Right-wing activists and allies of Donald Trump are challenging voter rolls in critical presidential battleground states, which observers say is an under-the-radar effort that could seriously effect close or contested elections.
Activists are pressuring local officials in strongly Democratic areas of Michigan, Nevada and Georgia to drop voters' names from the rolls. As The New York Times points out, one town in Michigan removed 100 names from its roll after activists, who call themselves "election investigators," used an obscure state law from the 1950s as their rationale.
"The Michigan activists are part of an expansive web of grassroots groups that formed after Trump’s attempt to overturn his defeat in 2020," the Times' report states.
"The groups have made mass voter challenges a top priority this election year, spurred on by a former Trump lawyer, Cleta Mitchell, and True the Vote, a vote-monitoring group with a long history of spreading misinformation."
The Times added that activists' stated mission is to, "Maintain accurate voting records and remove voters who have moved to another jurisdiction."
Also read: ‘Awash with speed’: Report calls Trump White House a drug 'free-for-all'
According to these "election investigators," Democrats use “excess registrations” to stuff ballot boxes and rig elections, but report stated it's been found that such incidents are exceedingly rare and, even in instances where it does occur, it's either an isolated act or accidental.
“If you’re challenging 1,000 voters at once, you are not bringing the sophistication required when you are handling someone’s constitutional right,” said board member of the Michigan Association of Municipal Clerks, Michael Siegrist.
It's not known exactly how many voters have been removed by the effort, but in some states a challenge alone is enough to limit a voter’s access to a mail ballot, according to the Times.
“It really is aimed at being able to cast doubt on the results after the fact,” said Joanna Lydgate, CEO of States United Democracy Center. “But also, before the election itself, at being able to shape who turns out and how they turn out.”
Read the full report over at The New York Times.
