Morris News Service reports:

Georgia officials announced Thursday that they have settled a lawsuit charging that welfare applicants weren’t given access to voter-registration materials as required by federal law. But Secretary of State Brian Kemp isn’t happy about it. His office issued a statement headlined “Secretary of State Kemp condemns U.S. Department of Justice-Acorn coordination behind ludicrous voter-registration lawsuit.”

The ACORN-affiliated Project Vote filed the suit along with the Georgia State Conference of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and the Coalition for the Peoples’ Agenda and others. It accused the state of failing to supply voter-registration forms every time a person applies for welfare or re-certifies eligibility or changes an address, either in person, by telephone or over the Internet.

In the settlement, Kemp agreed to ensure the Department of Human Services offers the forms and will issue reports of how many go out to the coalition that sued.

The Weekly adds:

The DOJ filed a “statement of interest” in the case, indicating that the agency agreed with the plaintiffs’ position. Interestingly, documents show that the DOJ has recently coordinated similar lawsuits with Project Vote in Missouri, Ohio, Indiana, New Mexico, Rhode Island and Louisiana.

and quotes Secretary Kemp:

“The court’s decision to ignore the NVRA’s notice requirements and expand the scope of the law will cost Georgia taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars to comply with outdated and unneeded federal voter registration mandates and in attorney’s fees paid to venue-shopping interest groups. Despite allegations of widespread violations by DHS, it is apparent that this was not a lawsuit aimed at promoting increased voter registration as seen by the more than 5.8 million registered voters in the state as of April 1^st [almost 80% of Georgia’s Voting Age Population of 7.3 million]. 

“The provisions of the NVRA at issue in this lawsuit are clearly being misconstrued by federal courts, as evidenced by this court’s actions and the decision this week by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that Arizona’s proof of citizenship requirement to register to vote violates the NVRA. Based on these decisions, it is clear that Congress should immediately reexamine and clarify the NVRA so states are no longer required to duplicate voter registration efforts, and allow states to ensure that only U.S. citizens can register to vote.” 

Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen asked the U.S. Supreme Court Thursday to overturn a decision by a three-judge panel that found maps of two state Assembly districts violated Latinos’ voting rights.  The U.S. Supreme Court is required to take the case and will have the final say on what election maps are in place around the state for the next decade starting this fall.

“While some view the adverse portion of the district court decision as being inconsequential, I disagree,” Van Hollen said in a statement. “Any time a federal court rejects a state redistricting statute, and decides to redraw or adjust a legislative district, it is a serious matter and appropriate for appellate review.”

In its current form, the bill requires anyone who forgets to bring proper identification to the polls to fill out a provisional ballot, which would not be counted unless the voter returns with proper ID or sends an electronic copy.  McDonnell sought to weaken the bill by allowing election officials to compare the signature on the provisional ballot with a voter registration card on file. But both the House and Senate shot down McDonnell’s amendment during Wednesday’s veto session. . .

Local registrars in Virginia lobbied lawmakers hard to override McDonnell’s changes because of the extra work it would have created for poll workers on already stressful election nights, and they found supporters on both sides of the aisle.  

A challenge to Wisconsin’s new voter ID law won’t be resolved before this spring’s recalls are over.

Dane County Circuit Judge David Flanagan has temporarily blocked the law from taking effect while he considers both sides’ arguments.   A four-day bench trial wrapped up early Thursday afternoon with Flanagan saying that he wants to see both sides’ final positions in writing.  He said final briefs will be due June 18, nearly two weeks after the June 5 general recall election.

“The court upheld the requirement that persons wishing to vote must show identification at the polling place,” [AZ Attorney General Tom] Horne’s office said in an email. “The part we will have to appeal is dealing with registration. We always expected the U.S. Supreme Court to have to decide this one. The people of Arizona have a right to request that people registering to vote show some evidence they are citizens and we fully expect the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold that.”

Hat tip to James O’Keefe for cutting this video down from the entire hearing video for me.  Thanks JOIII.

    “In response to criticism for failing to enforce Section 2, the Department of Justice has recently adopted a curious new public position – that it is conducting a record number of Section 2 investigations.   Assistant Attorney General Perez recently told the National Secretaries of State that the DOJ has opened “almost 100” Section 2 investigations.  This is a public relations strategy without substance. 

    “Here is what is actually happening.  Soon after I and others criticized the DOJ for a lack of Section enforcement, the Voting Section launched the “almost 100” Section 2 investigations.  The demographer at the Voting Section identified scores of American jurisdictions – counties and towns – with substantial minority populations based primarily on census data.  No voters have complained from these newfound targets.  Names from this target list have been parceled out to various Voting Section attorneys to take a preliminary glance to see if the matter might be worth pursuing.  These inquiries almost never go beyond looking at the current make-up of the legislative body, and may not even involve an analysis under Gingles One.   That is, the “investigation” doesn’t even reach the preliminary point of whether it is even possible to draw a minority-majority district.  In an effort to puff the “investigative” numbers, these sweeping glances are assigned a “DJ” number, and thus become “investigations” for public relations purposes. 

    “Had the Bush administration used such flimsy standards for characterizing an inquiry a “Section 2 investigation,” they probably could have boasted of hundreds of Section 2 investigations.  Indeed, I personally conducted at least 100 such preliminary inquiries, except that in many instances I actually drew maps for Gingles One purposes.  The reality is that the “almost 100” Section 2 investigations currently being “conducted” by the Justice Department constitute little more than a public relations exercise designed to keep critics quiet about the absence of Section 2 enforcement.”