It’s back. The demagogic and dishonest “Jim Crow 2.0” smear has returned to our political discourse, once again courtesy of Democrats fighting tooth and nail against common-sense election integrity measures.
Last time they trotted it out, this smear was deployed against Georgia’s sensible law, which has resulted in the opposite of the fear-mongerers’ cataclysmic predictions of racist “voter suppression.” Leftists lied unceasingly about that law, bamboozling spineless corporations and organizations such as Major League Baseball, Delta Air Lines, and Coca-Cola into joining their fact-free mob. Now that reality has dismantled their hysterical mendacity in consecutive election cycles — voter participation has increased across the board — they’ve moved on to their next fake outrage.
Congressional Republicans are pushing the SAVE Act, which seeks to ensure that only verified U.S. citizens can register to vote and participate in elections. Democrats have reflexively denounced this idea as racism and sexism — they say this about virtually every Republican idea — with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) leaning hard into the “Jim Crow” talking point. He vowed to kill the “dead on arrival” bill using the filibuster, which itself has been decried by Democrats as a Jim Crow relic. Except, naturally, when they use it promiscuously when in the minority, in which case they’re happy to fight “Jim Crow” with a tool they’ve also called “Jim Crow.” If this is confusing, simply remember the overarching rule of thumb that Democrats will do or say anything that aligns with their current perception of what empowers them.
And they’ve clearly concluded that safeguarding our elections is an intolerable threat to their political power. What is so offensive about the SAVE Act proposal? One of the bill’s top congressional champions, Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX), argues that the idea is necessary because “in many states, these illegal aliens are eligible for driver’s licenses and other benefits, providing ample opportunities to illegally register to vote in federal elections. In some jurisdictions, noncitizens are even able to vote in local elections.” Here is Roy’s summary of the top two provisions of the resulting legislation:
- Amends the National Voter Registration Act, which has governed state voter registration since 1993, to require states to obtain documentary proof of U.S. citizenship and identity in person when registering an individual to vote in a federal election.
- Requires states to establish a program to remove noncitizens from their existing voter rolls and gives states no-cost access to Department of Homeland Security and Social Security Administration databases to do so.
What, exactly, is the argument against verifying that people are U.S. citizens before registering them to vote? And why would anyone oppose removing noncitizens from voter rolls? According to Democrats, it’s all very racist because some people of color might not be able to present a valid ID. Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) even claimed that the SAVE Act might “violate the 19th Amendment, which gives women the right to vote, because you’ve got to show that all of your different IDs match. So if you’re a woman who’s gotten married and you’ve changed your name to your husband’s name, but you’re so now your current name is different from your name at birth.” These people evidently don’t think much of women and racial minorities. But let’s grant, for the sake of argument, that there is some fractional population of Americans who could be at risk of disenfranchisement because they lack the requisite paperwork to prove their citizenship. What about them? Actually, the SAVE Act is not silent on this question. Roy’s legislative summary notes that the bill:
“Directs states to establish an alternative process for applicants that may not have documentary proof of citizenship but are in fact U.S. citizens (due to religious reasons or otherwise), subject to minimum standards set by the Election Assistance Commission and signed attestations and affidavits by both the applicant and official making the determination. [And] directs states to provide reasonable accommodations for disabled Americans and applicants that have discrepancies on their documentation due to a name change.”
Republican sources on Capitol Hill tell me these accommodations are in the process of being fleshed out and expanded. Democrats generally refuse to engage with any of this, opting for shouting “Jim Crow!” and other frantic distortions. They seem incapable of deviating from their script when confronted with even light challenges from generally friendly media outlets. A host on MS Now, formerly known as MSNBC, recently asked Schumer about why he’s so against voter ID when a recent Pew Research Center survey yet again demonstrated that more than 70% of Democrats and black people support the idea. Schumer responded by obstinately sticking to the insulting script. “It’s Jim Crow 2.0,” he asserted, refusing to grapple at all with the premise of the question. “I called it Jim Crow 2.0, and the right-wing went nuts all over the internet. That’s because they know it’s true. What they’re trying to do here is the same thing that was done in the South for decades, to prevent people of color from voting.” This is ludicrous on its face and unresponsive to the question.
NEW YORK V. WEST VIRGINIA: A SANCTUARY CASE STUDY
Schumer’s House counterpart, Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), didn’t fare much better on CNN. Asked about lopsided public support for voter ID, he called the SAVE Act “voter suppression,” insisting that states alone have the right to facilitate and administer elections as they see fit. This is true, but it’s not clear that a standard national requirement to confirm citizenship eligibility prior to registering to vote steps on states’ toes in the realm of election administration. It’s also an entirely noncredible argument coming from Jeffries, whose party opened its last House majority with an outrageous attempted usurpation of states’ roles in running elections in favor of a nationalized model designed for partisan benefit. Jeffries’ cynical, feigned concern about federalism will expire the moment he believes he has the power to run roughshod over states for his side’s own ideological project.
Democrats’ actions and words are speaking loudly. Much of their party has become functionally pro-fraud, both in terms of their stewardship of taxpayer dollars and their approach to our elections.