Northwest Florida Daily News has this opinion piece today  The Myth of Florida Voter Fraud.

For some other sources borrowing the characterization, see

The Myth of Voter Fraud at Amazon.com.

The Myth of Voter Fraud at the Washington Independent.

The Myth of Voter Fraud at the New York Times.

A whole FAQ devoted to the Myth at the League of Women Voter’s webpage.

The Myth goes on tour here.

The Myth of Voter Fraud at the Washington Post (the famous Sasquatch story).

Professor David Schultz has an editorial in the Minnesota Post called, you guessed it, The Myth of Voter Fraud.

Finally, an enthralling video about the Myth of Voter Fraud at a forum for books that are “unfairly ignored,” (usually a bad sign.)  The Myth features prominently at minute 1:50.  The Myth is, naturally, “propagated to do their thing.”  Speaking of myths, the speaker discussing the Myth is introduced by 9-11 truther Mark Crispen Miller.  Just to be clear, New York University Professor Mark Crispen Miller doesn’t believe in voter fraud, but he believes the U.S. Government assisted in blowing up the World Trade Centers. 

Government funded radio station WMFE, fresh from correcting errors in coverage of Florida’s withdrawal of a submission to DOJ of election law changes and filing in federal court, piles on more.  In the latest story critical of Florida Secretary of State Kurt Browning’s decision to go to district court seeking approval of statewide election law changes, WMFE’s Nicole Creston reports:

“But it’s unclear whether any jurisdiction has ever asked for both types of pre-clearance at once for separate provisions of the same law.”

Unclear? Creston might report on Virginia, Texas, Louisiana and Georgia.  More states are coming.

WMFE’s series of errors is representative of a larger problem in the media’s coverage of election law.  The media frequently rely on sources that will trick them (Eg. “the myth of voter fraud”) or on sources that have no idea what they are talking about.  The results are troubling.  Americans are led to believe that changing early voting dates constitutes the return of Jim Crow or that there is something nefarious in Kurt Browning’s decision to bypass a biased (and ethically problematic –  more on that blockbuster later) DOJ unit that reviews Section 5 submissions.

Department of State launches campaign to educate Tennessee voters about new photo ID law

You knew this had to be coming.  Government funded Florida radio station WMFE has corrected erroneous “election law expert” (and University of Central Florida professor of constitutional law) Derek Brett.  Earlier, the radio station had reported that Brett was flummoxed by the decision of Florida Secretary of State Kurt Browning to chose the option available under 42 U.S.C. 1973(b)(a) and obtain approval from neutral federal judges for election law changes.  Brett wondered:

How does a federal judge do that? The only way a federal judge could do that is if Mr. Browning is able to, in some way, present some type of constitutional argument,” says Brett. He adds he’s not sure what that argument might be.

Now the radio station has backpeddled:

Contrary to analysis heard on Wednesday’s Morning Edition on WMFE, the Voting Rights Act does allow a jurisdiction to choose whether to seek that pre-clearance from the Justice Department or from a federal court.

It makes you wonder how much other false legal analysis is being reported by the media.

The nomination of Leon Rodriguez for Wage and Hour Administrator was withdrawn by the President this week.  Rodriguez is serving as the Chief of Staff in the Civil Rights Division.  Hans von Spakovsky earlier penned this expose about, in part, Leon Rodriguez, “Amateur Night at the Justice Department” and this second piece “Radicalizing Civil Rights.”

“None of that is deterring Democrats from using voter ID to drum up racial fears. Democratic Party Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz used the “Jim Crow” line earlier this year, adding “photo I.D. laws, we think, are very similar to a poll tax.” Democratic Senators and House members have asked the Justice Department to take action. Look for this to be a consistent Democratic theme as the election approaches, amid party fears that declining real incomes will dampen enthusiasm about re-electing President Obama. “

Full editorial here.

A government funded radio station in Florida runs a story critical of Florida Secretary of State Kurt Browning and the decision to seek preclearance in federal court.  They mangle the story.  Why does this not come as a surprise:

“He’s attempting to have a federal judge rule that the Voting Rights Act – the pre-clearance requirements of the Voting Rights Act – don’t apply,” explains Orlando attorney Derek Brett. He’s an expert in election law and he teaches constitutional law at the University of Central Florida.

“How does a federal judge do that? The only way a federal judge could do that is if Mr. Browning is able to, in some way, present some type of constitutional argument,” says Brett. He adds he’s not sure what that argument might be.

Unprecedented?  The Voting Rights Act doesn’t apply?  Constitutional argument?  Good lord.  This guy is teaching law to students?  Heaven help us.

Professor Brett – take a look at 42 USC 1973(b)(a). It ought to clear up a few things.

BigGovernment.com.

“The group, Wisconsin Jobs Now! was offering food and prizes to voters who then hopped in a van and were shuttled to Milwaukee City Hall to vote early via absentee ballot. (The use of ‘walking around money’ and such inducements for voting may be common in other states but they are illegal in Wisconsin.)”

The Pelican Report: 

“The timing of the Justice Department’s lawsuit is suspicious, raising the prospect that it is working with a special interest group for mutual partisan purposes, Roger Clegg, president and general counsel of the Center for Equal Opportunity observed.  “There have been other instances over the years of the Justice Department doing the NAACP’s bidding in voting matters, and the politicization of the Justice Department in the Obama administration, in particular, has been widely criticized.”

 

From the Associated Press: 

“The U.S. Justice Department said it will monitor the primaries in 11 of Mississippi’s 82 counties to ensure black voters’ rights are protected. Federal observers will be in Bolivar, Clay, Copiah, Humphreys, Jefferson Davis, Noxubee, Panola, Quitman, Sunflower, Tallahatchie and Wilkinson counties. Ten of the 11 counties are majority black. Only Panola is not.”