My latest piece at PJ Tatler writes about the appearance of notaries in Mississippi harvesting ballots who formerly engaged in illegal conduct over the years.  I quote from a US District Court opinion about their behavior and note “this is the sort of voter fraud that academics and political hacks (but I repeat myself) say is rare and doesn’t really amount to much.”

Many academics who purport to be academically disinterested in election law issues are in fact raving partisan hacks.  But that’s not news.

What is news is that one academic, Rick Hasen, has decided to deceptively feature a comment in a Bretibart story at his blog.  Classes must have ended.

Under a blaring headline, Hasen lies:

J. Christian Adams Wrongly Suggests Poll Workers Should Exclude Democrats from Voting in Mississippi Primary

Hasen quotes a Breitbart story where the entirety of my appearance is here:

The Mississippi law Adams cites, MS Code 23-15-575, states: “No person shall be eligible to participate in any primary election unless he intends to support the nominations made in which he participates.”

“Mississippi law prohibits Democrats from voting in a Republican primary,” Adams said in an emailed statement. “Obviously poll workers aren’t mind readers. But if someone doesn’t intend to support the nominee in November, then that person isn’t allowed to vote in the Republican primary.”

So how does Hasen lie? Let’s count the ways.

First the headline.  Exclude?  Where do I suggest any action by the MS GOP in the story?  I don’t.  But Hasen knows all the dog whistles for his audience. 

Next, Hasen obviously ignores the significance of all that I have said about the law at issue.  The Breitbart story notes “poll workers aren’t mindreaders.”  I’ve also tweeted that Carnac the Magnificent and the Amazing Kreskin might have to be recruited to work the runoff to enforce this law.  I litigated this issue (which naturally Hasen never has) and the Mississippi law has been in the news quite a bit over the years.

Which brings us to the third mischaracterization by Hasen – that the Mississippi law doesn’t exist.  It does, still.  Now that might not matter to a law professor at a law school (congratulations by the way on the recent accreditation of the school).  But it matters to folks in Mississippi.  Hasen makes much of Judge Pepper’s district court opinion being vacated on standing grounds.  That supports me, not contradicts me, though you’d never know it from Hasen’s dishonest hack piece. That means that the statute is still in force and no court has struck it down, which brings us to the Mississippi Attorney General’s opinion.  Of course the opinion is just that, an opinion.  The opinion does not state the law is unconstitutional, but it does state the law has weaknesses in enforcement. (See my comments about Kreskin) One Democrat tried to enforce it by publishing a list of names of white voters and saying they wouldn’t be allowed to vote.  I argued that was an 11b violation, and the district court disagreed.  Had the mirror image occurred, you’d find Josh Marshall and his left wing blogger buddies frothing at the mouth to talk about voter intimidation.

But Hasen’s lie turns on a verb – excludes.  He says I suggested Democrats should be excluded.  I didn’t.  I’m sure he’ll quibble and say that was what was suggested, but it wasn’t.  There should be an apology and a retraction.  But I don’t really care what Rick Hasen does.  He once badgered this blog because his comments weren’t being approved fast enough, as if he pays the bills here.  In fact, comments don’t get approved very quickly here, ever.  Comments at his blog – well… they don’t exist.  

Such are the ways of academia: pretend laws aren’t laws, misquote and twist facts for a cause (See, Pam Karlan, http://pjmedia.com/jchristianadams/2013/10/11/the-dangerous-dishonesty-of-possible-supreme-court-nominee-pam-karlan/) and do whatever you can to influence the political process from your perch in the ivory tower.
 

But the liberal campaign to discredit Walker isn’t limited to TNR’s inflammatory trash. As the New York Times reported this afternoon, there was an attempt by some Wisconsin prosecutors to tie Walker’s recall campaign to illegal contributions. But you have to click on the piece that was trumpeted on the paper’s home page to learn that the case was unproven and, in fact, dismissed by a federal judge and that the story is based on a federal suit that sought to reveal the unsubstantiated allegations in the records of this cold case. In fact, you have to read down to the end of the sixth paragraph of the piece to read, in a quote from Walker’s camp, that “two judges have rejected the characterizations [of the Walker campaign’s alleged illegal activity] contained in these documents.” The Times only mentions the pertinent fact that a federal judge halted the investigation as a politicized fishing expedition in the last sentence of the article.

In other words, there may be as little to this “scandal” as there was to previous efforts to nail Walker via Wisconsin’s draconian campaign finance laws or hit pieces like that published in TNR. All of which must cause political observers to wonder why it is that liberals are expending so much effort to knock off Walker. Could it be that they sense he is exactly the sort of candidate that could give Democrats a run for their money in 2016?

Link to full story

Matt Boyle story:

The Mississippi law Adams cites, MS Code 23-15-575, states: “No person shall be eligible to participate in any primary election unless he intends to support the nominations made in which he participates.”

“Mississippi law prohibits Democrats from voting in a Republican primary,” Adams said in an emailed statement. “Obviously poll workers aren’t mind readers. But if someone doesn’t intend to support the nominee in November, then that person isn’t allowed to vote in the Republican primary.”

Link to the RNLA blog.

Hans von Spakovsky of The Heritage Foundation has co-authored a book with National Review Columnist John Fund entitled Obama’s Enforcer: Eric Holder’s Justice Department. The book is a careful examination of the Holder Justice Department’s egregious violations of the law and relentless pursuit of the Obama political agenda.

Hans von Spakovsky, who will be a featured speaker at this year’s National Election Law Seminar, presented his book during a panel discussion at The Heritage Foundation on Tuesday. Von Spakovsky explains how Holder was selected by Obama for his reputation of partisan loyalty. “Eric Holder is an ideologue. He considers himself the President’s attorney first, the attorney general second. . . . He was the number two guy there at the Clinton Administration. In fact, he was the go-to guy for the White House. Why? Because they didn’t trust Janet Reno to make the right political decisions. But they trusted Eric Holder to do that.”

Also on the panel, Fund says that, “the Supreme Court has ruled against the Justice Department’s position on key issues approximately a dozen times,” as a result of Holder’s extreme positions. He further highlights that, “these are all unanimous defeats. [O]ver the last two or three terms, the Obama Administration’s Justice Department has succeeded before the Supreme Court only about 40% of the time. That is compared to an average of over 70% for previous Presidents in the last half-century. To put that into perspective, they have failed more than twice as often as the Clinton Administration.”

Link to Las Vegas Review Journal

TEXAS COUNTY, OKLA. — A new Oklahoma state law which took effect on November 1, 2013, changes the dates and times voters have come to expect for early voting in Oklahoma.

Now, early voting begins on Thursday and continues on Friday and Saturday, Texas County Election Board Secretary Glenda L. Williams said. Of special note, early voting is no longer conducted on Monday.

These changes have occurred due to the approval of SB 869, which was signed into law in May, 2013. As a result, Thursday, June 19 is the first day for in-person absentee, aka “early” voting, in the June 24th primary election, Williams said.

The new law also adjusts the hours for Saturday in-person absentee voting. Saturday voting now takes place from 9 a.m. until 2 p.m. Williams explained that during federal and state elections such as this one, voter turnout is often heavier and providing early voting on Saturday gives voters an additional opportunity to vote before election day.

Link to AZCentral.  This is what happens when the federal government refuses to be reasonable on verification of citizenship.

“Mind-boggling”:

Link

The Clinton News Network gives one potential candidate for President over one hour of free time. Clinton is parsing already.  She opposes “compulsory voting” but states that anyone over 18 should be “automatically registered.”  She supports compulsory registration no matter whether the person is qualified to vote, not qualified to vote and would establish the registration without the knowledge or affirmation of the voter of key important data that determines whether the voter is even qualified to vote.  Don’t worry, Big Government will get the registration right.