The state’s chief election officer may have violated state election laws when she brought a group of supporters to the Kanawha County Voters Registration Office today. Link to story via National Review
A must read at the American Thinker: Thanks to the Supreme Court, the new Texas voter ID law was in effect when early voting began in the 2014 midterm. The court upheld the Fifth Circuit’s stay pending appeal of an October 11, 2014 District Court injunction barring implementation of the law’s voter ID provisions. The last-minute injunction was issued by Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos in an opinion whose content and timing make it smell suspiciously like the grievance industry’s race card.
The analysis is worth reading in its entirety. The author expertly dissects the opinion of Judge Ramos and shows how the o-called findings are erroneous and simply not based in reality.
Fox News reports: The U.S. Supreme Court made a rare correction on Wednesday to an error in Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s scathing dissent of the majority opinion on Texas’ controversial voter ID law — a dissent that had been highly touted by critics of the law.
Another exaggeration, if not another outright factual mistake. In her seven-page dissent, Ginsburg wrote that the law “may prevent more than 600,000 registered Texas voters from voting in person for lack of compliant identification.”
National Review points the spotlight on potential political activities of one of the FEC Commissioners. A federal official is pushing Democratic talking points in battleground states. The top Democratic commissioner at the bipartisan Federal Election Commission is traveling to battleground states weeks before November’s midterm elections, engaging in what a former commissioner and an FEC observer call an “unprecedented” and “totally inappropriate” attempt to ignite public opposition to the Citizens United decision and promote Democratic positions on campaign finance.
Link here to NBC coverage of the O’Keefe Vote By Mail sting. Not encouraging that the handwriting analysis skills of non-experts is the “check” against vote by mail fraud.
The Bronx DA is investigating claims of voter fraud in a hotly contested Democratic primary for the Assembly that was decided by two votes… DA Robert Johnson has subpoenaed Board of Elections records relating to voters who submitted absentee ballots.
In 2012, Vanita Gupta, the current nominee for the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, sent a letter to ACLU supporters opposing capital punishment. She said America was attached to a “cruel and racially discriminatory” capital punishment system. Link to her full statement opposing many aspects of the criminal justice system.
Throughout the year, the ACLU was in legislatures across the country promoting smart criminal justice reforms aimed at safely reducing jail and prison populations and dismantling the devastating and ultimately ineffective war on drugs. We were in court fighting abusive police practices and inhumane prison and jail conditions. And we have been relentless in our efforts to end America’s attachment to its cruel and racially discriminatory capital punishment system.
Attorney Paul Mirengoff at Powerline has this commentary on DOJ’s use of expert witnesses:
“The requirements that the DOJ’s witness found blacks less able than whites to comply with are (1) registering to vote before the day of the election and (2) voting in the precinct where one lives. Since one needn’t be at all “sophisticated” to comply with either requirement, the DOJ’s witness, who was paid with our tax dollars, must have little regard for African-Americans.”
“It is amazing what Eric Holder’s minions are willing to say in order to facilitate vote fraud. Up to and including demeaning arguments about the intelligence and sophistication of blacks. The mainstream media can relied upon to avoid publicizing the testimony just provided by Charles Stewart, an MIT political scientist hired by Eric Holder’s Justice Department to testify in a case involving election integrity laws in North Carolina.”
“The NAACP’s expert was another professor, Barry Burden, of the University of Wisconsin. Burden claimed that blacks and Hispanics are less able “to pay the costs of voting” because of the “stark differences between whites, on the one hand, in North Carolina and those of blacks and Latinos in North Carolina.” By costs, Burden was referring to “the time and effort that a voter has to put in in order to participate.” That includes “locating the polling place, getting the right paperwork, understanding who the candidates are, becoming informed.” From his testimony, it was clear that Burden did not think that blacks and Hispanics have the same ability as whites to accomplish basic tasks such as locating a polling place, filling out a one-page voter-registration form, and learning what issues candidates support or oppose.”