The actual headline: “Criticisms of proposed voter fraud rules aired at hearing.”

Once upon a time, Americans would have applauded efforts to contain criminality in our elections.  Now they organize to enable it.

In a piece entitled “America Has Changed, So Voting Rights Act Section 5 Is No Longer Constitutional,” Ilya Shapiro at Cato argues:

Is long past time to declare victory over Jim Crow and move on to a
healthier stage of race relations, particularly with respect to how the
American people elect their government representatives.

The amicus brief in the Shelby case can be found here.

An outstanding opinion piece in the Daily Caller on the latest campaign finance seizures afflicting some incumbents.  Incumbents and advocacy groups recommend new laws, new regulations, and even proposed constitutional amendments to reign in the speech of potential opponents. Read the whole thing.

Senators Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), unhappy with recent increases in political spending, have proposed sweeping new regulations to the federal campaign-finance system. The
duo casts its prescription as an altruistic elixir designed to spare
Americans from the anguish of too much political speech.

But their true motivation is thinly veiled. This proposal for
increased disclosure of political spending, like all other such
regulatory burdens, is designed to benefit entrenched incumbents, making
it more difficult for their critics to speak.

…the senators give away the game by admitting the restrictions they seek have nothing to do with corruption or its appearance – the Supreme Court’s only acceptable government interest worthy of restricting First Amendment rights.  Their concern instead is that, depending on their voters, people who disagree with them may speak – and speak loudly! – in opposition.  They call this potential criticism of their records “sleaze,” but there is another word for it: democracy.  Their job security is not worth impeding Americans’ First Amendment rights.

Nearly two months after overseeing South Carolina’s “most bungled elections,” beleaguered Elections Director Lillian McBride submitted her resignation, effective January 12.

Virginia Congressman Frank Wolf holds the DOJ pursestrings for two more years.  Wolf is intimately familiar with the rot at Holder’s DOJ.  From the presser:

WOLF TO SERVE AS COMMERCE-JUSTICE-SCIENCE

There are some interesting aspects of the DOJ criminal prosecution of Representative Stat Smith.  Smith reached a plead deal involving criminal civil rights violations according to this statement from the FBI.  Smith engaged in two separate schemes.  First, he cast absentee ballots for voters who were ineligible.  This is the most interesting charge because it implicates voter registration procedures in the Bay State.  Why are ineligible voters on the rolls?  Is Section 8 of the National Voter Registration Act being followed by state and local officials, or, are the voter rolls in Smith’s district full of people who should not be on the rolls in the first place?  And if so, the FBI certainly now knows.  If the FBI now knows, will the Civil Rights Division Voting Section do something about it?

Second, Smith requested absentee ballots from voters who were properly on the rolls, but then had them intercepted prior to delivery to the voter.  This is precisely the behavior that Noxubee County Democrat Party Chairman Ike Brown engineered in Mississippi.  Smith then voted and cast the absentee ballots.  One presumes that the voters must have been highly inactive for him to have dared request the ballots.  Once again, this implicates list maintenance issues in the Bay State.  NVRA requires removal of inactive voters after two dormant federal elections.  But two dormant elections is hardly enough dormancy to dare request absentee ballots.  Are there Bay State voters who have been on the rolls and dormant for more than two federal cycles?  If so, those entities now targeting Motor Voter Section 8 violations (See Judicial Watch’s lawsuits in Indiana and Ohio) and others may want to take a closer look at Massachusetts. 

Finally, it is curious that the DOJ pursued civil rights charges, but nobody from the criminal section at the Civil Rights Division appears to have been involved in the case.  Is this the famous partisanship of that division manifesting again?  From the release:

“Representative Stephen Smith, 57, of Everett, Massachusetts, will plead guilty to two misdemeanor counts of deprivation of rights under color of law. . . . The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Eugenia M. Carris of the U.S. Attorney’s Public Corruption Unit for the District of Massachusetts and Trial Attorney Jeffrey E. Tsai of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division’s Public Integrity Section.” 

The Boston Globe-Democrat has more on the voter fraudster and former State Rep. Stat Smith. Will this investigation reach to other officials who may have aided Smith?  Signs point to yes.

South Carolina photo ID law goes into effect with its first election just around the corner.  Perhaps with the Mayan prophecies going unfilled, the hysteria over photo ID requirements will also quiet.

The New Hampshire Union Leader asks a good question – Why try to undo voter ID?

Liberals said New Hampshire’s new voter ID law was unconstitutional.  They said it was going to “disenfranchise” voters.  They said there is no such thing as voter fraud. They were wrong on all counts.  And still they are pushing to overturn the law.  The U.S. Justice Department, run by voter ID opponent Eric Holder, approved the law.  On Election Day, there were no reports of anyone being denied the right to vote because of the law.  The New Hampshire Secretary of State’s Office said there were no cases of disenfranchisement.

Here is the amicus brief in Shelby County for me and a number of former civil rights offcials including Brad Reynolds, Chuck Cooper, Roger Clegg, Bob Driscoll, Brad Schlozman, Clint Bolick and some others.  Filed by the Bancroft firm.

One of the more important parts:

“Instead, both Congress and DOJ have taken a number of actions that have only exacerbated the already-serious constitutional flaws of Section 5. In the 2006 reauthorization of the VRA, Congress abrogated two of this Court’s most important decisions interpreting Section 5, Georgia v. Ashcroft, 539 U.S. 461 (2003), and Reno v. Bossier Parish School Board, 528 U.S. 320 (2000) (“Bossier Parish II“). Both of those decisions relied on the canon of constitutional avoidance and were critical to preventing an unconstitutionally overbroad application of Section 5. Yet the 2006 reauthorization discards Georgia and Bossier Parish II, and significantly expands the substantive grounds on which DOJ or the district court can refuse to preclear a change in voting procedures.”