A “voter suppression” forum in DC discussed here. Voter Suppression = laws which strip convicted felons of the franchise. The best lines:
ACLU’s Laura Murphy “also called on Congress to pass federal legislative reforms including the Democracy Restoration Act, which would restore federal voting rights to those whose political voices are denied due to a past criminal conviction, and stressed the importance of educating the public through additional town halls and briefings on voter suppression nationwide.
Monthly Archives: November 2011
Breaking: DOD, FVAP denies waiver requests from New York for 2012 elections
At the link, FVAP denies the requests from the State of New York for the upcoming primary and general elections. Now, the Voting Section needs to push the federal court to make a decision on suitable primary dates and they need to put a plan in place to monitor on the ground in the counties to ensure uniform compliance. New York is paralyzed and has been unable to feed itself for 2 years. New York has never sent their ballots on time much less at the 45 day marker.
Looks like the Feds are going to have to spoon feed the Empire State.
The Presidential Primary in New York is set for April 24, 2011. Does anyone have a great deal of confidence that New York will have their act together by then and actually get the UOCAVA ballots out the door on time? Of course, with $2.5 million to spend on streamlining the electronic transmission process, the small but growing percentage of ballots provided electronically should not be the problem. The problem for the majority of ground troops will remain their reliance on mail and the ability to receive and send back their ballots.
DOJ should have established a plan to be on the ground in cities and counties to ensure the ballots are uniformly sent out on time. It would be outright negligence for the Voting Section to simply rely on the often inaccurate assertions of state officials who may have no better direct knowledge than the Department. A lack of or outright misleading information can delay by weeks enforcement actions that may be necessary against counties who are not prepared to send ballots on time.
DOJ Voting Section backs off legal fight with South Carolina over senate redistricting plan
Late yesterday, the media here and here relayed the news that the Voting Section of the Department of Justice has finally precleared the newly redistricted lines in the South Carolina state senate. This approval follows a previous delay caused by the Voting Section waiting until the last day of their 60 day review process (September 27, 2011), to make an official request for more information. In many cases, such a request is a precursor to an objection and ultimately spells doom for a redistricting plan.
As ELC first reported in October, DOJ was wandering off the appropriate retrogression analysis and adopting a maximization strategy pushed by the ACLU, NAACP, and other groups. In this case, South Carolina saw right through the juvenile badgering and immediately responded by taking the issue directly to the federal courts. Perhaps after reflection, the Voting Section has backed off from a legal fight that would highlight their actions.
As reported earlier, the Voting Section and front office political leadership in the Civil Rights Division had fallen “hook, line and sinker” for the civil rights group’s desperate lobbying on behalf of a maximization policy in Louisiana, South Carolina, and other states still under review. This unduly intimate relationship resulted in the Voting Section ultimately asking for more information and delaying the approval of the senate plan despite no evidence of retrogression. Is there any doubt that the order to “request more information” came directly from the AAG Perez.
What’s the lesson here? Despite no hint of retrogression, the threat of objection from DOJ was a naked ploy to extract another minority seat in an illegal maximization strategy. Fortunately, South Carolina knew that this request may be forthcoming and promptly filed a complaint with the DC District Court to force sunshine and fairness on the process. The strategy to fight on principle worked.
DOJ had earlier signed off on the South Carolina congressional and state house plan. Now after backing down off the senate plan, all of the new lines on a statewide level have been approved. While still subject to private litigation, the biggest hurdles to redistricting in South Carolina have been successfully cleared.
Voter ID = Poll Tax = Jim Crow
So say some at CNS.com.
Wisconsin voter fraud investigation
Strong racial polarization in Obama re-elect
A new CNN poll.
More on Senator Vitter on Louisiana NVRA lawsuit by DOJ
Law Enforcement in St. Bernard Parish linked to Illegal voting
Some crack investigative reporting by Lee Zurik who reveals multiple examples of law enforcement in St. Tammany parish registered to vote in St. Bernard where they illegally cast a vote. This could be a huge scandal and election officials are not happy. In most states, that would be a felony. I recommend a read of the full article.
That is absolutely blatant on the surface,” says Secretary of State Tom Schedler.
A stack of documents has 20 other sheriff’s department employees who live and have homestead exemptions outside of St. Bernard but voted in the parish last month. Many had a spouse who cast a ballot too.
According to the Secretary of State, that’s against the law. Almost two dozen people who wear a badge and enforce the law have broken the law themselves.
Schedler says people in St. Bernard Parish who have homestead exemptions in other parishes but voted in St. Bernard would absolutely be against the law.
But there’s more. FOX 8 requested all of the early voting records for last month’s election; all 720 pages totaling more than 4,100 votes.
We did some computer analysis and found many questionable addressed.Five people are registered to vote at an address on East Urquhart Street in Chalmette. They include St. Bernard Clerk of Court Lena Torres and her daughter, Chief Deputy clerk Lena Nunez. Torres and Nunez live in the home.
Senator David Vitter to Eric Holder: You can’t cherry pick election laws.
Senator David Vitter has fired off a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder criticizing his lawsuit against Louisiana under Section 7 of the National Voter Registration Act. The Justice Department is aggressively (more on how aggressively later) enforcing Section 7, but refusing thus far to enforce Section 8 of the same law which requires states to remove dead and ineligible voters. There are some rumors this three year old slumber may soon end, but it hasn’t yet. I will be in Tulane tomorrow to discuss Senator Vitter’s demand of Eric Holder as well as the Section 7 case against the Bobby Jindal administration. Senator Vitter’s Press Release: Vitter: DOJ Can’t Just Pick and Choose Which Voter Registration Laws to Enforce November 15, 2011 The Honorable Eric H. Holder, Jr. Attorney General U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530 Dear Attorney General Holder: Sincerely, David Vitter United States Senator
(Washington, D.C.) – U.S. Sen. David Vitter today called on the U.S. Department of Justice to be consistent in their efforts to enforce the National Voter Registration Act. In a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder, Vitter highlights that DOJ has recently filed a lawsuit against Louisiana alleging the state has not complied with Section 7 of NVRA, yet has done nothing to enforce Section 8 in other states.
Section 7 of NVRA requires certain government offices, such as those who provide welfare assistance, to provide voter registration forms. Section 8 requires states to conduct voter roll cleaning to purge ineligible felons, illegal aliens and deceased voters from corrupting the election process. The two provisions act together as counterparts.
“If the Department of Justice is going to come down to Louisiana with undercover investigators to check on one section of voter registration law – the other sections better get enforced too,” Vitter said. “They can’t just pick and choose which sections to enforce, but unfortunately that’s preciously what they’re doing. They’re allowing some states to keep felons, illegal aliens and dead people on their voter rolls, which is a clear violation of the law.”
The text of Vitter’s letter to Attorney General Eric Holder is below.
I’m deeply concerned with the Department of Justice’s selective enforcement of the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), including in my state, Louisiana. News reports indicate that valuable resources were used to send undercover investigators to my state of Louisiana to interview welfare recipients to determine if state welfare offices are urging them to register to vote. The Department later filed a lawsuit against Louisiana alleging that the state has violated its obligations under Section 7 of the NVRA.
However, at the same time, absolutely no effort is being made to enforce Section 8 of the same law. Section 8 requires states to conduct voter roll cleaning to purge ineligible felons and dead voters from corrupting the election process. The two provisions act together as counterparts, but it is evident that the Justice Department is not enforcing them equally.
Section 8 is a key component of the law, because the longer these fraudulent names remain on a registration list, the greater the chances that a fraudulent vote will be cast in their names. As we approach an important presidential election in 2012, your dedication to enforcing both sections of the law to avoid fraud is paramount.
In recent years there have been reports that the administration is not interested in enforcing the Section 8 provision of the law. Christopher Coates, former Chief of the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division, testified before the U.S. Civil Rights Commission that Julie Fernandez, who was appointed as the Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights in 2009, told the Voting Section that the Obama administration was not interested in issues related to Section 8 and list maintenance enforcement activity.
In 2009 the administration dismissed without explanation a lawsuit filed against Missouri Secretary of State Robin
Carnahan during the Bush administration over her failure to comply with Section 8. Former Voting Section lawyer Christian Adams confirmed this in his 2010 testimony before the U.S. Civil Rights Commission. Since returning to private practice, Adams has sent a series of warning letters to sixteen states in obvious violation of the law. These allegations are not based on mere speculation, but on a report filed with Congress by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission in June 2009 on the impact of the NVRA. The report includes voter-registration statistics for 2006-2008. According to the data, several states including Maryland, Arkansas, Massachusetts, Oregon, and Tennessee did not remove a single dead voter during that two-year reporting period.
Adams has utilized the private right of action under the NVRA because the Justice Department has inexplicably refused to sue any of these states for violation of Section 8. Even worse, South Dakota, Mississippi, Texas, Kentucky, and Indiana all have more registered voters than people of voting age according to the Census. According to the EAC report, eight states appeared to be in major noncompliance with the list maintenance requirements of Section 8 of the NVRA, yet the Civil Rights Division failed to take any action. Christopher Coates has also testified that while he was Chief of the Voting Section, he actually assigned attorneys to work on this matter but was never given approval to go forward with Section 8 list maintenance investigations in any of these states.
I agree with Coates’ statement that it is an abuse of discretion to “decide not to do any enforcement of a law enacted by Congress, because political appointees determine that they are not interested in enforcing that law.” I can think of no justifiable reason why the section of the Justice Department tasked with the responsibility of enforcing the NVRA failed to do so. It’s appalling that a private citizen has to carry out the responsibility of the Justice Department. I am especially concerned that the Department appears to have refused to fulfill its duty for ideological and political reasons that have nothing to do with the impartial administration of justice.
When Tom Perez, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division, announced the lawsuit against Louisiana, he stated: “The department is committed to enforcing the National Voter Registration Act so that neither income nor disability status stands in the way of equal voter registration opportunities for all citizens.” Justice must fully enforce this law, rather than refusing to enforce the voter list integrity provisions while making the welfare agency registration law its top priority. The Civil Rights Division does not have the right to pick and choose which laws are worthy of enforcement and which ones are not. I urge you to personally ensure that the Justice Department does not enable voter fraud by neglecting to enforce Section 8 of the NVRA.
I look forward to your response, detailing exactly how the Department of Justice will ensure full enforcement of all sections of the law, including Section 8.
South Carolina Democrats call redistricting racial apartheid
More racial bomb throwing at the link. South Carolina Democrats are now using the judicial process to smear Republicans as racists. This distasteful outburst comes over the South Carolina congressional redistricting plan adopted by the legislature and recently approved by the Obama DOJ. These comments are very similar to the outrageous comments made by Democratic National Committee (DNC) Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, who compared voter ID laws to Jim Crow racial legislation. In that instance, because of the inflammatory nature of the comments, she retracted her statement. One wonders if the Democrat leaders in South Carolina will demand a retraction from Chairman Harpootlian. Here is an excerpt of the article:
State Democratic Party Chairman Dick Harpootlian filed the lawsuit on behalf of six African-American voters in Florence, Sumter, Georgetown, Berkeley, Darlington and Charleston counties and said that the state’s new redistricting plans amounted to “voting apartheid.”
The lawsuit, filed against Governor Nikki Haley, the Legislature and other state officials, claims that the new district lines create a system that segregates white and black voters and essentially puts a large amount of black voters into one congressional district.
Friday, Harpootlian told the Associated Press, “The congressional reapportionment plan passed by this Legislature and signed by this governor is racial apartheid in that it segregates our state by congressional districts.”