Word out of New Orleans yesterday was that the Louisiana state house plan has been precleared by the Department of Justice.  The article quotes a Lousiana legislative leader as stating this is the first time any initial redistricting plan has ever been precleared by DOJ since the enactment of the Voting Rights Act. If true, this is a testament to the Republican legislative majority and the strategy of going to Federal court to hold DOJ’s feet to the fire.   

The Washington Post reported earlier that the civil rights community saw this as the “crucial test of the Voting Rights Act.”  Of course, the plan was wholly unacceptable to an assortment of liberal interest groups even though the plan actually increased black representation in the face of decrease in the New Orleans black population due to Hurricane Katrina.  The one-sided media storm showed that when many liberal interest groups cry foul, they are actually crying wolf, and their real goal was to overtly pressure DOJ to use the civil rights laws to their partisan advantage.  

The fact that Louisiana simultaneously submitted its plan to the U.S. District Court in Washington on a parallel litigation path resulted in more timely approval and less nit-picking by DOJ of minor details of a perfectly acceptable (but not NAACP endorsed) plan. The strategy provided an appropriate degree of pressure on the Voting Section to prevent political interference by liberal interest groups, and even the Obama political leadership itself at the Civil Rights Division. 

This common sense strategy to go to Federal court actually streamlined the preclearance review process in both Virginia and Louisiana.  By going to court, Louisiana helped prevent the type of undue influence exerted by interest groups that was found in Miller v. Johnson to have resulted in the Civil Rights Division unlawfully pressuring jurisdictions in the maximization of minority seats.  

Unable to shield their analysis from the sunlight, the Voting Section attorneys do not want to be in a position where they would have to explain to a Federal court unique theories on retrogression, justify cryptic findings of discrimination, or defend against real or perceived political interference that would reveal itself in litigation. 

Instead, the Voting Section was required to do a realistic analysis of the redistricting plans that would almost certainly be reviewed by a panel of federal judges or the next step of review – the Supreme Court. 

The Voting Section knows that Section 5 hangs in the balance for constitutional reasons and that overstepping may well result in a constitutional challenge and mean the end of the control they now exert over voting changes in the South. 

Not surprising, the Washington Post described the decision to go to Federal Court by the first two Section 5 states involved with this decade’s redistricting as an “unusual strategy.”  Actually, It is a smart and prudent strategy. The mainstream media fails to recognize that states have no faith in the Department of Justice to do the right or fair thing on the issues such as voter ID or citizen verification much less state redistricting plans that will impact them directly.  This lack of faith is directly attributed to the highly partisan and suspect leadership of  the head of the Civil Rights Division Tom Perez and AG Holder.

With this success, there is a possibility that every Section 5 state on deck will either utilize the dual path preclearance process that has worked so effectively for Georgia, Virginia, and Louisiana or go solely to Federal court, bypassing entirely the administrative review process at DOJ.  

It seems the unusual strategy has already reaped some unusual and significant dividends, including the first ever Louisiana redistricting plan adopted right out the gate since the enactment of the Voting Rights Act. 

At The Daily Caller, a powerful opinion piece from Charles Butler, a man who lived in the Jim Crow era. 

Voter ID in Pennsylvania – update as it works through the legislature

Wall Street Journal on Voter ID

In Michigan, the first three sentences of The Daily Caller article says it all:

“Elections have consequences. Especially in a redistricting year. And Michigan Democrats are learning that the hard way.”

The Chicago Tribune reports that the Rev. Jesse Jackson focused on photo ID laws at the kickoff of the Rainbow PUSH Coalition’s 40th annual conference. 

He called on the Justice Department to investigate the legality of state voter identification laws, which vary across different states from requirements from government-issued IDs to any photo ID. 

“It is their job.  It is their duty to intervene,” Jackson said, about federal officials. 

After decrying the increased number of black majority seats from 18 to 44 since 1980 under the Voting Rights Act because it  may have advantaged Republicans, Cynthia Tucker strikes again. At Yahoo News, she argues that supporting voter identification at the polls is un-American.

A bit over the top?  Don’t bet the mortgage waiting for a Wasserman Schultz sequel where the Chair of the Democratic National Committee reversed herself on the Voter ID equal Jim Crow, blocked polls, poll tax accusation that she smeared on her colleagues and the 75% of the nation that supports the idea.      

Washington Post.  Let this be a lesson to other states – don’t submit plans to DOJ; go straight to court.  The court case caused DOJ to behave themselves.

St. Louis Post Dispatch.  Governor Jay Nixon (D) vetos the new voter ID law.

Kirsten Clarke, et al, in a letter to Chris Herren, Voting Section Chief of at the Justice Department, requests DOJ to object to the new Florida law designed to cut down on mischief involving Acorn-style voter registration drives.  The Florida law does three primary things: 1) limit the time Acorn-style groups can sit on voter registration forms they have collected, 2) compress the dates of early voting but keep the same number of hours, and 3) require voters who no longer live where they are registered to cast a provisional ballot to be verified later in the precinct they have moved to but failed to move their voter registration.  These three requirements, according to Clarke and the NAACP, are racially discriminatory.  Read the full letter here.

Florida may have gravely miscalculated by sending this law to the Justice Department for approval.  Instead, Florida could have gone straight to the United States District Court in D.C. for approval by a judge.  Because Florida instead chose to submit to Eric Holder’s Justice Department, it opened the door for lobbying by Clarke and other well connected racial interest groups.  Consider Virginia.  Virginia knew that it was a bad idea to submit only to the DOJ and instead also went to court for approval of its redistricting plan, which it got yesterday.  Because the case was before the court, badgering by Clarke and others were effectively ignored.  The DOJ felt the heat of the court imposed timetable, and other heat, and approved the plan.

Florida may not enjoy the same fate as Virginia because it did not sue in court for approval.  At a minimum, Florida will probably be burdened with more information requests, a range of questions which could otherwise only be obtained in discovery, and general hostility toward the Florida plan. 

I and others will be writing more shortly about the particular advantages that Virginia enjoyed by submitting their plan to district court, and the limits of bad behavior DOJ endured because the court supervised the issue, not bureaucrats.