Pajamas has this disturbing account of a military voting mess in Texas, as told by a blue star mom.  Read this if you really want to know what is happening out there.  Worst of all, she is a trained election official and still couldn’t help.

Fox coverage of DOJ’s military ballot settlement.  Eric Eversole says it is inadequate.  The settlement extends the deadline one day.  It also has different deadlines to count ballots in different counties.  Can you say Bush v. Gore problem?

Air Force Times has the story:

“Our brave men and women serving America’s interests overseas should have their votes counted accurately and in a timely matter. When it comes to ensuring military votes, compliance is non-negotiable.”  Said Rep. Wilson.

Negotiable?   Perhaps this refers to all of the deals cut with noncompliant states that circumvented the express Congressional mandatory mail out deadline 45 days before the election.  Rep. Joe Wilson is my old Congressman.  He is an officer himself and his son did tours in Iraq.  He is just the right person to lead on this issue. 

Pajamas Media, where I am a contributor, has launched a project to collect  information about servicemembers who have received ballots late, not at all, or, encountered other problems with participation in the elections.   Maybe you contacted election officials and it solved the problem; maybe not.  Maybe you contacted the DOJ to complain and you then obtained a ballot; maybe not.  Maybe you got your ballot in time to use the express mail seven day option; or not. 

Either way,  Congress will be examining what went wrong in 2010 with military ballots.  Changes to the law may be forthcoming.

Here’s how military members, and military families, can make a difference. 

Pajamas Media wants to hear your stories.  My latest piece at Pajamas Media explains some of the problems, and tells you how you can get involved to make the system better for 2012.  Click here for more information.

Full article here.  Some parts (Washington Post portions indented):

As to the administration’s mindset:

Civil rights officials from the Bush administration have said that enforcement should be race-neutral. But some officials from the Obama administration, which took office vowing to reinvigorate civil rights enforcement, thought the agency should focus primarily on cases filed on behalf of minorities.

“The Voting Rights Act was passed because people like Bull Connor were hitting people like John Lewis, not the other way around,” said one Justice Department official not authorized to speak publicly, referring to the white Alabama police commissioner who cracked down on civil rights protesters such as Lewis, now a Democratic congressman from Georgia.

Translation: J. Christian Adams and Chris Coates, two former trial attorneys, testified truthfully under oath on this point; civil rights chief Thomas Perez did not.

As for the involvement of higher-ups:

Asked at a civil rights commission hearing in May whether any of the department’s political leadership was “involved in” the decision to dismiss the Panthers case, assistant attorney general for civil rights Thomas E. Perez said no.

“This is a case about career people disagreeing with career people,” said Perez, who was not in the department at the time. He also said that political appointees are regularly briefed on civil rights cases and, whenever there is a potentially controversial decision, “we obviously communicate that up the chain.”

Justice Department records turned over in a lawsuit to the conservative group Judicial Watch show a flurry of e-mails between the Civil Rights Division and the office of Associate Attorney General Thomas Perelli, a political appointee who supervises the division.

Translation: Perez did not exactly say the truth under oath.

The administration must be awfully panicky. Lots of DOJ  attorneys assisted in preparing false responses to discovery requests from the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. The administration repeatedly misrepresented the facts in public. The Justice Department tried to prevent percipient witnesses from testifying pursuant to subpoenas. Perez testified under oath untruthfully. The  Obama administration stonewalled both the commission and congressmen trying to uncover the facts which conservative outlets and now the Post have revealed. The DOJ tried to bully attorneys who were prepared to tell the truth. There is a term for that: obstruction of justice.

One of the most peculiar things about the Black Panther scandal is how many times DOJ could have fixed the problem, defused the controversy, and made it all go away.  With the publication of the front page Washington Post story, the opportunity for DOJ to fix the problem renews.  What is new?  Admissions by DOJ officials that the law wasn’t designed to protect everyone for starters.  Also new is the fact that the Washington Post sourced at least three lawyers still inside the Voting Section or Civil Rights Division corroborating my testimony and the Coates testimony.  They risk an avalanche of leaks now.  This is their chance to confess error and do something tangible to put the story in the rear view mirror.  Letting some air out of the balloon before the election would serve them well.  More dishonest denials will not. 

I write about what they should do at Pajamas Media here.

“In the great American tradition of self-reliance, citizen watchdogs across the country may stand watch in 2012. If the government proves incapable of protecting electoral integrity, the people can.” 

Full story here.

In a brief filed yesterday in the case of Lepak v. City of Irving, the United States Department of Justice argues that non-citizens should count when drawing districts for state offices.  This has the effect of diluting citizen representation.  A couple of points:

1. Justice did not need to file an amicus in this case.  This was a deliberate decision to take a position that would result in the dilution of citizen voters.  They could have stayed on the sidelines.

2. The effect of the position would be to allow non-citizens to dilute the voting strength of citizens.  For example, in a legislative district with a heavy illegal population (which would be counted for redistricting purposes) citizens in there would receive more representation than citizens in another district free from illegal aliens.  For example, if each district must be 100,000 people, regardless of citizenship, a district with only 60,000 citizens would have the same number of legislators (1) as the district with 100,000 legal U.S. citizens under the DOJ’s argument.  (Under one-man-one-vote rules the districts must be the same number of people).  How you define “people” is at the center of this dispute.

The central question is: should illegals be considered (and non-US citizens with green cards) when drawing districts.  The position of the DOJ would dilute the voting strength of law abiding U.S. Citizens by counting illegal aliens.  The DOJ rightly points out that courts have usually looked at total population.  The Constitution requires it for Congress, but is silent as to state offices.  The Irving case will decide whether non-citizens should count in picking legislative districts.  This case is designed to go to the U.S. Supreme Court, so don’t get to focused on what happens at the trial court. 

UPDATE: A meaty discussion of this case was published some months ago here.

Some will be surprised to learn about this new agenda item – allowing non-citizens to participate in American elections, legally.  It is already the law in portions of New England, Maryland and for Chicago school board.

More at the Washington Independent blog.

An update to a story from earlier this week. 

“A federal judge in North Dakota blocked Benson County from closing two of three voting stations on or near the Spirit Lake Reservation, a move that would have saved the county $12,000 but likely would have prevented some tribe members from voting.”