Here.

More here.

Will someone act?

Full editorial here.

Fayetteville Observer editorial.

More here.

The Springfield News leader has an editorial against Voter ID.  It includes this error:

“Further, it is totally unnecessary as there has not been one instance of voter fraud in Missouri.”

Really?  Try this out.

Tucson Citizen.

The Town Talk editorial discusses redistricting in Louisiana.  Of course it contains this error:

“Lawmakers will be in hurry-up mode. Whatever they propose will have to survive the scrutiny of the U.S. Department of Justice, as required by the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and be done in time to accommodate the primary and general elections later this year.”

This is not true.  All states covered by Section 5 can submit plans directly to the federal court and bypass the Department of Justice.

Published today at National Review  about the Department of Justice and the enforcement of the Voting Rights Act.

“The lesson here is that Republican-controlled legislatures that have drawn up redistricting plans that Democrats don’t like would be foolish to submit those plans to the Civil Rights Division for administrative review. Instead, they should go straight to the federal district court in D.C., the alternative procedure set forth in the Voting Rights Act.

States must understand that they cannot expect to get an impartial hearing from this Justice Department. They may still get a panel of liberal judges in federal court, but at least normal evidentiary standards will apply. In court, DOJ will have to provide actual evidence of discrimination — not the rank hearsay and imaginary evidence often considered in its own administrative review. Moreover, states will be able to cross-examine their accusers in court. That doesn’t happen in the administrative setting. Indeed, the Justice Department often refuses to even tell states who has accused them of discrimination in their redistricting process.”

I have made the same conclusions here and here  and here.

More at PJ Tatler.