000","_type":"00000161-3461-dd66-ab67-fd6b93390000"},"cms.content.publishDate":1665098481987,"cms.content.publishUser":{"_ref":"0000017a-8cb2-d416-ad7a-beb7278f0000","_type":"00000161-3461-dd66-ab67-fd6b933a0007"},"cms.content.updateDate":1665098481987,"cms.content.updateUser":{"_ref":"0000017a-8cb2-d416-ad7a-beb7278f0000","_type":"00000161-3461-dd66-ab67-fd6b933a0007"},"rawHtml":"
var _bp = _bp||[]; _bp.push({ "div": "Brid_64978998", "obj": {"id":"27789","width":"16","height":"9","video":"1111397"} }); ","_id":"00000183-af9a-d2c9-a9e3-bf9a73ef0000","_type":"2f5a8339-a89a-3738-9cd2-3ddf0c8da574"}”>Video EmbedThe clear legal rebuke of Stacey Abrams’s “voting rights” group marks a stunning blow to the phony voter suppression narrative embraced by virtually every major national Democrat who has proudly heralded Abrams as the rightful governor of Georgia.
The ruling by an Obama-appointed federal judge affects much more than just the Peach State: In Abrams’s race and elsewhere, it will make Democrats’ fake “Jim Crow 2.0” accusations against Republicans a much tougher sell in the coming elections.
MIDTERMS 2022: LIVE UPDATES FROM THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL AHEAD OF CRUCIAL ELECTION
Fair Fight Action tacitly acknowledged its defeat in a press release that gave no indication it would appeal the ruling while grasping for a positive spin.
After losing the Georgia governor’s race by 55,000 votes in 2018, Abrams said she accepted the outcome but refused to concede and claimed voter suppression.
She was following an old script. For two decades, starting after the contested presidential race of 2000, Democrats have ramped up election lawsuits and made broad unproven arguments about “voter suppression” based on the theory that one law or another might disproportionately harm one demographic. Occasionally, the lawsuits scored consent decrees to gain a more favorable election climate.
Not this time. When faced with proving a case that laws and procedures actually prevented eligible voters from voting, Fair Fight Action learned political rhetoric wasn’t enough.
As Judge Steve C. Jones wrote in his 288-page opinion, the plaintiffs failed to provide “direct evidence of a voter who was unable to vote, experienced longer wait times, was confused about voter registration status by being in MIDR status, or experienced heightened scrutiny at the polls.”
MIDR is an “active-missing identification requirement,” core to Abrams’s claim she was robbed. Under Georgia law in 2018, voters requesting an absentee ballot had to have an “exact match” with their driver’s license or Social Security information. A mismatch put the voter on MIDR status until presenting acceptable identification, or it would mean casting a provisional ballot. The judge determined Fair Fight Action failed to show the exact-match requirement and verification of citizenship were enacted with racially discriminatory intent or purpose.
Georgia Attorney General Chris Carr correctly stated, “This ruling confirms what I have said all along — there is not one single eligible Georgian in 2018 who was prohibited from voting.”
This ruling won’t end Democrats’ dishonest litigation and voter suppression hysteria in Georgia or on the national level, but it marks a significant setback for lawsuits challenging laws on voter ID, more accurate voter registration lists, or other election integrity measures.
President Joe Biden gave away the post-midterm strategy, saying outcomes “could easily be illegitimate” because Democrats couldn’t pass their election reforms.
Never letting facts get in the way of a good narrative, the Biden administration’s Justice Department is plowing forward with its lawsuit against Georgia over its 2021 election reform law. But so far, the best test of the 2021 law is the 2022 primary, which showed a 168% increased turnout among Georgia voters from the comparable non-presidential primary of 2018.
The Democratic super PAC Priorities USA announced it would spend $15 million fighting “voter suppression,” $10 million of which would go to litigation.
But after Abrams, the national spokeswoman for the voter suppression hysteria industrial complex, was soundly defeated in court, all of these arguments ring hollow.
The public has now seen what happens when the Left is put on the spot to present a factual case behind one of their favorite talking points.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
Fred Lucas is the author of The Myth of Voter Suppression: The Left’s Assault on Clean Elections and the manager of the Investigative Reporting Project at the Daily Signal.
