More from the memo filed by Florida today:

“DOJ crosses even further into the realm of conclusory and unsubstantiated
speculation by asserting that the Secretary’s use of MDAVE data is “discriminatory.” DOJ cites
a single source to support this claim: a news report “indicat[ing] that the program may have a disproportionate impact on minority voters” because “87 percent of those on the 2,600-person list are minorities.” U.S. Mem. 17 & n.6 (emphasis added). As a threshold matter, a single media report speculating that the MDAVE data “may” have a disparate impact is obviously not competent evidence to support any judgment or relief.”

This is a great example of the sort of evidence that would not be cited to justify a TRO during the Bush administration – news reports on statistical disparity.  Either this evidentiary foundation escaped the eye of the Section Chief, or the Section Chief has new standards of proof.

More from the memo filed by Florida today:

“DOJ crosses even further into the realm of conclusory and unsubstantiated
speculation by asserting that the Secretary’s use of MDAVE data is “discriminatory.” DOJ cites
a single source to support this claim: a news report “indicat[ing] that the program may have a disproportionate impact on minority voters” because “87 percent of those on the 2,600-person list are minorities.” U.S. Mem. 17 & n.6 (emphasis added). As a threshold matter, a single media report speculating that the MDAVE data “may” have a disparate impact is obviously not competent evidence to support any judgment or relief.”

This is a great example of the sort of evidence that would not be cited to justify a TRO during the Bush administration – news reports on statistical disparity.  Either this evidentiary foundation escaped the eye of the Section Chief, or the Section Chief has new standards of proof.