Author Archives: J Christian Adams

Democrats, NAACP Oppose Hanover County, Virginia’s Section 5 Bailout Request



Of course they do.


 


“Citing concerns over voter disenfranchisement, Hanover County’s NAACP and Democratic Party are opposing the county’s quest to bail out of requirements under the Voting Rights Act of 1965.”


 


Predictably, in their opposition letter to the Department of Justice, the Hanover County Democratic Committee expressed “uncertainty” about Virginia’s new Voter ID law.  Even with voter ID cards being mailed to all registered voters, the Democrats are “concerned that some voters who must cast provisional ballots will be unable to find time or transportation to appear before the Board of Elections to validate their identity.”  That’s assuming they were able to find the time and transportation to get to the polls but were not able to bring along the free ID delivered to them?


 


Twenty-eight other Virginia localities have already successfully bailed out of Section 5.

“Holder v. Pennsylvania”

The GOTV letter the DOJ sent to Pennsylvania has attracted the attention of the Wall Street Journal which recognizes the Voting Section’s actions are designed to “spin up the state’s liberal base.”

Let’s not forget a Section 1974 letter could have been sent without the associated media campaign launched by leaking the letter to lapdog reporters.  Let’s not forget this is the first time the Voting Section has ever requested information as politically infused as documents a sitting governor relied upon to write a press release.  This action is one of the most disgraceful actions in a long line of disgraceful, partisan and extra-legal actions since 2009, actions which will require serious remedial steps in a 2013 Romney adminstration.

Bad News for the “Voter Participation Project” in Virginia

The “Voter Participation Project” has become notorious for sending voter registration forms to the dead and to dogs.  The forms, it seems, are pre-populated with information, and this violates Virginia law.  The Richmond Times:

“In a letter this month, the State Board of Elections asked the group to cease pre-populating their forms and raised questions about how the group was obtaining lists of registered voters, citing the errant forms.


Riemer noted that pre-populating the forms violates rules set forth in the state code and the Virginia Constitution requiring that voters fill out their own forms.”

Here is an idea: The Romney campaign should take advantage of the recent Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in Project Vote and send someone down to Richmond to inspect all of the pre-populated forms under rights in the National Voter Registration Act.  Under federal law, anyone has a right to literally inspect the forms.  It might reveal a treasure trove of information about the Voter Participation Project’s potentially illegal activities in Virginia.

Voter Fraud: “You don’t know how often it goes on if you don’t look.”



Philadelphia City Commissioner Al Schmidt looked.  And found seven distinct types of “irregular” and fraudulent voting, detailed in his report “Voting Irregularities in Philadelphia County, 2012 Primary Election.”


 


Questioned by NewsWorks, Schmidt, who campaigned on a promise of election transparency and reform, concluded:


 


“There are already plenty of laws on the books addressing voter fraud. You don’t need a new law to say you can’t vote twice. There are few prosecutions because it’s very, very difficult to prove, and nobody looked before. You don’t know how often it goes on if you don’t look.”

“Eric Holder’s Keystone State Voter ID Shakedown”

PJ Media Rule of Law:

“This letter was a highly irregular and purely partisan exercise designed to stoke Obama’s electoral base in Philadelphia. It is also designed to placate the civil rights industry which has quietly simmered about the lack of enforcement of the Voting Rights Act to help minorities over the last three years. (See, Wade Henderson – Cat Got Your Tongue?) . . .

Note that Assistant Attorney General Tom Perez signed the letter. Normally, when I worked on cases involving 42 U.S.C. 1974, either the trial lawyer or Section Chief would sign the letter. It may be that Chris Herren, the current Section Chief, would do neither what the career partisans below him wanted, nor what the political gangsters above him wanted. Internal dissent may be afoot, and with good reason.”