As much as it hurts to post anything from David Weigel because of his wholly inaccurate and incomplete coverage of the New Black Panther controversy,  he has an interesting piece at Slate about whether Democrats should scrap Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act:

“How obvious should this be? In 1990, 27 African-Americans were elected to the House of Representatives. In 1991, there was a round of congressional redistricting, and Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act was applied to carve new majority-minority districts. In 1992, the number of African-Americans in Congress increased by 13, but even though Bill Clinton was winning the presidency, the number of Democrats in the House shrunk by 9. There were plenty of reasons for the Democratic losses, but the new majority-minority districts were key. They were key to GOP gains in 2002, after more redistricting — especially in Florida and Michigan — that shored up minority members, and they were key to the 2005 re-gerrymander of Texas.”

WTAQ  reports that a judge allows a Section 2 Voting Rights Act lawsuit to go forward to, not kidding, because laws prohibiting voter fraud are racially discriminatory.   Instead of dismissing the case, the judge allows it to go forward:

“Judge Richard Sankovitz says the Voting Rights Act claim should be heard.  Sankovitz issued what he called an ‘unofficial excerpt’ of his ruling Friday.”

The Juneau Empire covers the Joe Miller campaign starting the process of examining voter rolls.  They may find a great deal. Alaska has significantly more than 100 percent of eligible voters on the voter rolls.  This may be because lots of people are registered to vote in Alaska even if they live elsewhere.  Or, it might be because Alaska’s rules which allow you to vote outside your home precinct.  The question is whether voting outside your home precinct results in multiple registrations.

Democrats want to block the Indiana Secretary of State race winner Charlie White for voter fraud.  More here.

A former ACORN worker is going to jail for 10 months for submitting false voter registration forms ahead of the 2008 Presidential election.  More at WAOW-TV.

“Twenty-7-year-old Kevin Clancy of Milwaukee was sentenced on Thursday in Milwaukee County Circuit Court. According to a criminal complaint, Clancy worked for the community organizing group ACORN.

He submitted multiple voter registration applications for the same people and was part of a scheme in which ACORN registration deputies registered each other multiple times to meet ACORN’s quotas.”

The King Street Patriots, through their True the Vote project, have developed a savvy and effective private sector poll monitoring and election integrity operation.  I have profiled them at Pajamas Media.   The Houston Press offers this largely accurate profile.   As the article states, the model that True the Vote deployed in Houston is going to go national in 2012.  What is the model?  It all starts with involved citizens.  Add election law knowledge, and a command of their rights under state law.   

The U.S. Supreme Court has denied cert in the Section 2 Voting Rights Act case of Cottier v. City of Martin.  This was a case where the full Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the City of Martin did not violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.  The District Court had found a violation of the Voting Rights Act in a case brought by the ACLU.  An en banc panel of the Eighth Circuit reversed the plaintiff’s victory and the Supreme Court today denied cert.  Game, set, match.  Many more details are included in the press release from Martin’s lawyer, Sara Frankenstein.

Op-ed here.

The United States has filed this brief opposing the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in Shelby County v. Eric Holder.  Shelby County is challenging the 45 year old Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act which requires some states, but not all, to obtain federal government approval of any change involving voting or elections.  Two challenges are working their way through the courts and more are likely to follow. 

One peculiar thing about the brief is the citation to a law review article by Peyton McCrary.  Peyton McCrary knows a great deal about the Voting Rights Act and is a fine and dedicated historian of civil rights.  The peculiar part, however, is Peyton is a historian for the Defendant in the case; he is a DOJ historian.  I’m not suggesting the citation to his law review article on pages 12 and 39 of the brief is untoward.  Rather, it seems peculiar in light of the recent case of Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 128 S. Ct. 2605, 2626 n.17 (2008).   The Supreme Court said that studies funded by the litigant would be discounted entirely.

More on the Shelby case and the briefs another day.  In the other challenge to Section 5, Laroque v. Holder arising out of Kinston North Carolina, Michael Carvin is piloting a more aggressive attack on Section 5 – namely challenging the reauthorization itself and not just the triggers.  The plaintiffs have asked the court to speed up their decisions so the Shelby and the Laroque case can be heard simultaneously by the Supreme Court.