Don’t let Soros-backed DAs ignore election crime, too

OPINION:

Is anyone going to prosecute allegations of fraud in the midterm elections?

In many states, including some of the most important electoral battlegrounds, the answer is almost certainly no. 

The same far-left district attorneys who have refused to prosecute violent criminals also show zero interest in prosecuting election law violators. Yet they’re often the only ones who can, and their inaction is an insult to voters and the rule of law. States should immediately empower more officials to investigate such allegations and hold potential lawbreakers accountable. As it so often does, Florida shows the way.

By now, millions of Americans are familiar with soft-on-crime district attorneys like Alvin Bragg in New York City or Larry Krasner in Philadelphia. They owe their position in large part to George Soros, the liberal financier who has spent $40 million and counting to elect at least 35 current district attorneys. They’re well known for letting criminals walk free and refusing to prosecute repeat offenders. Yet hardly anyone knows the central role that many of them play — or fail to play — in prosecuting election fraud.

In 22 states, including New York, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Wisconsin and Washington, district attorneys have the sole authority to independently prosecute violations of election law. The possible crimes range from illegal voting to altering the vote count, and in some states, the list also includes things like ballot harvesting. For 15 million Americans, the Soros-backed district attorneys effectively control prosecutions of election crimes, and tens of millions more live in states with the same policy.

Post-election, there’s no indication that Soros-backed district attorneys or their liberal colleagues in other jurisdictions are taking this issue seriously. While some claim the lack of enforcement means no crimes were committed, that’s circular logic. Bringing charges against alleged lawbreakers is the only way to prove how rare or frequent such lawbreaking truly is. And as we’ve seen with violent crime under Soros-backed district attorneys, ignoring election fraud is a surefire way to encourage it.

Why don’t district attorneys prioritize this issue? Such crimes don’t generate the same headlines as violent offenses like murder, meaning district attorneys may face even less public pressure to bring charges. They also have the incentive to decline election prosecutions that threaten their own political allies and causes. Some district attorneys can even nullify election laws. In recent years, dozens of states have criminalized election practices such as ballot harvesting and the private funding of election administration. Yet those laws are effectively made void if a district attorney refuses to hold potential lawbreakers accountable. The crime is on the books, but no one is throwing the book at the criminals.

State policymakers cannot let the status quo continue. To start, they should create a department focused solely on investigating violations of election law. It would field public complaints about election irregularities, identify possible violations, and, after a thorough investigation, refer potential criminal activity for prosecution. The department should also be required to annually inform the state legislature of the investigations it conducted and recommended. Such transparency would promote political accountability: When district attorneys refuse to prosecute, they would have to tell voters why.

Some states are already taking this path. In April, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed a bill into law creating the Office of Election Crimes and Security. Policymakers in other states, including Ohio, Texas and Virginia, have also created new units or divisions to investigate election law violations. Yet while investigations are necessary, they are not sufficient to ensure the integrity of the ballot box.

Policymakers should also empower state attorneys general to prosecute alleged lawbreakers. Some states allow such prosecutions only at the request of the governor or legislature, while others block them altogether. Either way, attorneys general deserve the ability to act independently. District attorneys shouldn’t have sole authority over this issue, not least because they can make it seem like election fraud doesn’t exist. By strengthening the prosecutorial power of attorneys general, district attorneys would find it much more difficult to ignore this issue, while voters would have greater trust that elected officials are protecting their votes.

The alternative is to let soft-on-crime district attorneys also get away with being soft on election crime. It’s bad enough that these policies weren’t in place nationwide before the 2022 midterms. It will be much worse if states don’t promote election integrity before 2024.