Many Democrats (and occassionally a Republican) have tried to change laws to permit felons to participate in American elections.  Some states ban felons from voting for life, and some states roll the polling machines straight into the prison on election day. 

But why are Democrats the primary supporters of allowing felons to vote?  Maybe because more Democrats might win elections if felons were allowed to vote.  In fact, this study traces what would have happened through history if felons were allowed to vote.  The results should scare any Republican toying with the idea of allowing felons to vote.  A summary:

1984 – Kentucky – McConnell would have lost

Representative Trey Gowdy vows to get to the bottom of the South Carolina Voter ID objection.  “I promise you I am going to find out of that is true or not.”  The video of Gowdy vowing to find out about Chris Herren’s recommendation to preclear S.C. Voter ID is here.  Gowdy say that if he doesn’t get a response to his letter, he will ask Holder at the next oversight hearing – but vows that he will get to the bottom of whether or not the Voting Section recommended to Tom Perez that the law be precleared – which it did.

Of course one way to do that is to haul Chris Herren before the House Judiciary Committee.  Given that the cost to South Carolina was so high – a cost that could have been entirely avoided had Tom Perez listened to Chris Herren and Bob Berman and the other career staff – you can be sure that this one isn’t going away.  There are three million reasons why South Carolina lawmakers aren’t going to rest until DOJ comes clean.

From the story:

Gowdy doubled down Thursday on his talk of getting to the bottom of why such opposition occurred in the first place.

I reported today on the meeting which took place this week at DOJ about the potential demise of Section 5.  In reality, it will be the Section 4 triggers that lead to the demise of Section 5 enforcement.  The demise of Section 5 can be traced back to 2006 when nobody had the stomach to deal with the Section 4 triggers.  The truth of the matter is that no member of Congress from a state currently exempted from Section 5 obligations wanted to bring their state under the purview of Section 4. So nothing was done in 2006, and nothing was done since.

But there are ways for the Section 5 model to remain viable.  Instead of Section 4 triggers that use geography, turnout and tests, if Section 5 obligations were based on opt-ins, they would be more constitutional.  For example, if a jurisdiction was found to be liable for violating a provision of the Voting Rights Act (think Osceola FL or Euclid OH), then they would be subject to Section 5.  Blaine County, Montana, would be another example.  All of these jurisdictions were found to have violated Section 2.  Imposing a preclearance requirement on these jurisdictions found to have violated the Voting Rights Act would certainly be far more constitutional than the current Section 4 triggers.  It might also make sense, after all, these jurisdictions, found liable in the previous decade for violating the Voting Rights Act, went through redistricting in the 2010 cycle without any court oversight, and without any need to balance new legislative plans against those imposed after the liability findings.

Of course the predictable corners will oppose this idea because it doesn’t give enough power to the federal government.  They will point out that Section 5 coverage will be dependent on Section 2 liability.  But come June of 2013, advocates of the current Section 4 triggers might find the opt-in to be a pretty good alternative to what the Supreme Court is liable to do with the preclearance regime.

Are DOJ attorneys having discussions about substantive election issues with people at places like Columbia and elsewhere using Yahoo mail and other devices to avoid disclosure? 

This would be surprising given the extent of FOIA litigation that the DOJ has already had from private groups.  But you never know.

Coverage at PJ Media.

One staffer “suggested that all the Section 5 data that has been forcibly collected from the currently covered states over the decades, would be a ‘gold-mine’ of information to be used in future litigation by the Voting Section and that the attorneys may need to be more ‘imaginative’ in bringing vote denial cases to replace evaporating vote dilution cases.”

 Emerging partisanship at the EAC conference this week.  “The League of Women Voters’ President Elisabeth McNamara criticized voter ID as being assumed to solve many election problems. But she failed to mention how the League of Women Voters doesn’t even recognize the problems it does solve. McNamara ironically declared at the roundtable that “we are an organization based on facts.” The facts are that when the Indiana voter ID law was challenged, the League of Women Voters filed a brief with a serious factual error. They claimed that a woman was a victim of disenfranchisement, but she actually attempted commit vote fraud. Florida resident Faye Buis-Ewing tried to vote in Indiana with her Florida’s driver’s license. She was not permitted to do so, and rightfully so. This is an example of the voter ID actually solving a problem of vote fraud.”

Representative Trey Gowdy and Senator Lindsey Graham want the DOJ Voting Section to turn over the memos that were prepared by Chris Herren and career staff and given to Tom Perez recommending the preclearance of South Carolina Voter ID.  Yesterday they sent another demand to the Justice Department to turn over the memos and work.  Justice has not denied that the memos exist because they can’t.  They exist, and the volume on this story isn’t going to reduce.

What strange symmetry we have.  But six years ago, the left wing blogospere and liberal election law academics were all aflutter about Georgia Voter ID and the dastardly actions of the Bush Justice Department. There was only one problem with that 2006 narrative – the Voting Section Chief recommended preclearance of Georgia Voter ID. 

Fast forward to 2012 where the Voting Section Chief again recommended preclearance, but was overruled for real. 

And it is expensive strange symmetry also.  Unlike the Georgia matter, the disregard of the DOJ career recommendations in South Carolina cost millions of dollars.  Small change for sure to bureaucrats, but not to members of Congress and the Senate charged with protecting South Carolina’s interests.  Considering that both of the members of Congress sit on key committees, this is going to be a bumpy ride.

Of course we won’t hear a thing from all those good folks so incensed in 2006 about career staff being overruled.  The silence will be delicious.

 Scotland, North Carolina.  And kudos to the Virginia SBE for helping catch fraud in North Carolina. 

Officials claim the voter was on probation at the time of the election and was not eligible to vote. Voting while a felon is considered a Class I felony.

link to story.