Thread by @ProfMJCleveland

THREAD: While my piece today @FDRLST might not be breaking or seem exciting, there are several VERY significant points to date the Right (including lawyers--I know b/c I hadn't considered 2 aspect until recently), have overlooked re election integrity.1/ thefederalist.com/2021/07/12/ign…

2/ Piece is re disenfranchisement & stresses something ignored while Dems & their pets in press present red state’s integrity laws disenfranchise voters: Disenfranchisement occurs 2 ways—voters prevented from voting OR legal voters votes canceled by illegal or fraudulent votes.

3/ Here, imp. to stress BOTH illegal & fraudulent votes disenfranchise legal voters. Left’s talking point that no evidence of wide-spread voter fraud is misdirection for several reasons (more on that next).

4/ But if Left cared about disenfranchisement they would care about what happened in GA b/c illegal voting, unlike fraud, is easier to prove & that proof now exists. Left doesn't, though. Heck half of the Right doesn't either.

5/ And re talking point that no evidence of wide-spread voter fraud, Right has properly pointed out a) hard to prove; b) you don’t need to wait for fraud to prevent; and c) ensuring confidence in elections is also legitimate gov’t interest. BUT missed is another key point.

6/ While evidence of wide-spread fraud in recent years is lacking, there is still MORE evidence isolated cases of voter fraud than there is evidence that voting-integrity measures such as voter-ID disenfranchise voters.

7/ For instance, in Crawford case, that made it to Supreme Court, Dems couldn't find EVEN 1 voter who said Indiana's voter id law would prevent them from voting. That's similar in all challenges to these voting integrity laws.

8/ Stats are thrown out but when it comes to actually finding people disenfranchised by law, nada. And these are big, powerful, plaintiffs like DNC challenging the law. So, even w/o evidence widespread fraud, we still have MORE voters disenfranchised by fraud than law.

9/ Another key point: These time, place, & manner voting laws ONLY create "normal burdens of voting." While disenfranchisement can occur not just by taking away rt. to vote, but by making it impossible or even just difficult to vote, laws creating "burden" to vote NOT same thing

10/ And the "burdens" established are actually "sub-burdensome"--it has never been easier to vote. Yes, we are an instant gratification country, and want everything handed to us now, but that doesn't make normal burden disenfranchisement or limit on right to vote.

11/ NOW, this segues to final HUGELY important point re Jim Crow laws. Those laws had both intent & effect of preventing blacks from voting. And those laws significantly burdened right to vote for only blacks--whites were grandfathered in. AND

12/ Jim Crow laws only had the right to vote on one side of the equation, meaning the laws limited the right to vote but with no positive. Period. In contrast, all of time, place, manner regulations have right to vote on both side of equations.

12/ For instance, voter ID laws impact those who seek to exercise right to vote BUT also impact those who want their lawful vote to count. Same w/ ballot harvesting. Same w/ restricting ballot drop boxes. Jim Crow laws only sought to limit right to vote.

13/ So, you have two citizens' right to vote at stake-the one impacted by normal burdens and the one impacted when state removes normal burdens & allows illegal or fraudulent voters to cancel out the vote.

14/ Former citizen can ensure they are not "disenfranchised," by making normal effort of using ID, or going to correct precinct. BUT the latter citizen has NO means of preventing disenfranchised by fraud or illegal votes--they need the law to protect their right to vote.

15/15 Now, with this backdrop, go back and read. thefederalist.com/2021/07/12/ign…