Seventeen state attorneys general, including Alaska Attorney General Treg Taylor, have written a stern letter to U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland last month, telling him to back off his comments regarding the role of the Department of Justice in overseeing elections. The letter, dated April 10, 2024, highlights the attorneys generals’ apprehension over what they perceive as federal overreach into states’ rights.
Representing states including Indiana, West Virginia, Alaska, Georgia, and Texas, among others, the top law officers take issue with Garland’s remarks made at the Tabernacle Baptist Church in Selma, Alabama.
They assert that Garland’s statements, characterizing certain state election laws as discriminatory and unnecessary, demonstrate an intent to undermine states’ authority over their election processes.
The attorneys general remind Garland that the U.S. Constitution explicitly grants states the primary responsibility for regulating the “Times, Places, and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives.” They argue that any attempt by the federal government to encroach upon this authority threatens the foundational principles of federalism and the separation of powers.
A central point of contention is Garland’s criticism of voter identification laws, which he says as barriers to ballot access.
The attorneys general counter Garland’s assertion by citing the Supreme Court’s validation of such laws in the 2008 case Crawford v. Marion County Election Board. They argue that voter ID laws are essential for preventing fraud and safeguarding election integrity, citing specific instances of voter fraud convictions.
Furthermore, the attorneys general push back against Garland’s criticism of absentee voting regulations, including his support for the use of mail-in ballots and drop boxes.
The attorneys write, “you claim states have imposed ‘unnecessary restrictions’ related to absentee voting, including ‘mail-in voting’ and ‘the use of drop boxes.’ Numerous security risks exist with mail-in voting and drop boxes, and these methods of voting have led to the proliferation of election fraud. For instance, surveillance videos of a Connecticut woman stuffing papers into an absentee ballot box in a mayoral primary has led to an investigation by election officials. If election fraud at drop boxes occurs for small, local mayoral primary races, then it’s likely the same type of fraud occurs during state-wide and federal elections at those same drop boxes. In another case, a woman was convicted for a voter fraud scheme in Iowa in November of 2023. She ‘submitted or caused others to submit dozens of voter registrations, absentee ballot request forms, and absentee ballots containing false information’ as well as ‘signed voter forms without voters’ permission and told others that they could sign on behalf of relatives who were not present.’ In still another case, a West Virginia mail carrier was convicted after he was found to have altered the party affiliation on several absentee ballot request forms. And that was certainly not the first time absentee ballots had been used to manipulated elections just in West Virginia; for instance, Democrat officials in Lincoln County, West Virginia were convicted of falsifying absentee ballots in a vast election scheme years before.”
They argue that absentee voting poses significant security risks and they cite examples of election fraud associated with these methods. They emphasize the states’ right to regulate absentee voting and highlight court rulings affirming the constitutionality of certain voting restrictions.
The attorneys general also challenge Garland’s assertion that recent legislative measures have weakened the Voting Rights Act They maintain that state election security measures do not impede voting rights but rather strengthen the electoral process. They criticize Garland for what they perceive as a mischaracterization of the VRA’s purpose and effectiveness.
In response to Garland’s announcement of expanding the DOJ’s involvement in election matters, including doubling the number of lawyers in the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division and launching the Election Threats Task Force, the attorneys general express alarm, seeing these federal actions as an unwarranted intrusion into states’ affairs and accusing Garland of politicizing the Department of Justice to advance partisan objectives.
The letter concludes with a vow from the attorneys general to vigorously defend their states’ election laws against any attempts at federal interference. They assert their commitment to upholding the rule of law and ensuring the safety and security of elections, particularly in light of what they perceive as the federal government’s failure to address border security concerns.
Read the letter here:
