Lawyers and the Courts Could Decide the 2016 Election — Unless We Stop Them

“Democrats allied with Hillary Rodham Clinton are mounting a nationwide legal battle 17 months before the 2016 presidential election, seeking to roll back Republican-enacted restrictions on voter access that Democrats say could, if unchallenged, prove decisive in a close campaign." (New York Times, June 3, 2015)

What happened to the narrative that the Democrats can’t lose?

For months we have been told that the “electoral college lock” that the Democrat candidate begins with provides the Republicans with a steep hill to climb regardless of the candidate.

Photo Credit: Getty Images

If former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has such a lock on the presidency, why in the world does she need an army of litigators?

The answer is, of course, that’s what Democrats do.

Lawsuits were filed last month in Wisconsin and Ohio. Additional suits in states where Republicans control the governor’s office or the legislative majority will follow. The express purpose of the effort is to find a compliant federal judge who will intervene in the electoral process.

Areas to be targeted will include voter identification requirements, time limits on early voting and rules that require that ballots be cast in the correct precinct.

The U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled that voter identification laws are constitutional. The Democrat’s required a photo ID to get into their national convention in Charlotte in 2012, but vigorously oppose that same requirement for voting.

The date of national elections has been set as the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November since 1845. Allowing early voting has been an accommodation to voters to expand voting opportunities. To ask a judge to change what state legislatures do by law is an insult.

To expect that votes should count when cast in a precinct other than the precinct in which the voter is registered cannot be taken seriously.

When you look at the three areas of interest of the Democrat lawsuits their intent becomes clear. They want to expand opportunities to cheat.

[sharequote align="center"]Democrats want to expand opportunities to cheat.[/sharequote]

The lawyers admit that their chances of success are limited, but consider the effort worthwhile if the publicity generated will create the impression that Republicans are attempting to suppress the vote.

Using the legal system to impact elections is not a new tactic for the Democrat Party nor their largest contributor class – trial lawyers.

Democrats are still whining that the courts decided the 2002 presidential election. At the risk of sounding remedial, it was the Al Gore campaign that initiated the legal activity over the Florida vote. They demanded a recount in certain counties. They did not want a statewide recount.

The U.S. Constitution gives the state legislatures the authority to determine how presidential electors are chosen. The Florida Supreme Court ruled that the recount in certain counties could be extended beyond the date that electors had to be appointed. The U.S. Supreme Court held that they did not have the authority to overrule the legislature.

That was not the only legal activity going on in Florida during that election. Democrat lawyers also attempted to prevent the counting of military absentee ballots.

(For the record, news organizations paid for a recount of the votes in the entire state of Florida after the dust had settled. George. W. Bush won. Again.)

In a U.S. Senate race in South Dakota two years later Rep. John Thune (R-S.D.) opposed Sen. Tim Johnson (D-S.D.). There was a federal investigation over illegal voter registrations and absentee balloting on the Indian reservations prior to the election.

On the day before the election a cadre of out-of-state lawyers flew into South Dakota and moved into the precincts on the reservations to intimidate voters and poll workers. They ignored repeated requests to leave and remained to oversee the final vote count.

When all the counties that had no reservatons had reported by 3 a.m. Thune led by 3,721 votes. Shannon County, the home of the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, did not report until 6 a.m. the next morning. The Democrat got 92 percent of the vote and Thune lost by 524 votes.

The lead lawyer in the current effort is Marc Elias who also represents the Clinton for President Campaign. Hillary Clinton, meanwhile, will be speaking out against photo ID laws in speeches during her campaign.

According to the New York Times, “Mrs. Clinton’s campaign is not a party to the lawsuits, although her aides have said her team supports them. People involved in the actions have refused to say who was paying for them.”

I should think the trial lawyers would do this for the Democrats for free. They owe them.

–

TheBlaze contributor channel supports an open discourse on a range of views. The opinions expressed in this channel are solely those of each individual author.