Author Archives: J Christian Adams

MSNBC Panel on Section 5

Since hardly anyone watches MSNBC, reposting here an MSNBC discussion on the Voting Rights Act with some old familiar faces.






“Racism has taken a different face.  It is kind of concealed.”  While you are watching the video, remember that Chris Hayes, the host, is the same person that said he felt “uncomfortable” calling servicemembers killed in action “heroes” because it can be used to justify unjust wars.  Respectable fellow he is.



“Voting Rights Act Stuck in the Past”

Washington Post’s George Will: “Progressives are remarkably uninterested in progress.  . . .  Chief Justice John Roberts, noting that Massachusetts has the worst rate of white turnout compared with that of blacks, and that Mississippi has the best, asked Solicitor General Donald Verrilli: “Is it the government’s submission that the citizens in the South are more racist than citizens of the North?” Verrilli said no. His answer was obviously false. Otherwise, the administration would favor extending Section 5 to the entire nation.”

Ouch.

Of course Robert’s question reminds me of a passage in Injustice about the actual attitudes of DOJ officials about whether the government thinks citizens in the South are more racist:

“Civil rights laws are no longer great moral levelers, providing equal opportunity and breaking down legal barriers. Instead, Ike Brown and his allies at the DOJ view civil rights laws as a system for redistributing wealth and power along racial lines. Voting Section visits to the deep South are seen by some as expeditions to alien territory. Anyone who questions this simplistic worldview must be a racist, if not an outright Klansman.”

The orginal draft of my book had much more detail on this point, in particular, one draft detailed a discussion between two Voting Section lawyers in Texas.  The conversation revealed the negative attitudes toward Texans by one of the Voting Section lawyers.  And yes, it was awfully obvious, that this “government [official’s] submission [was] that the citizens in the South are more racist than citizens of the North.”

Section 5 reauthorization based on questionable objection in small town of 2,202 people

The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court noted during the oral argument that in the year before reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act, there was 3700 submissions under Section 5.  Of that high total, there was a total of one objection in that crucial year prior the reauthorization hearings.  That objection appears to be focused on the town of Delhi, Louisiana with a current population of 2919 people.  During the Civil War, historians reported “Union sympathy” in the city so the town was not exactly a hotbed of racial discrimination.

In 2005, it had 2,202 people and the 2000 Census revealed 51% voting age African American population in the city.  All things being considered, you would expect roughly half representation on any local government to be fair distribution of power.  However, the Department of Justice Voting Section objected under the max-black theory, that the town needed to maximize their black representation with four members instead of three minority council members out of what appears to be a total of five members on the council.  A supermajority of black representation was the only way for this small town to avoid an objection, a clear majority was not going to be good enough.

Not surprising, the idea of DOJ providing a clean record to Congress in 2005 was simply out of the question. 

“Section 5 is a politicized weapon wielded by DOJ”

 National Review:


“Liberal groups may very soon see a provision of the Voting Rights Act they cherish and exploit declared unconstitutional because they would not listen to the Supreme Court’s warning about its deficiencies.


Instead, they engaged in a reactionary defense of a sweeping federal power that badly needed updating and retooling. Now they may lose it all, if Wednesday’s hearing before the Supreme Court on Shelby County v. Holder, a challenge to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, provides any clues. . . .

I’ll put it more bluntly. Congress has now renewed Section 5’s provisions without any changes a total of four times, in large part because members who voted against renewing it were bound to be criticized as racists. In other words, the votes to renew Section 5 were legislators at their least courageous. . . .

The reality today is that Section 5 has become a politicized weapon wielded by the Justice Department, which last year, for example, used it to block South Carolina’s adoption of a voter-ID law. A federal court found Justice’s objection to be without merit and based on dubious evidence of discrimination; the court ordered that South Carolina be reimbursed for its legal costs. As Hans von Spakovsky of the Heritage Foundation notes: “Of the 12,000 covered states, municipalities, counties, city governments, in the last ten years, there have only been 37 objections under Section 5.””

Justice Sotomayor wrong on the facts – Alabama has one objection in 12 years


Justice Sotomayor was quick out of the gate alleging discrimination and 240 violations of the Voting Rights Act in Alabama.  


When Bert Rein, the attorney representing Shelby County, commented that “the South had changed,” Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, responded, “Your county pretty much hasn’t.” She called Shelby County the “epitome” of why Section 5, which imposes the pre-clearance requirement on all or part of 16 states, is still needed.  One of the cities in the county, Calera, redrew political boundaries five years ago in a way the Justice Department rejected as discriminatory under Section 5. And Sotomayor said there were 240 instances of the Voting Rights Act being used successfully to block or dismantle discriminatory voting changes in Alabama.

“You may be the wrong party bringing this,” Sotomayor told Rein.

Alabama actually has had just one objection in 12 years.  One city council decision that got on the wrong side of the DOJ.  Yet all of Alabama and the country has to pay for the sins of Alabama 30 years ago for another 25 years.  Sotomayor was visibly angry, so angry she distorted the facts.  

Democrat Election Commissioner Arrested

From KUAM:

Carillo told the agents, “I know why you guys are here, because of the marijuana.” While he allegedly denied knowledge of the contents of the package, when asked why he opened it, Carillo responded, “We always do that.” During the execution of a search warrant, agents found a glass pipe, a metal grinder, packaging material, scales and a small amount of marijuana. They also found a “substantial” amount of marijuana in a clear square plastic container and empty plastic bags containing suspected marijuana residue within and under the center console of a vehicle that belongs to Carillo’s girlfriend.

Carillo also allegedly admitted to texting a friend to come over and smoke with him. Court documents indicated that Carillo identified him as Fernando Santos. Santos was interviewed and said he previously purchased marijuana from Carillo, who also allegedly admitted to smoking with “a lot of other guys from Yigo” and smoking “as much as he can, up to half an ounce a week“. Zaani Branch denied knowing of packages being sent to him at the house or that packages were being opened by others on his behalf.

Carillo and Carlo Branch are both employed at Vice Speaker B.J. Cruz’s Office. Carlo Branch is the vice speaker’s chief policy analyst. He did not answer calls today for comment about the incident at his home.