More on DOJ vs Florida – Citing News Reports

More from the memo filed by Florida today:

“DOJ crosses even further into the realm of conclusory and unsubstantiated
speculation by asserting that the Secretary’s use of MDAVE data is “discriminatory.” DOJ cites
a single source to support this claim: a news report “indicat[ing] that the program may have a disproportionate impact on minority voters” because “87 percent of those on the 2,600-person list are minorities.” U.S. Mem. 17 & n.6 (emphasis added). As a threshold matter, a single media report speculating that the MDAVE data “may” have a disparate impact is obviously not competent evidence to support any judgment or relief.”

This is a great example of the sort of evidence that would not be cited to justify a TRO during the Bush administration – news reports on statistical disparity.  Either this evidentiary foundation escaped the eye of the Section Chief, or the Section Chief has new standards of proof.

More on DOJ vs Florida – Citing News Reports

More from the memo filed by Florida today:

“DOJ crosses even further into the realm of conclusory and unsubstantiated
speculation by asserting that the Secretary’s use of MDAVE data is “discriminatory.” DOJ cites
a single source to support this claim: a news report “indicat[ing] that the program may have a disproportionate impact on minority voters” because “87 percent of those on the 2,600-person list are minorities.” U.S. Mem. 17 & n.6 (emphasis added). As a threshold matter, a single media report speculating that the MDAVE data “may” have a disparate impact is obviously not competent evidence to support any judgment or relief.”

This is a great example of the sort of evidence that would not be cited to justify a TRO during the Bush administration – news reports on statistical disparity.  Either this evidentiary foundation escaped the eye of the Section Chief, or the Section Chief has new standards of proof.

Florida’s Memo Opposing DOJ on Non-Citizen Voters

Some lines from this memo filed by Florida today:

“DOJ did not initially seek any preliminary relief; however, on the evening of Friday, June 15, it moved for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”). Contrary to the requirements of Local Rule 7.1(B), DOJ did not consult with Defendants prior to filing this motion. “

“Over 100 individuals conceded their ineligibility to supervisors, over half of whom had in fact voted in prior elections.”

“DOJ’s newfound haste in seeking a TRO is completely unwarranted, as Defendants are
not currently taking any action that could cause any injury to voters, let alone irreparable injury. At best, DOJ’s request for a TRO appears to be based on a misunderstanding of the facts, which could have been avoided had it engaged in the required conferral with Defendants.”

Florida’s Memo Opposing DOJ on Non-Citizen Voters

Some lines from this memo filed by Florida today:

“DOJ did not initially seek any preliminary relief; however, on the evening of Friday, June 15, it moved for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”). Contrary to the requirements of Local Rule 7.1(B), DOJ did not consult with Defendants prior to filing this motion. “

“Over 100 individuals conceded their ineligibility to supervisors, over half of whom had in fact voted in prior elections.”

“DOJ’s newfound haste in seeking a TRO is completely unwarranted, as Defendants are
not currently taking any action that could cause any injury to voters, let alone irreparable injury. At best, DOJ’s request for a TRO appears to be based on a misunderstanding of the facts, which could have been avoided had it engaged in the required conferral with Defendants.”