Category Archives: Uncategorized

Injustice releases October 4

You may have noticed over there on the left side of the page, (<—-) a link to pre-order my new Regnery book Injustice.  I can’t thank our friends enough who have already written about the book without even having seen it.  At least they spelled the name of the book correctly, and hopefully all future articles will continue to at least spell the name of the book correctly.  It is great to be with a publishing house like Regnery with their long history of promoting individual liberty and good government.  Being published by the the same publisher that published William F. Buckley’s first book, God and Man at Yale, as well as other great books and authors over the last 50 years is quite an honor.

There will be plenty of time to discuss what’s in the book, but suffice to say it deals with voter fraud, the Justice Department and our electoral system. Most of all, it is about the importance of the rule of law.  I will be out and about in the weeks and months after the book is released, perhaps to a city near you. I will try to post a schedule as it becomes known.  I can promise one thing about the book, if you care about elections, the rule of law, and the integrity of the system, you will enjoy the book.  Stay tuned.

Justin Levitt and Ed Still on bypassing DOJ

No surprise here.  In the Birmingham News, Justin Levitt and Ed Still wonder why Alabama went straight to court.  The court-costs-too-much and partisan talking points are featured prominently.  The reporter at the Birmingham News (Mary Orndorff) did not speak with anyone who could provide contrary background on why going straight to court is the better option for Alabama.  Instead, three critics of Alabama’s decision are cited.  I will detail some of the reasons why states cannot expect a fair review by submitting plans to Justice in my forthcoming book, Injustice.

Texas redistricting trial: “Closing arguments draw questions”

 Houston Chronicle.  “Unlike the plaintiffs, who used their closing statements Thursday to reiterate their objections to the state’s redistricting maps, the state’s attorneys came under aggressive questioning from the panel of three federal judges presiding over the trial.


Judge Xavier Rodriguez, a former Texas Supreme Court judge who was named to the federal bench by President George W. Bush, repeatedly questioned Schenck, asking if the state felt compelled to apportion the four new congressional districts to reflect the fact that most of the state’s population increase came from minority populations.  Schenck denied the state had any such obligation. “

AAG Perez & the Voting Section’s “$64,000 Question Why”

In sworn testimony at the link, the AAG for Civil Rights Tom Perez, when questioned by Senator Durbin on his review of voter identification laws, stated that the Voting Section is “following the facts, guided by the Supreme Court in Indiana and looking at the why question” as to why the jurisdiction passed the voter ID law.  Perez admits the law of land is now clear in that voter ID has been upheld as legitimate by the Supreme Court and that his only role is to see if there is discriminatory purpose behind the law.  Perez then calls the “why” question the big $64,000 question that still must be answered by states.

But is this really the correct analysis?  Yes, the Voting Section should be investigating the facts of the law.  Yes, Mr. Perez also confirms that Voting Section will follow the guidance of the Supreme Court in upholding the fundamental legitimacy of voter ID as a voting practice and not a Jim Crow poll tax.  Then Mr. Perez specifically explained how the Voting Section will approach the analysis of voter ID laws with the remaining Section 5 states who have not yet implemented such laws.  He states they will look for the “why” behind the passage of the laws and see if voter fraud findings justifies the passage of such laws.

The potential disconnect between Mr. Perez (including the Voting Section) and reality is obvious if they maintain the belief that voter fraud does not exist and there remains no room for substantive differences of opinion on that assertion.  With that skewed prism of review, then a jurisdiction will never able to provide an acceptable answer to the $64,000 why question.  And a Voting Section with that mentality would never be able to find a valid non-discriminatory intent in the passage of the law; therefore, the passing of such law by legislatures must have some evil design behind it.  And despite the lack of any evidence of discriminatory purpose or intent, the Voting Section makes its illogical leap and fills in the blank to the “why” question with the first thing that comes to their mind – racism.     

If the Voting Section would focus its responsibility on analyzing why the pertinent legislative body actually passed the administrative requirement of voter identification without letting their own political biases interfere, the law should be promptly precleared. Perez should recall that the Crawford court specifically highlighted many other legitimate state interests, in addition to voter fraud, as sufficient to justify the reasonable burden of voter identification laws.  These interests include election modernization, election administration, and voter confidence.  In fact, the Supreme Court ruled that actual fraud was not even necessary to answer the why question; rather, simply the deterrence of potential fraud would be adequate to answer the big why.  Perez cannot ignore the many legitimate answers to the “64,000 question” of voter identification laws simply because he doesn’t believe voter fraud is prevalent enough to answer the question to his personal satisfaction.  That is not his call.