On Sunday night, the Texas Legislature came to a screeching halt in the final hours of the legislative session when Democrat lawmakers abandoned the House floor to procedurally prevent the House from completing its business just before sine die. This move prevented an election reform package, SB 7, from being voted on due to a lack of quorum. The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board wrote:

As the Texas legislative session drew near its end Sunday, lawmakers appeared set to pass a bill overhauling the state’s elections, until Democrats did one final maneuver: They snuck out of the building. “Members, take your key and leave the chamber discreetly,” a Democratic leader in the state House told his caucus in a 10:35 p.m. text message.

Speaking before the Committee on House Administration Subcommittee on Elections today, RNLA Co-Chair Harmeet Dhillon said it best: 

For the second time in a week, congressional Democrats held a hearing on Thursday to propagate their narrative that state election law reforms are a new wave of systematic voter discrimination. This time, the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties held a hearing entitled, "Oversight of the Voting Rights Act: The Evolving Landscape of Voting Discrimination." The hearing primarily focused on the issue of voter ID with the Democrat members of the Committee and their witnesses insisting that support for voter ID by Republicans was an attempt to suppress votes. But Mark Robinson, the first Black Lieutenant Governor of North Carolina, repeatedly debunked that myth:

On Monday, a trial began before the North Carolina Superior Court to determine whether a 2018 law to implement North Carolina's voter ID amendment is constitutional. Emory University professor Carol Anderson was called to testify to the link between the law and racially biased voting restrictions of the past. The only problem? She hadn't read the law being challenged before writing a report about it and didn't even know who sponsored the bill that enacted the law.

With H.R. 1 scheduled to come to the House floor the first week of March, it is important to revisit just how destructive this legislation, first introduced during the 116th Congress, would be for the U.S. election system. The Committee on House Administration Republicans have exposed H.R. 1 for what it is — "a partisan and massive congressional overreach designed to keep their Democrat majority by nationalizing our elections."

Citing COVID-19 concerns, Obama appointee U.S. District Judge Abdul Kallon partially granted a temporary injunction that limits the enforcement of Alabama's voter ID law and witness/notarization requirement for absentee ballots in Jefferson, Mobile, and Lee counties. The ruling also prohibited any prohibition of curbside voting. Changing the rules less than a month before the election will likely be problematic. Widespread problems were reported during recent primary elections in states where last-minute changes were made to voting laws.

According to Politico, citing a sweeping survey by the Knight Foundation, “voter suppression” is a myth.  While Politico does not put it exactly that way, here is a key paragraph that makes that point:

Democratic campaign committees and activist groups have been spending millions of dollars to fight against a range of legal obstacles on voting, believing that making voter registration easier and keeping polls open longer would inspire more Americans to turn out.

But to nonvoters themselves, those issues don’t seem to be at the forefront of their minds . . .

Structural issues such as voter ID laws and difficulty accessing polling places didn’t come up enough to even be marked in the Knight survey results. 

Recently, voter ID has received renewed attention as President Trump has taken to Twitter and rallies to express his support for election integrity nationwide. Notably, the President tweeted last week that “No debate on Election Security should go forward without first agreeing that Voter ID must play a very strong part in any final agreement”. The debate the President refers to surrounds the Democrats’ attempt to pass provisions of H.R.1, an elections overhaul that circumvents state control of elections, handing power to the federal government.  In the words of Senate Leader Mitch McConnell HR 1 is the "Democrat Politician Protection Act."  HR 1 would effectively eliminate Voter ID. 

On Friday, a North Carolina state court judge struck down North Carolina's voter ID constitutional amendment, which passed in November with over 55% approval by the state's voters.  The judge's rationale was particularly strange and troubling:

A North Carolina judge on Friday voided new state mandates requiring photo identification to vote and also limiting income tax rates. He ruled the GOP-controlled legislature lacked authority to put those constitutional amendments on the ballot because lawmakers had been elected from racially-biased districts two years earlier.

Wake County Superior Court Judge Bryan Collins sided with the state NAACP, which had argued that General Assembly was “illegally constituted” because federal judges had declared the district maps used in the 2016 legislative elections illegal racial gerrymanders.

While the ABA, nonpartisan and Republican legal circles all agree that Thomas Farr is well qualified to be a District Court Judge, Senator Schumer and DC-based liberal judicial smear groups are attacking Mr. Farr.  The irony is that the items they are attacking him for are supported by Democrats!

First, Mr. Farr is being attacked for defending North Carolina’s voter ID law for his client, the state of North Carolina.  Putting aside the lawyer's ethical duty to his clients, voter ID is supported by a large majority of Democrats in every survey released.  The most recent survey put the numbers at 63% support for a photo ID requirement from Democrats and more interesting, 69% support from lower-educated Democrats.