Hans von Spakovsky / July 2, 2021

Former Justice Department Lawyer Testifies to Voting Section’s History of Abusing Its Authority

At a hearing Tuesday intended to build support for HR 4, Maureen Riordan did the exact opposite

For anyone who thinks that passing HR 4, the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, is a good idea, watching the startling testimony of a veteran Justice Department lawyer should make one quickly realize what a bad — and dangerous — idea it really is.

At a hearing Tuesday intended to build support for HR 4, Maureen Riordan did the exact opposite. A career attorney who served in the Voting Section of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division for more than two decades, she testified before the House Judiciary Committee on the long history of abuses she witnessed while working at the department.

HR 4 would bring back and vastly expand the preclearance (preapproval) process of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Section 5 required a small number of states, such as Alabama and Georgia, to get the Justice Department’s approval before making any changes in their voting laws.

In 2013, in Shelby County v. Holder, the Supreme Court ended the preclearance requirement because it rightly recognized that time had not stood still.

Section 5 was only meant to be a temporary provision addressing some egregious practices that were happening in certain states in 1965. Fortunately, the type of systematic, widespread voting discrimination that was occurring then is long gone, and Section 5 was no longer necessary.

The court held that Congress could not rely on decades-old data to justify such a substantial intrusion into each state’s ability to pass and implement its own voting rules and procedures.

But HR 4 would bring preclearance back with a vengeance. It would give liberal bureaucrats inside the Voting Section the power to review and veto changes — any change, no matter how insignificant — in voting laws and regulations enacted by state legislators and election officials all over the country, including changes in polling place locations, voter ID and registration requirements, voter list maintenance standards, and the boundary lines in redistricting.

Riordan, now an attorney at the Public Interest Legal Foundation (where I serve on the board), exposed improper, partisan behavior she witnessed throughout her career, including during the 2000 presidential recount in Florida as Voting Section staff discussed strategies to assist the Democratic Party and sent faxes to then-Vice President Al Gore’s campaign operatives.

Long before the Supreme Court ruled that Section 5 was no longer necessary or justified, entrenched Justice Department bureaucrats had weaponized this power.

Riordan recounted a 2009 objection to a proposed voting change in Kinston, North Carolina, a town where African Americans are a majority of the population. In a referendum election, the town voted to remove party affiliations from ballots and switch to nonpartisan elections for members of its City Council.

Justice Department bureaucrats objected to this change, claiming it was discriminatory under Section 5 because black voters would not know who to vote for if the word “Democrat” wasn’t next to candidates’ names. That was a patronizingly insulting view of African American voters and an abuse of power that overruled the majority decision of the black voters of Kinston.

Another shocking story Riordan highlighted was the Justice Department rejecting an annexation of just two white people, who wanted to access city services, into the tiny town of North, South Carolina, where African Americans make up almost 42% of the population.

The Voting Section claimed that because the town could not show any proof that African Americans also had been annexed, adding two more white residents would dilute the African American share of the vote.

Riordan said she was “shocked” at “how political” the conduct of the lawyers inside the Voting Section was and testified that their actions were the “furthest thing from nonpartisan.”

The unethical disclosure by Voting Section staff of privileged information to reporters and others, she said, “happened on a regular basis,” and she recounted how a Voting Section analyst “lied under oath” to lawyers from the Justice Department’s Office of Inspector General.

Riordan’s testimony came as no surprise to me, based on what I observed when I worked on voting matters in the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department as a career lawyer.

Other examples abound. In 2012, a federal court in South Carolina v. Holder overturned the Justice Department’s objection to South Carolina’s voter ID law — a lawsuit that cost the state millions of dollars to win.

In 1994, in a Georgia redistricting case, a federal court ruled against the Justice Department, issuing a scathing opinion charging that “the considerable influence of ACLU advocacy on the voting rights decisions of the United States Attorney General is an embarrassment” and expressing the court’s surprise that the Justice Department was “so blind to this impropriety.”

A 2013 report from the Justice Department’s inspector general — cited by Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, at the hearing — criticized the Voting Section for ignoring the resumes of qualified attorneys and hiring a majority of its lawyers from only five liberal advocacy organizations: the American Civil Liberties Union; the National Council of La Raza; the NAACP; the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law; and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund.

The abuses that Riordan laid out are still happening at the Justice Department today. Last week, the Justice Department filed a lawsuit against the state of Georgia, claiming that its election integrity law violated the Voting Rights Act. That’s a partisan lawsuit without merit.

If HR 4 were to pass, radical Justice Department bureaucrats will object to nearly every election integrity reform enacted by states.

Americans do not want biased federal bureaucrats running their elections. Washington should stay out of elections and let the states continue to run them as they have for more than 200 years.

Republished from The Daily Signal.

Start a conversation using these share links:

Who We Are

The Patriot Post is a highly acclaimed weekday digest of news analysis, policy and opinion written from the heartland — as opposed to the MSM’s ubiquitous Beltway echo chambers — for grassroots leaders nationwide. More

What We Offer

On the Web

We provide solid conservative perspective on the most important issues, including analysis, opinion columns, headline summaries, memes, cartoons and much more.

Via Email

Choose our full-length Digest or our quick-reading Snapshot for a summary of important news. We also offer Cartoons & Memes on Monday and Alexander’s column on Wednesday.

Our Mission

The Patriot Post is steadfast in our mission to extend the endowment of Liberty to the next generation by advocating for individual rights and responsibilities, supporting the restoration of constitutional limits on government and the judiciary, and promoting free enterprise, national defense and traditional American values. We are a rock-solid conservative touchstone for the expanding ranks of grassroots Americans Patriots from all walks of life. Our mission and operation budgets are not financed by any political or special interest groups, and to protect our editorial integrity, we accept no advertising. We are sustained solely by you. Please support The Patriot Fund today!


“Our cause is noble; it is the cause of mankind!” —George Washington

The Patriot Post is protected speech, as enumerated in the First Amendment and enforced by the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, in accordance with the endowed and unalienable Rights of All Mankind.

Copyright © 2021 The Patriot Post. All Rights Reserved.

The Patriot Post does not support Internet Explorer. We recommend installing the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Mozilla Firefox, or Google Chrome.