My latest at Pajamas Media. 

During Christmastime in 1968, one of the most significant events in human history occurred. The flight of Apollo 8 marked the first time humans departed Earth orbit and traveled to the dark side of the moon. The Christmas Eve lunar orbit of Apollo 8 also marked one of most profoundly unifying moments for our nation. The journey to space was on everyone’s mind Christmas morning. And the fulfillment of man’s most ancient dream was illuminated by man’s most ancient text, while the entire world watched in wonder.

Full story here.

The behavior at today’s Civil Rights Commission meeting was surprising to say the least.  It was precisely the sort of thing people across the country have grown weary of in Washington.   Commissioner Michael Yaki doesn’t understand enough about the options available in the Noxubee submission to speak authoritatively about the issue.  The plain fact is that the Department could have objected to the Ike Brown submission as discriminating against the rights of the white minority in Noxubee County under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.  I predicted they would not do so when I testified, and I was proved right.  Mr. Yaki trumpeted an eventual civil court filing seeking to extend a remedy in the civil case against Ike Brown.  This is very different than an objection under Section 5 and provided absolutely no relief to the discriminated against white minority.  I have written extensively about how this court filing is a cop-out to equal enforcement of Section 5 at Pajamas Media. 

The Department will spend a great deal of time and effort to extend a remedy that has nothing to do whatsoever with the Section 5 submission.  They are separate matters.  Worse, the Department may likely lose the motion given they have produced little or no evidence in support of the motion.  But the motion serves a short term political purpose.  Protecting the voters in Noxubee could have been accomplished with the cost of an objection letter under Section 5 and a postage stamp.  The truth is that that didn’t happen because the Department of Justice does not believe Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act should be used to protect a white minority.  I could be proved wrong if the Department were to produce the analysis they did under Section 5 for this submission to determine whether or not the change was retrogressive in intent or effect.  In fact, the Department has never once rebutted my specific allegation that they do not believe Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act should be used to protect a white minority.  A reporter will not get a straight or truthful answer from them on that issue.

The Voting Section didn’t even contact any of the victims of the previous discrimination which is a routine part of a Section 5 analysis.  As a Civil Rights Commissioner, Mr. Yaki should be concerned about equal enforcement of Section 5.  Obviously his concerns lie elsewhere.

Here is my debut piece at the Washington Examiner on Monday.  I remain a contributor at Pajamas Media of course but thought this piece was a nice follow up to Byron York’s articles about the Civil Rights Division here and here.

Apologies for the light blogging the last few days.  I was in Houston giving a speech and meeting a real great group of people I hope to write a piece about soon.  There is some amazing grassroots work being done in Houston by some bright and dedicated people who dearly love this country.  I also can’t say enough about the incredible hospitality I received there and the humbling response to my visit.  I don’t often get to speak to a crowd of hundreds, so to all of you who came out on a weeknight to hear me, I was humbled and impressed with your passion and your heartfelt words.  Thank you.  I will be appearing at other locations around the country in the coming weeks to speak, and Houston will be a tough act to follow. 

Lastly, while I was there, I appeared on KSEV-AM on the Dan Patrick show. If anyone knows if an audio archive exists, feel free to email me.  It was the 5pm hour on August 9.

Nearly a quarter of all states have asked the Pentagon to grant them a waiver to a new law protecting those in the military from voting in the 2010 election.  Congress passed a law last year requiring states to send ballots overseas at least 45 days in advance.  According to Fox, these states have asked for an exemption from the new law:

Hawaii

New York

Delaware

Alaska

Washington

Maryland

Massachusetts

Wisconsin

Colorado

Rhode Island

New Hampshire

Washington, D.C.

Former DOJ Voting attorney Eric Eversole noted in the article:  “There also are at least six states (Alabama, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Missouri, New Hampshire and New York) that have not complied with the electronic delivery requirements under the MOVE Act. Those provisions — which are not subject to the waiver requirements — should have been in place months ago. Again, it is not clear why the Voting Section has waited to take action.”

While Alaska, Maryland, Hawaii , Colorado, Washington, New York and Delaware seek to avoid new federal protections for military voters, the Georgia Secretary of State reminds us that some states did what was necessary to come into compliance with federal law.  Other states with September primaries also got the job done, including Florida.  Vermont is another notable example of a state that did what it took to get the job done to comply with MOVE.  Keep this in mind when states like New York groan that they need a waiver from the new federal law:

“Military voters have had difficult times voting in local and national elections simply because of time and distance. While many states have been dragging their feet on compliance with the MOVE Act, The Secretary of State’s office and the Georgia Legislature have allowed no grass to grow under their feet on this issue.”

Hans von Spakovsky on Thernstrom at NRO.

” . . .Thernstrom also says something that she has thus far been unwilling to state in her numerous media appearances: ‘In fact, I still have questions about DOJ’s conduct, and I remain interested in knowing more about why the department declined to pursue the case. I would thus join my colleagues in welcoming further testimony. I would love to hear firsthand from Christopher Coates about DOJ’s handling of this case.’ Perhaps CBS will invite her back next week to publicize her call for the DOJ to stop stonewalling the testimony of Christopher Coates, something she failed to mention in her prior appearance on Face the Nation.”

More employees and former employees of the Virginia State Board of Elections have provided information and documents to ElectionLawCenter.com about the management of the SBE.  They corroborate the account we recently published about the misfeasance, rock-bottom morale and potential thuggery taking place at the SBE.   

ElectionLawCenter.com has communicated with multiple employees and former employees who have come forward to describe the conduct of Secretary Nancy Rodrigues.  They have supported the allegations with documents.  We will stay on the story and continue to invite more SBE employees and former employees to come forward so that the citizens of the Commonwealth may fully understand the management of the state agency that is designated with preserving the integrity of elections.  As one great Virginian said, “the agitation it produces must be submitted to.  It is necessary, to keep the waters pure.”

As we noted, Secretary Rodrigues runs the day to day operations at the Virginia State Board of Elections.  Employees report to ElectionLawCenter.com a terrible state of morale at the SBE from mismanagement.  Given that there are only about 30 employees at the SBE, we have heard this account from a sizeable percentage of the total employees at the SBE.  This is not just one or two malcontents.

Among the new complaints are ruthless policies toward employee illness, with an aim toward terminating employees with a medical illness, and contract procurement corruption. 

The Secretary has rejected the medical certification of a doctor for an ill employee and has required the employee to submit to a medical examination from doctors chosen by Secretary Rodrigues’ designee.  While this may technically be within the legal powers of the Secretary, SBE employees report it is part of a cruel culture at the board where even employee illnesses are used against certain employees who cross Rodrigues.  The affected employee testified against Rodrigues at a hearing accusing Rodrigues of racial discrimination.

If the employee does not submit to a medical examination by doctors chosen by Secretary Rodrigues, termination proceedings are set to commence later this month.  A doctor has already certified the employee’s ill condition. 

In another strange incident, Secretary Rodrigues conducted an investigation into who brought free lunch items for administrative staff during the holiday season.   Apparently Secretary Rodrigues only wanted a gift of breakfast items to be provided to administrative staff.  When both lunch and breakfast were provided as part of a holiday treat, Secretary Rodrigues conducted an office-wide investigation into who organized the additional lunch gift for administrative staff.

Finally, this week Rodrigues is commencing an action against a multi-decade, and minority, employee of the SBE.  She is claiming, we are told, that he doesn’t have the necessary skills or experience to do the job.  We will closely monitor this discipline action and report the results here.

ElectionLawCenter.com recognizes that there could be differing interpretations of the facts above.  Sure, they might be the result of a manager with authority running a tight ship, despite the ill effects on office morale.  Bad managers of people are everywhere.  But letting out government contracts outside of normal contract procedures is not.

Virginia’s state Waste, Fraud and Abuse hotline conducted an investigation of Secretary Rodrigues concerning an allegation that she did not solicit the services of Election Information Services (EIS) according to State contract procurement policy.  

The findings of fact from the investigation stated:

“The contract between the SBE and EIS was not solicited to other vendors and was not approved as a sole source purchase by the Virginia Information Technologies Agencies (VITA).  When we asked Ms. Rodrigues about this issue, she stated that EIS was an eVA vendor and was on the VITA-approved vendor list.”

A report obtained by ElectionLawCenter.com from the state internal auditor concludes: “The SBE did not involve VITA and obtain its agreement and approval of the procurement contract that Rodrigues signed with Paul Stenbjorn. . .  . although required to do so.  She likely violated the VPPA  [procurement laws] when she entered into this contract in this manner. . . . it is unlikely this contract would have qualified as a sole source procurement.  In addition the SBE and EIS may be violating the VITA security standards if EIS [Stenbjorn]  is accessing agency applications and databases without VITA authorization.”

The contract provided that a former employee of SBE and close personal friend of Nancy Rodrigues would be paid $85 per hour for $176,800 per year.  The contract went to one Paul Stenbjorn.  A source within the SBE tells ElectionLawCenter.com that Stenbjorn and Rodrigues held private discussions about how to ensure that this single source no-bid contract would be let to Stenbjorn.  Employees who questioned this arrangement were terminated from their employment by Rodrigues.

ElectionLawCenter.com has obtained a series of emails from Rodrigues defending the no-bid single source contract to her friend, who had even moved out of state.  Rodrigues states in one email: the existing for-bid contract “does not have the knowledge basis that EIS [the friend] has about Virginia specific information and laws.. . . Not being  totally familiar with procurement regulations it appears to me (a novice) that this would qualify as a Sole Source.  However, I bow to the Queen of Procurement.”

The derisive term “Queen of Procurement” refers to an employee that was questioning Rodrigues’ grant of a contract to a personal friend and ex-employee.  “Not being totally familiar with procurement regulations”?  No disagreement there.

An audit manger investigating the procurement noted in a document that the sole source exemption “was not available to this procurement.  VITA has indicated that the procurement likely violated procurement policy.”  Sources also tell ElectionLawCenter.com that Rodrigues is knowingly providing Governor McDonnell’s office inaccurate, and potentially false, information regarding this procurement controversy. 

Worse, documents obtained by ElectionLawCenter.com show that the single source contract was abused.  A March 8, 2010 memo from the State Internal Auditor make a number of factual conclusions.  Some findings exonerate Stenbjorns actions, while others do not.  Stenbjorn sought government money under the contract for work performed while he was at a conference from October 28, 2009 to October 31, 2009.  “It is highly unlikely that he performed any work for SBE on October 29, very little work on October 30.  . . . The SBE should seek restitution from Mr. Stenbjorn.”

ElectionLawCenter.com has obtained many more documents regarding this and other issues regarding the management at the SBE.   We will stay on this story and report developments, including whether or not these events constitute sufficient “cause” to conduct a housecleaning of the SBE management as soon as possible so these circumstances cannot affect the 2010 elections.  Virginians cannot have such an important state agency infested with low morale, allegations of discrimination, and serious questions about the legality of contract procurement.  Something can and should be done about it.

We will also monitor whether or not any Virginia newspaper covers this story for their readers.  In the meantime, here is the amount of coverage the legacy media in Virginia has given the events described at ElectionLawCenter.com.

UPDATE:  A knowledgeable souce tells ElectionLawCenter.com that in response to the reports made here that Nancy Rodrigues is telling close friends she doesn’t think she “has done anything wrong.”    We welcome an official response and will publish it if we get one. 

Late booking.  On KNUS 710 Am Denver, KZNT 1460 AM CO Springs at 5:30 pm MDT sunday.

Perhaps someone got a bit too zealous to get an SEIU sponsered proposal on the ballot in Washington state.   OPB News  has more here:

“The Washington State Patrol has been asked to investigate allegations of signature fraud on a citizen initiative. A unionized homecare worker is accused of falsifying signatures on at least twenty petition sheets for I-1098. That’s an income tax measure for high-earners on the November ballot. Austin Jenkins reports from Olympia.

The Secretary of State’s office has concluded its internal investigation. It found some 350 questionable voter signatures. Many of them were written in what appears to be the same handwriting.

The woman at the center of the investigation is a member of the Service Employees International Union Local 775, a major backer of the income tax measure.”

The New Black Panther Party chairman undermines some arguments you might have heard. These arguments include:

 1. That the deployment of armed Panthers in Philadelphia wasn’t part of any nationally directed plan.

2. That the national New Black Panther Party wholly disapproved of the presence of weapons at the polls.

3. That the actions were renounced.

4. That the Philadelphia chapter was terminated and King Samir Shabazz and Jerry Jackson were kicked out of the national party.

 Pay close attention:  these are arguments still being promulgated in all corners as factual and important:

So, what does the video reveal?

1. That the deployment in Philadelphia was part of a nationwide deployment directed by the National Party.

2. That the brandished weapons were just “a little too strong” and a “little too black.”

3. That the National Party hardly seems to have renounced the actions, or at least not in a genuine way.

4. That the “termination” of the Philadelphia chapter was a ruse and King Samir Shabazz is loved and welcomed back and Jerry Jackson is also. So much for that all important termination of the Philadelphia chapter.

This is what happens when some people are receptive, for whatever inane reason, to the excuses of wrongdoers who would violate the civil rights of Americans. The irrational sympathies remind me of the sort of things “respectable” segregationists would say about their more nasty backwoods neighbors a generation ago: just a few crackpots, one might go too far on occasion, just “small potatoes,” we can’t do anything about those crackpots because we don’t really have any connection to their craziness.

And pay attention to this: As Malik Zulu Shabazz begins to defend the behavior in Philadelphia in the open, pay close attention to how closely his rhetoric and argument matches the defense made in presumably more respectable quarters, both online and elsewhere.