Author Archives:

Senator Leland Yee: Gunrunner and Speech Regulator

A hero of the speech regulation crowd has been revealed as a gun runner, trafficker and indicted Senator.  California Democrat Leland Yee was charged with multiple federal counts of gun running, trafficking and corruption.  Yee was a champion of the speech regulators in California and opponent of Citizens United.  One sample:


Two new bills propose ways to give voters greater insights into the flood of political money from often obscure nonprofit organizations. SB 3, by Sens. Leland Yee, D-San Francisco, and Ted Lieu, D-Torrance, would require nonprofit groups that donate $100,000 or more in a year to political campaigns to identify the source of that funding. AB 45, by Assemblyman Roger Dickinson, D-Sacramento, would require politically active nonprofit organizations to disclose donors who in the six months before an election have contributed at least $50,000.


The bill would also give the state’s Fair Political Practices Commission greater power to go to court to compel such groups to reveal donors.

Alabama moving ahead to require proof of citizenship when voters register



Alabama says it plans to move ahead with a requirement for potential voters to show concrete proof of citizenship, in the first sign of a wider impact from a court decision on Wednesday ordering a federal elections agency to help Arizona and Kansas enforce their own such requirement…


 


The federal court decision “has given us the confidence that Alabama has strong footing for implementation of the rules regarding proof of citizenship,” Secretary of State Jim Bennett said.

Expect other states to follow suit.


In Voter ID Lawsuits, “Disparate Impact Isn’t Enough”




At NRO, Roger Clegg and Hans von Spakovsky summarize their Heritage Foundation report “Disparate Impact” and Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act:



As Eric Holder’s Justice Department attacks voter-ID laws in Texas and North Carolina, the Heritage Foundation has warned courts that they should be wary of construing Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act to find liability when only a “disparate impact” on the basis of race has been shown.


 


From the report:


 


In its voter ID lawsuits, the DOJ emphasizes its claims that the changes made by these states will make it more difficult for minorities to vote, but a claim that a challenged practice has a statistical impact greater than the status quo ante does not mean that there has been a violation of Section 2, since Section 2, unlike Section 5, is not a “retrogression” statute. It seems that the DOJ is refusing to accept the Shelby County decision and is trying to convert Section 2 into an “anti-retrogression” statute to replace the fallen Section 5.


 


The important factor to consider under Section 2 is whether the challenged practice, such as a voter ID requirement, imposes a burden greater than the usual sort associated with voting… In this regard, Justice John Paul Stevens’s majority opinion in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board found that the burden of getting a voter ID does not rise above the “usual burdens of voting,” calling into question the validity of the Justice Department’s claims under Section 2 against Texas and North Carolina.


South Texas county’s Democrat primary voting machines seized


Hidalgo County initiates tampering investigation


The Monitor reports on the latest election irregularities in Texas’ Rio Grande Valley:



A state District Court judge on Wednesday ordered the impounding of all voting machines used in the Hidalgo County Democratic primary this year.



Voting machines and other materials used in the primary during early voting in late February and Election Day on March 4 were impounded Wednesday afternoon following an application the District Attorney’s Office filed in the morning in the 398th state District Court alleging possible criminal vote tampering.


“Upon review of information received by the Hidalgo County District Attorney’s Office, regarding the forenamed election, criminal conduct may have occurred in connection with said election, therefore requiring impoundment of all the election returns, voted ballots, signature roster and other election records and equipment for an investigation and ultimately a determination of whether or not criminal conduct occurred,” the application states.


Senator Boxer: “If voting lines over one hour, DOJ will require states to submit plan for approval to reduce time”

On Wednesday of this week, the Senate Rules Committee held a hearing entitled Election Administration: Innovation, Administrative Improvements and Cost Savings.   At minute 35 of the hearing, Senator Boxer describes the penalty if any voting line in America is over one hour.  In a nutshell, the state or local officials goes into the DOJ penalty box where they will hand over to the election official crayons and paper and require a joint plan to reduce the wait times.  As if DOJ has some secret formula!!!

What is it about Senator Boxer and Democrats who want to give the inept and radicalized DOJ power over state election laws and procedures.  Lets make this clear.  The Holder DOJ is not seen by Republicans as a fair arbiter of anything, much less the voting laws. 
Dead on Arrival.

Trying to pull a fast one!! Congressman Hoyer: Skip hearings and pass new Voting Rights Bill by summer

The Hill reports that Democratic Leader Hoyer wants the House of Representatives to quickly pass the Leahy/Conyers bill by summer without any hearings, negotiations or other “national discussion” on race.  The last reauthorization to the VRA required months of hearings and substantial evidence of discrimination to try to meet the constitutional standards necessary for such intrusive on state law and justify providing such a veto power to the Obama Department of Justice.   In 2005, it took substantial preparation and almost a year of hearings (and ignoring amendments) to pass a bill that did not meet constitutional muster.  The Sensenbrenner approach of simply adopting whatever the activist groups offer failed miserably as long as the word “photo ID” is in the bill.  And the Democrats now want to pass the Leahy/Conyers bill without any substantive hearings or evidence as if the bill was some resolution naming a federal building or park.  While Sensenbrenner has no idea what is in the bill written by activist groups, Democrats are hoping to undo Republican redistricting gains and overturn integrity laws with an Obama DOJ.  

That is why Democrats are trying to pull a fast one.