Why?  For the reasons I and Hans von Spakovsky wrote about yesterday. From the brief:

This Court may take notice of two additional matters. First, the Supreme Court has
granted a petition for writ of certiorari to this Court in Shelby County v. Holder, a case that
challenges the constitutionality of the 2006 reauthorization of Section 5. Shelby County v.
Holder, 2012 WL 3018430 (U.S. Nov. 9, 2012). Part of the defense of the constitutionality of
that statute is that the provisions permitting bail-in and bailout ensure that the statute remains
focused on the jurisdictions with the worst records, and that the bailout provision can be readily
used by covered jurisdictions with clean records. Shelby County v. Holder, 679 F.3d 848, 881-
82 (D.C. Cir. 2012), cert. granted, 2012 WL 3018430 (U.S. Nov. 9, 2012). Indeed, one of
plaintiff’s attorneys has cited this case and other bailout cases as an important reason why the
Supreme Court should uphold the constitutionality of Section 5. Gerry Hebert, The Shelby
County, Alabama Case and Bailouts (Nov. 15, 2012), available at www.clcblog.org. The
Attorney General thus has an incentive to interpret the bailout conditions very liberally, and his
effort to defend the constitutionality of Section 5 in Shelby County seems likely to influence his
determination of whether the bailout conditions have been met here.


Second, earlier this year, the Attorney General agreed to a consent decree permitting
bailout in which the covered jurisdiction admittedly had enforced changes in voting laws without
preclearance. Consent Judgment and Decree in Merced County v. Holder, D.D.C. No. 12-cv-
00354-TRH-DST-ABJ filed August 31, 2012 (Doc. No. 11) ¶ 29 (“Some recent submissions
were made after the Attorney General reviewed the records of the County and the political
subjurisdictions in the course of considering the County’s bailout request and advised that it
appeared that several potential voting changes had not previously been submitted to the Attorney
General over the preceding ten years.”). This only gives further support to the belief that the
Case 1:12-cv-01854-EGS-TBG-RMC Document 6 Filed 12/05/12 Page 10 of 12
1 Movant’s proposed motion to dismiss accompanies this motion as an exhibit. While a
motion to dismiss is technically not a “pleading,” courts have repeatedly interpreted the
“pleading” requirement of Rule 24(c) liberally so as to include a proposed motion to dismiss that
makes clear the proposed intervenor’s position. New Century Bank v. Open Solutions, Inc., 2011
WL 1666926, *3 (E.D. Pa. May 2, 2011) (citing authorities); Danner Constr. Co. v.
Hillsborough County, 2009 WL 2525486, *2 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 17, 2009) (ruling that a motion to
dismiss suffices under Rule 24(c), and rejecting an overly strict interpretation of that rule).
9
Attorney General, at least while Shelby County is before the Supreme Court, is not going to
argue that full adherence to the bailout conditions must be met before this Court may issue the
requested declaratory judgment.

Vadum has the goods on Mock.

“The Left’s vicious all-out assault on electoral integrity this past election cycle was largely funded by the nation’s most radical labor union and the man who brought you Rice Krispies.

The Battle Creek, Michigan-based W.K. Kellogg Foundation funneled a staggering $5.2 million in grants to the Applied Research Center (ARC), which churned out a steady stream of propaganda aimed at convincing Americans it’s somehow racist to require photo ID from a voter, Media Trackers Ohio reports.”

The Austin Post-Bulletin reports that the three non-citizens who illegally voted, “Jacob Awuol Barac and brothers William and Braulio Manzano all filled out same-day registration forms incorrectly, which slipped by election judges, before casting their ballots. All three checked the box saying they were not citizens of the United States before filling out the rest and signing the portion that says they were, in fact, U.S. citizens.” 

Shrewder fraudsters might not have checked the non-citizen box (a safeguard ACLU Michigan’s Kary Moss decried as a “cynical voter suppression tactic”) and thus “slipped by” undetected before and after the fact.  Just how many ineligible people have illegally cast votes by abusing same day registration is unknown.  What is known is that it can be, and has been, done.    

“William and Braulio Manzano, who spoke to police with the help of an interpreter, had checked the box on their voter application to indicate that they were not U.S. citizens, but then filled out the rest of the application and signed a line that said they are citizens.”  Felonies.

Jeffery Toobin’s answer for an election system that doesn’t work?  Have the Federal Government take it over.

Sorry, this is pinhead talk.  This is what people in academia who have never monitored or worked in an election concoct.  This is what people who have never worked in the federal government and spend most of their life inside the Beltway or on Manhattan come up with to solve a local problem. 

Bertha Lewis will be doing a radio interview tonight.  Details at PJ Tatler.

“What is it about the First Amendment and the right to engage in political speech that so upsets liberals and so-called “reformers” such as former FEC Commissioner Trevor Potter?

Hans von Spakovsky appeared on NPR yesterday.

Ed Whelan, former Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the United States Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel and General Counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee has this to say at Bench Memos about the Bailout Boomerang:

“In order to bolster Section 5 against the constitutional challenge pending against it in the Supreme Court in Shelby County v. Holder, the Department of Justice is illegally supporting legally deficient bailout requests by two townships and eight towns in New Hampshire and by California’s Merced County—and even making false representations in court.  . . .  As von Spakovsky sums it up, “The Justice Department is trying to create evidence that it can use in its effort to manipulate the Supreme Court in the Shelby case.”

If a Republican administration did something comparable to what von Spakovsky and Adams document, it would be a national scandal, with lots of front-page newspaper coverage.”

 More.  This time a case brought by the Civil Rights Division with a US Attorney’s office, not involving elections.  Of particular note is a federal judge’s opinon of DOJ’s Office of Professional Responsibility:

First of all, having the DOJ investigate itself will likely only yield a delayed yet unconvincing result in which no confidence can rest. If no wrongdoing is uncovered, it will come as a surprise to no one given the conflict of interest existing between the investigator and the investigated. Moreover, the Perricone matter has been under investigation for eight months (since March), and yet it comes as a complete surprise to everyone at DOJ and the U.S. Attorney’s Office that another “poster” exists, especially one maintaining as high a position in the U.S. Attorney’s Office. It is difficult to imagine how this could possibly have been missed by OPR, and surely raises concerns about the capabilities and adequacy of DOJ’s investigatory techniques as exercised through OPR.