Members of the House have proposed legislation that would prevent
people from straight-ticket voting in federal elections, a measure they
hope will weaken voters’ allegiance to the major parties.  Currently, 14 states allow straight-ticket voting, which lets voters
pick all the Republicans or Democrats with a single punch or mark on the
ballot.  Link to story

Non citizens registered to vote, forged applications.

We’ve heard a great deal about how eliminating Section 5 and requiring plaintiffs to rely on Section 2 will saddle victims of discrimination with the awful “burden” shift. 

If Section 2 is so “burdensome” to plaintiffs, maybe Sullivan and Cromwell can take the case for free.  After all, they spent (or some might say wasted considering they lost) enormous amounts of money attacking South Carolina Voter ID in the preclearance context under Section 5.

One of the most powerful (or literally, burdensome) parts of Section 5 is the burden shift. Advocates of Section 5 like to say that Section 2 is inadequate because the burden shifts to the plaintiffs to bring and prove a case.

As I said yesterday at the Florida International University law school – the plaintiffs indeed carry the burden in a Section 2 case – just like they do in every single other cause of action in American law!  It isn’t a radical departure from legal traditions to require plaintiffs to actually prove a case in court with evidence, rather oppose an election change with DOJ bureaucrats with innuendo about racial intent.

In theory, that’s an attractive principle. But let’s examine it in practice as it relates to Sullivan and Cromwell.

In the South Carolina Voter ID lawsuit, the League of Women Voters intervened.  This intervention cost the taxpayers of South Carolina significant amounts of money. The wolf pack of intervenors demanded deposition time, conducted depositions and were allowed to engage in expensive and burdensome discovery.  Sullivan and Cromwell paid the freight, or perhaps more appropriately, their paying clients did. (peruse a sample).  This third party intervention burden was a topic in my brief in the Shelby v. Holder case.

Obviously there is lots of money and lawyer time at Sullivan and Cromwell to throw at Voting Rights Act litigation, money we’d presume would still be available for Section 2 cases.  If so, then perhaps the “burden” on a plaintiff isn’t so bad if Section 5 is struck down.  After all a plaintiff can still call the lawyers at Sullivan and Cromwell at 202-956-7500 and ask them to give a Section 2 defendant as hard of a time as they gave South Carolina.

 

“Telling people they should be voting only if they’re voting among
those of their own kind and encouraging racial segregation and racial
gerrymandering is quite at odds with the original ideals of the Voting
Rights Act and the civil rights movement,” said Roger Clegg, president
and general counsel at the Center for Equal Opportunity.

Link to full story.

 Link.

Classic Jeff Jacoby at the Boston Globe on the continuing fever by liberals over Citizens United.

It’s strange that liberal Democrats should still be so obsessed with
Citizens United. Yet obsessed they are, as Representative Ed Markey of
Massachusetts confirmed last week, when he resurrected the Dred Scott comparison during a campaign speech in Pittsfield.

Markey told voters that he is running to replace John Kerry in the
Senate “in order to fight for a constitutional amendment to repeal
Citizens United. . . . The Dred Scott decision had to be repealed; we
have to repeal Citizens United.” Critics pounced. Markey’s Democratic
rival, US Representative Stephen Lynch, rebuked Markey for likening a
campaign-finance case to the infamous 1857 decision that “perpetuated
the horror of slavery.”

 Link.  “It doesn’t matter how many supervisors of elections complain that their small Florida counties don’t need 14 days of early voting and can’t pay for them, 14 days should be the law say Senate Democrats.”

What else is new?  Minnesota Public Radio.

According to the Elon University poll conducted in North Carolina, 77% of citizens making under $25,000 support voter ID with only 22% opposing.  Those citizens the Democrats claim have the most problems are the most supportive. 

Tom Brokaw on Meet the Press this Sunday (at minute 3:40 at the link) shows how little he knows of voting issues:

“there is a heck of a lot of voter suppression around the country even in Democratic district and Republican districts…..because Secretaries of State control where the voting booths are and who gets to vote under what circumstances, we ought to change that.

And he wants to give the power of location of polling booths to who?  the federal government?  Tom Brokaw should stick with the World War II greatest generation nostalgia and not try to opine on why Section 5 may still remain relevant today.  After 50 years in the press and politics business, he really has no clue on the fundamentals of elections.  He should do a documentary to educate himself.  I doubt he can point to Secretaries of State across the country that actually choose the location of polling places in counties or cities much less where the voting booths will be located within a polling place like some fashion designer. 
The Left really has no idea that elections are essentially a local issue run by local election officials.  More importantly, the determination on who is eligible or ineligible to vote is largely one determined by the state constitution or duly passed individual state laws.  So again contrary to the wisdom of Mr. Brokaw, Secretaries of State have little to do with the eligibility of voters set by the state legislatures or state constitutions.  Tom Brokaw has been hanging around the MSNBC studios too long.