The left seeks to remove vital safeguards from Florida elections | Opinion

Two decades ago, I left my college dorm on a sunny November day to vote in my first-ever presidential election. My emotions — nervousness, excitement, curiosity, patriotism — have left me with fond memories, including of accomplishment, as I picked up my “I voted” sticker.

But elections are no longer single-day, in-person events. Sure, the old way was somewhat inconvenient, but I miss the feeling of community, watching my ballot be counted and sensing the weight of a nationwide decision on a single day.

Today’s convenience measures (like no-excuse mail-in voting) are generally implemented with sufficient guardrails to maintain a system recognizable as “voting”—the undeniably serious and considered act I first encountered years ago. After all, we’re deciding who will enact the laws that affect our lives, not choosing which Netflix show to try.

Unfortunately, that framework is deteriorating thanks to partisan lawsuits, including many brought by Marc Elias, Hillary Clinton’s former attorney.

These well-funded lawsuits, outlined on Democracy Docket, seek to eliminate the remaining procedures safeguarding our already modified elections. They propose an end signature matching (between the mailed ballot and registration file), to count ballots with concerning errors and to leave drop boxes unsecured and vulnerable.

Without basic checks, the tests I administered as a sixth-grade teacher would be more secure and solemn than our ballots. But that’s the goal: an entirely different conception of “voting,” stripped of its weighty, considered, and patriotic nature.

For example, in Florida (and elsewhere), Elias has filed lawsuits to eliminate requirements that voters physically sign their registration forms, which he argues violate Americans’ civil rights. The argument is downright offensive to the legacy and purpose of the Civil Rights Act.

The materiality provision of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was enacted to end racially discriminatory voting restrictions that would require Black voters to provide trivial details like the exact number of months and days of age. It says an elections official cannot “deny the right of any individual to vote” based on an error or omission “not material” to whether the voter is qualified under state law to vote. It was an important law because racist registrars across the Jim Crow South were bent on keeping Black people out of the polling booth.

But it has no relevance in the challenge to Florida’s signature law, which denies no one the right to vote. It’s not hard to vote in Florida. In 2020, 11 million Floridians found their way to the polls, in person or by mail, for a 77% voter turnout, far above the national average.

These persistent suits go beyond a burden on our courts and an expense to Florida taxpayers. They carry a real risk that the Supreme Court has warned against — uncertainty in our elections, which crops up in the absence of procedure and order.

Moreover, this effort is anti-democratic. Instead of working with the Legislature to change laws they dislike, D.C. lawyers flood the courts with demands. The voters in Florida are cut out.

Fortunately, the Republican Party, supported by Restoring Integrity & Trust in Elections PAC, is trying to defend Florida’s law. It is vital that these national organizations stand against Elias’ 50-state plan to demolish those rules that bring Americans confidence that they are participating in a fair process.

May Mailman is vice president at Restoring Integrity and Trust in Elections (RITE).