At the Gilbert Watch, a look back at the Keystone Cops approach by DOJ to guidance and enforcement of the MOVE Act.  DOJ is signaling that they may take a more aggressive approach, but the priorities and resources inside the Voting Section are primarily dedicated to fighting voter ID laws, Texas redistricting, and defending the constitutionality of Section 5.  As a result, actual voters take a back seat and the participation rate of overseas and military voters decreased in 2010.

To the story:  Remember the MOVE Act of 2009? It was signed by President Barack Obama in the fall of 2009. The intention was to “ensure that absent uniformed services voters and overseas voters are aware of their voting rights and have a genuine opportunity to register to vote and have their absentee ballots cast and counted.”

It required every state to send military voters their requested ballots no later than 45 days before an election, so that the time it takes to return a “snail mail” ballot would be received before the election was over. MOVE also required every military installation to have a voter registration office.

Sound good? Before the MOVE Act of 2009, only 5.5% of eligible military voters cast an absentee ballot that counted. In 2010, it was 4.6%. The disenfranchisement of our overseas military only got worse.

How did that happen?  By selective enforcement of Voting Rights laws under the Obama Administration and the Department of Justice. And by the Pentagon and the DOJ to be allowed to simply drag its feet.

It took the DOJ nine months after the MOVE Act became law to update its website with the new standard. As the 2010 election approached, the DOJ allowed states to widely ignore the MOVE act, so absentee ballots were not mailed out 45 days before the election. Many ballots weren’t counted, because they arrived after the election was over. Political appointees waited until three weeks after the 2010 election to issue the order to establish the voter registration offices.

Story at the link

Today I argued the ballot access case on behalf of the Newt Gingrich, Jon Huntsman and Rick Santorum campaign.  U.S. District Court Judge John Gibney agreed that that statute we were challenging violated the First Amendment in that it restricted political speech by limiting ballot collection activities to only in state residents.  On the other hand, the judge held the doctrine of laches applied and the case was filed too late  You can read more about it here.

An important aside: somebody took my coat from the courthouse coat rack outside the courtroom.  I suspect you thought you were taking your coat, because the only coat left was a Tommy Hilfiger grey herringbone coat that looked very much like mine.  I have your coat.  You have mine.  There were only so many men in the courtroom so the possibilities are limited.  My coat is a Ralph Lauren grey wool herringbone.  The email is adams at election law center dot com.  I will be in Richmond next week, so perhaps we can arrange a swap. 

Kevin Ferris has more at the Weekly Standard. 

I will be speaking Thursday at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference in Charleston, S.C.  Speaker list and sign up here.  I will be signing copies of Injustice at the event.

The story is here.  I am not so sure Governor Lynch will maintain his previous veto mantra  that “there is no voter fraud problem in New Hampshire.” And whatever approach the Governor decides to take in the coming session, the citizens of New Hampshire should be aware that the Republicans in the legislature have the votes to override any veto. 

According to this article, Secretary of State Gardner has no real objections to the voter ID requirement but only to the provisional ballot process that might require a bit extra work on the part of his election officials and require voters to provide that information.  I bet New Hampshire election offiicals wish their poll workers had not simply repeated the mantra drilled into them… “Oh, no, no photo ID is required, go ahead and vote” instead of simply asking for an ID to confirm the identify of the voter.  Boy, oh Boy, being politically correct has its consequences.

Gardner should realize that the ease of this voter impersonation scandal is humiliating to the hard working election officials in New Hampshire.  A few extra steps and requests for identification by poll workers would have avoided this type of theft of identify of deceased voters.  The bottom line is that this incident will shock the conscience of most objective observers and cause a lack of confidence in the electoral process.  Concerns about additional provisional ballot procedures should not be the impediment to the proper verification of voters before votes are counted.

The Union Leader reports: The New Hampshire Attorney General has launched a comprehensive review of state voting procedures, after people obtained ballots of dead voters during the presidential primary on Tuesday.

…Associate Attorney General Richard Head said his office became aware of the effort on Election Day and immediately began an investigation. “That investigation is ongoing,” he said. “Based on the information received on Election Day and the information on the video, we are undertaking a comprehensive review of voting procedures with the Secretary of State.”

…Secretary of State Gardner said a fraudulent voter could check newspaper obituaries for recently dead people, and then go to a city or town to see if the name is on voting lists. The bogus voter could then go to a polling place and likely get a ballot, he said. Gardner said he’s open to changes in state voting procedures, but not the legislation that Lynch vetoed. Its provisional voting procedure would have been difficult to administer, Gardner said.

“I’m OK with photo ID, but I would like a way to do it without sending people home from the voting place without having cast a ballot,” Gardner said.

Republican House Speaker William O’Brien said Democrats have consistently maintained that no voter fraud takes place in New Hampshire. Now it’s been shown that flaws exist in the system.
“I’m afraid — I hope it doesn’t come down to this — it challenges our first-in-the-nation primary position,” O’Brien said.

He said Republicans are open to compromise as long as the New Hampshire voting pool is not diluted by non-resident or fictitious voters.

On his first day as president, Gingrich said he will instruct the Department of Justice to drop any challenge of the Voter ID bill in South Carolina.

full story at link.

Another story on the South Carolina DMV analysis showing hundreds of votes cast in the name of deceased individuals.

Marci Andino, executive director of the state Election Commission, said the DMV analysis and claims, if true, would mean the election process has been compromised by illegal activity.

“It would mean every person’s legal vote has been diluted by illegal ones. Such a reality would strike a blow to the public’s confidence in the election process,” Andino said in a statement.

Attorney General Alan Wilson referred the DMV’s allegations to state investigators. Wilson said in a statement that the number of people cited in the analysis “is an alarming number and clearly necessitates an investigation into criminal activity.”

Speaking today at the Tampa Club at noon about Injustice.  Details here.