June 5 Summary...Anti-Voting Law Firm
- phoenixrise77
- Jun 5
- 2 min read
DOJ’s New Top Voting Lawyer Worked for Leading Anti-Voting Law Firm (Democracy Docket 5/31/25)
Summary by Mike Allen
Maureen Riordan’s new role at the DOJ is “Acting Chief, Voting Section,” the unit that is supposed to enforce the nation’s voting rights laws. Until recently, she was an attorney and activist for a leading anti-voting legal group (PILF). In the past, Riordan has accused the voting section at the DOJ of favoring the Left and racial minorities. She opposes legislation to fight voter suppression, such as the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, and supported the right wing’s role in Trump’s attempt to subvert the 2020 election results.
Her appointment underscores a sharp reversal at the DOJ. Historically, lawsuits filed by the voting section have aimed almost exclusively to expand rather than restrict voting access. A new lawsuit filed against North Carolina, for example, cites Trump’s March executive order intended to tighten voting rules.
Since 2021, Riordan served as litigation counsel at the Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF). PILF has worked for years to spread fear about illegal voting (which is extremely rare) and press election officials to tighten voting rules. A deeply flawed 2017 PILF report titled “Alien Invasion,” for example, claimed to have found thousands of ballots cast by non-citizens in Virginia. PILF pressures states and counties — by threatening and bringing litigation — to more aggressively remove voters from the rolls.
PILF’s board of directors includes prominent leaders of the conservative push to restrict voting, including the Heritage Foundation’s Hans von Spakovsky and Ken Blackwell of the Trump-aligned America First Policy Institute. A former PILF director, John Eastman, concocted a plan to allow Trump to stay in power after the 2020 election by having then-Vice President Mike Pence throw out electoral votes for Joe Biden in key states.
A case in which PILF represented Galveston County, Texas, which was being sued under the Voting Rights Act (VRA), led to a ruling that significantly limited the law’s ability to protect the voting power of racial minorities in the 5th Circuit. Nevertheless, Riordan is skeptical that racial discrimination in voting remains an issue. For example, In the Supreme Court in 2013, Riordan argued that preclearance is no longer necessary because the racially discriminatory conditions it was created under no longer exist. Preclearance was the Voting Rights Act’s strongest tool until 2013, requiring jurisdictions with histories of discrimination to seek federal approval before changing voting laws.
Comments