“Judging from the questions posed by justices in the oral arguments, the court may very well decide that the law is no longer a fair or reasonable way to uphold the rights of minority voters. The Voting Rights Act’s differential treatment of some states was not meant to be forever — only until minority voters had secured their full rights once and for all.

Like the rest of the nation, the South is far from immune to racial conflict and prejudice. But it has changed beyond recognition, and it’s about time for the law to change as well.”

Link.

In 2005 it was the answer of 21-member Carter-Baker Commission on Federal Election Reform:

“We are recommending a photo ID system for voters designed to increase registration with a more affirmative and aggressive role for states in finding new voters and providing free IDs for those without driver’s licenses. The formula we recommend will result in both more integrity and more access.”

In 2013, it is Jim Crow racism and the reason to keep Section 5.  

Republicans should take heed.  No new recommendations until the previous recommendations are adopted.

Says the “last non-partisan commission to improve the voting experience in America concluded that #VoterID was necessary.” Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, on Twitter

PolitiFact rates it True.

My latest at the Washington Times.

“President Obama’s State of the Union address last month provided the latest national crisis to be solved by Washington, D.C.: waiting in line to vote. The president shared the emotional saga of Desiline Victor, a Florida centenarian who waited six hours to vote. He announced a presidential commission to address the matter.

Unfortunately, the president didn’t tell the whole story about long lines and why he has suddenly become concerned.

Simply, this is a federal solution in search of a problem. Long lines to vote were very rare last November. They were certainly not sufficiently widespread to merit intervention in the nation’s capital. . . .

There are local solutions to these rare problems. No utopian federal proposal can fix a problem with local election administration. Election officials and their constituents are best suited to fix any problems.

This didn’t stop the coordinated campaign by leftist groups calling for expansive federal mandates to fix a problem that is not widespread. Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.’s Justice Department has joined the coordinated effort. Mr. Holder’s controversy-plagued Civil Rights Division has been tasked with providing government-funded cover to the effort by the activist groups. . . .

Pay attention to the federal mandates that the presidential commission might consider. No doubt they will be intrusions into state legislative choices, such as guaranteed vote by mail, or federal mandates for early voting.

If the long-lines commission is really looking for widespread disenfranchisement, it should focus attention on the sorry state of military voting.

The Obama Department of Defense has failed to follow federal law mandating that military recruitment centers also serve as voter registration offices — just like a welfare office. Might it be because registering those dependent on food stamps helps Democrats win elections?”

FULL article at LINK

My appearance on Fox and Friends this weekend regarding the administration’s efforts to stop whistleblowers and transparency in government.  I note that without whistleblowers I could not have reported that the career attorneys in the Voting Section recommended that the South Carolina Voter ID law be precleared, only to be overruled by Tom Perez.

 The Fresno Bee makes allusion to the bailout collusion.

I will be in Miami today speaking at the Florida International University Law School at noon today.  

 McClatchy.


“The Department of Justice now thinks a flurry of bailouts, some of them obtained improperly, will convince the Supreme Court that Section 5 is not much of a burden and should survive,” former Justice Department official J. Christian Adams wrote last December, adding that Merced County was “ineligible for bailout.”

Similar arguments have been made in National Review Online and in legal pleadings, with conservatives specifically criticizing the bailout expert hired by Merced County, attorney J. Gerald Hebert.

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/02/22/183935/landmark-supreme-court-voting.html#storylink=cpy

It may come down to Justice Kennedy.  That is bad news for DOJ and the Voting Section.  Why?

Justice Kennedy, of course – I think Spencer would agree with me – is –
we all see as the swing justice. How he’s going to rule in this, I don’t
know. I do know that it wasn’t too long ago that he actually wrote the
opinion in a case called Miller v. Johnson, which was a case that went
through and documented some of the abusive enforcement practices of the
Justice Department and, in fact, highly criticized the Justice
Department for its enforcement of Section Five in that particular case.

Via NPR.

The Democratic National Committee has no intention of repaying the
country’s largest electrical power company for the unprecedented $10
million line of credit it guaranteed to help a local host committee fund
last September’s Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, N.C.  According to an article on the Washington Times
web site, an official for Duke Energy said the company would claim the
money as a business expense for tax purposes, meaning shareholders will
foot $6 million of the cost.  The amount of the loan and the secrecy surrounding it has raised red flags for government watchdog groups.   Link to Newsmax