New Democrat Legislation Seeks To Change Election Rules

Written by Carmine Sabia

OPINION
This article contains commentary which reflects the author's opinion


We are now on Telegram - Join Us!


Signup For Your Free Newsletter!


Democrats now have control of both chambers of Congress, the Senate and the House of Representatives, as well as the White House, and now they want to make it stick.

The party now appears to be positioned to codify in federal law a provision that would allow states to count votes up to 10 days after Election Day in the cleverly titled “For The People Act of 2021,” True Reporter reported.

The new legislation contains a cleverly written provision that prevents Congress from passing bills in the future that would prevent states from passing laws against the counting of ballots received more than 10 days after Election Day.

This means that in the case states want to count ballots received 10 or more days past Election Day, Congress would not be allowed to stop them.

Note that the main reason why many battleground states changed their rules ahead of the Nov. 3 election was that an army of lawyers and activist groups petitioned state leaders and state courts in the months before to have them changed in a way that would allegedly disadvantage the incumbent, then-President Donald Trump.

When radio host Mark Levin spoke to Fox News host Sean Hannity a week after the presidential election in November he explained what he believed Democrats would do.

“Why did it take till 2 a.m or 3 a.m the morning after the election in 2016 to know who the winner is, but we’re still counting votes today? Now, why were the rules changed by the Democrats? Because they believe in good government? Because they wanted to help Republicans? No. They fixed the rules to help Democrats. That’s why Alito and hopefully four other justices are saying segregate those votes, those were done by the state Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in violation of the Federal Constitution of the United States,” Levin said.

“Look, I have a lot more to say, but let me just say this before I uh, lose my time. There’s more evidence of voter fraud than there was ever evidence of Russian collusion. So those who keep saying let’s see the evidence, Where the hell were you the last four years? You were nowhere. The Democrats want earlier and earlier voting and later and later counting,” he said.

Even Time Magazine explained what the Democrats did.

“Their work touched every aspect of the election. They got states to change voting systems and laws and helped secure hundreds of millions in public and private funding. They fended off voter-suppression lawsuits, recruited armies of poll workers, and got millions of people to vote by mail for the first time. They successfully pressured social media companies to take a harder line against disinformation and used data-driven strategies to fight viral smears. They executed national public-awareness campaigns that helped Americans understand how the vote count would unfold over days or weeks, preventing Trump’s conspiracy theories and false claims of victory from getting more traction. After Election Day, they monitored every pressure point to ensure that Trump could not overturn the result,” it said.

“The untold story of the election is the thousands of people of both parties who accomplished the triumph of American democracy at its very foundation,” former Obama Administration and attorney Norm Eisen said.

And The Association of Mature Citizens has also announced its opposition to the legislation.

“The legislation is carefully written to appear sensible but is in fact deceptive in its effort to assert federal control over voting in our respective states and to build a government record of individual American’s exercise of our God-given and Constitutional right of free political speech. In short, this legislation is ‘a wolf in sheep’s clothing,’” the group said.

“This legislation also assaults our First Amendment right to freedom of political speech. In its effort to go after donors to conservative organizations, it would subject citizens who contribute to nonprofit organizations to political harassment and intimidation by making their personal information available in a searchable government database. In this connection, it would also force groups to publicly identify their supporters on the face of the ads themselves,” it said.