Yesterday I reported on the problems with the Merced California bailout and how the flurry of bailouts (some granted improperly) is being used to help save Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.  Today, Hans von Spakovsky delivers over at National Review “Crooked Justice.”  Some highlights:

“But there’s one big problem for New Hampshire: For almost all of the 44 years that it has been covered under Section 5, New Hampshire has failed to comply with the law. The two townships and eight towns failed to submit for preclearance many voting changes they have made over that period. In fact, a November 18 internal DOJ memorandum sent by Chris Herren, chief of the voting section, to Thomas Perez, assistant attorney general for civil rights, confirms that “town officials uniformly indicated that they were not aware of their obligations under Section 5.” Clearly, then, they don’t meet the ten-year “clean record” criterion needed to qualify for bailout.”

[Ponder this.  National Review says that the jurisdictions DIDN’T EVEN KNOW THEY WERE COVERED BY THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT.  That’s what I’ve called the Granite State Free Ride.  Why does the Granite State Free Ride matter?  It matters because it speaks to whether the Section 4 triggers are congruent and proportional, if they make sense.  If a jurisdiction covered by the triggers didn’t even know they were covered for the last 44 year and the DOJ gave them a free ride, it speaks directly to whether the triggers make any sense.  More from Hans:]

An internal Civil Rights Division report compiled on September 10, 2012, listed 90 unsubmitted voting changes made by New Hampshire jurisdictions subject to Section 5. This was, apparently, too many for the Civil Rights Division to be able to gloss over. So the department generated a “revised” list on September 27 that identified “only” 20 uncleared changes. Whether they’re 90 or 20, however, they render New Hampshire ineligible for bailout. . . .

“Contrast this DOJ fast-tracking of New Hampshire’s patently unqualified bailout request with its conduct in the Shelby County case. In Shelby, the district court noted that DOJ had objected in 2008 to an annexation of the city of Calera, a “governmental unit” within Shelby County, and that Shelby County held several special elections under one county ordinance that had not been submitted to DOJ for preclearance. That’s right — there was only one prior objection and only one voting change (not 20 or 90) that had not been submitted. Yet DOJ asked the court for six months of discovery to investigate Shelby County’s eligibility for bailout. The court denied the request and permitted no discovery into the eligibility question.”

[The Yankees get a smooth ride while the Southerners get the third degree.]

“Most minority contacts in New Hampshire opposed bailout because of perceived racial discrimination. Combined with the fact that the voter-registration rate in more than half of the covered jurisdictions is lower than the state average, such findings of noncompliance would have been the death knell for a bailout application when I worked in the Civil Rights Division. . . . “

So why the big hurry with New Hampshire and the refusal of the Justice Department to comply with the bailout requirements of Section 5? Sources tell me it’s because Justice wants to be able to get up before the Supreme Court in the Shelby County case and show that an entire state was able to bail out of Section 5. They want to argue that there is a viable way out for covered jurisdictions, including states, and that therefore the Supreme Court should not decide the constitutional issue. Justice officials are afraid that otherwise the Court will overturn Section 5. According to former Voting Section lawyer Christian Adams, DOJ has worked a similar deception in another bailout case involving Merced County, California.”

[It will be interesting to see what happened in other internal DOJ memos involving bailout.  But even more interesting will be whether DOJ abandons this bailout life raft because the costs of this information getting before the Supreme Court may be greater than the benefit of the flurry of bailouts.  It may be best to abandon the bailout blizzard argument and start arguing the Congressional records supports the triggers. Otherwise, the Justice Department may look like a shady dealer to Justice Roberts and Kennedy.]

Yesterday I reported on the problems with the Merced California bailout and how the flurry of bailouts (some granted improperly) is being used to help save Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.  Today, Hans von Spakovsky delivers over at National Review “Crooked Justice.”  Some highlights:

“But there’s one big problem for New Hampshire: For almost all of the 44 years that it has been covered under Section 5, New Hampshire has failed to comply with the law. The two townships and eight towns failed to submit for preclearance many voting changes they have made over that period. In fact, a November 18 internal DOJ memorandum sent by Chris Herren, chief of the voting section, to Thomas Perez, assistant attorney general for civil rights, confirms that “town officials uniformly indicated that they were not aware of their obligations under Section 5.” Clearly, then, they don’t meet the ten-year “clean record” criterion needed to qualify for bailout.”

[Ponder this.  National Review says that the jurisdictions DIDN’T EVEN KNOW THEY WERE COVERED BY THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT.  That’s what I’ve called the Granite State Free Ride.  Why does the Granite State Free Ride matter?  It matters because it speaks to whether the Section 4 triggers are congruent and proportional, if they make sense.  If a jurisdiction covered by the triggers didn’t even know they were covered for the last 44 year and the DOJ gave them a free ride, it speaks directly to whether the triggers make any sense.  More from Hans:]

An internal Civil Rights Division report compiled on September 10, 2012, listed 90 unsubmitted voting changes made by New Hampshire jurisdictions subject to Section 5. This was, apparently, too many for the Civil Rights Division to be able to gloss over. So the department generated a “revised” list on September 27 that identified “only” 20 uncleared changes. Whether they’re 90 or 20, however, they render New Hampshire ineligible for bailout. . . .

“Contrast this DOJ fast-tracking of New Hampshire’s patently unqualified bailout request with its conduct in the Shelby County case. In Shelby, the district court noted that DOJ had objected in 2008 to an annexation of the city of Calera, a “governmental unit” within Shelby County, and that Shelby County held several special elections under one county ordinance that had not been submitted to DOJ for preclearance. That’s right — there was only one prior objection and only one voting change (not 20 or 90) that had not been submitted. Yet DOJ asked the court for six months of discovery to investigate Shelby County’s eligibility for bailout. The court denied the request and permitted no discovery into the eligibility question.”

[The Yankees get a smooth ride while the Southerners get the third degree.]

“Most minority contacts in New Hampshire opposed bailout because of perceived racial discrimination. Combined with the fact that the voter-registration rate in more than half of the covered jurisdictions is lower than the state average, such findings of noncompliance would have been the death knell for a bailout application when I worked in the Civil Rights Division. . . . “

So why the big hurry with New Hampshire and the refusal of the Justice Department to comply with the bailout requirements of Section 5? Sources tell me it’s because Justice wants to be able to get up before the Supreme Court in the Shelby County case and show that an entire state was able to bail out of Section 5. They want to argue that there is a viable way out for covered jurisdictions, including states, and that therefore the Supreme Court should not decide the constitutional issue. Justice officials are afraid that otherwise the Court will overturn Section 5. According to former Voting Section lawyer Christian Adams, DOJ has worked a similar deception in another bailout case involving Merced County, California.”

[It will be interesting to see what happened in other internal DOJ memos involving bailout.  But even more interesting will be whether DOJ abandons this bailout life raft because the costs of this information getting before the Supreme Court may be greater than the benefit of the flurry of bailouts.  It may be best to abandon the bailout blizzard argument and start arguing the Congressional records supports the triggers. Otherwise, the Justice Department may look like a shady dealer to Justice Roberts and Kennedy.]