Slate mag.

The State reports on Lexington 3 suit:

In a ruling earlier this month, U.S. District Judge Margaret Seymour found that the district’s practice of at-large voting did not discriminate against African-American voters in the 2,020-student school district. . . “Out of the last four elections — 2002, 2004, 2006, 2008 — 14 seats on the school board were open, and minority voters elected nine candidates of choice, for a 64 percent success rate,” Seymour wrote in a 24-page opinion.

True the Vote goes on offense at Breitbart.com.  “True the Vote is a citizen-led effort to educate fellow voters, research the veracity of voter rolls, recruit and train polling place volunteers, and fully document observations all along the way. We’ve done it, we know it works, and we want to help others do the same in their communities. Our exportable model of training, technology, and support will prepare citizens for participation in the electoral process at whatever level of involvement they choose.”

Lee Hamilton poses THE question: 
“Can we ensure that those who vote really are entitled to do so, while at the same time making it as convenient as possible for all who are entitled to cast their ballots?”

Two involve the voting section and one other involves the Civil Rights Division.

 Full story here.

Assistant Attorney General Tom Perez toes the administration line in remarks at Rutgers Law School Voting Symposium, April 13 (H/T Texas Redistricting):

We are also involved in a number of Section 5 matters arising out of recently enacted state laws relating to voter identification requirements, voter registration requirements, and changes to early voting procedures.   In December, we interposed an objection to South Carolina’s voter identification law.   In March, we objected to a photo ID requirement from Texas on the ground that the law would have a retrogressive effect on Hispanic registered voters. . .

And also last month, we filed a notice in court taking the position that several of Florida’s recent election law changes – including changes to the early voting period, changes to the procedures for third-party voter registration organizations, and changes that affect people who move between counties and want to update their address on election day – did not meet the Section 5 standard and should not be precleared. . .

These are just a few examples that illustrate why the Department must – and will – continue to vigorously defend Section 5 against challenges to its constitutionality.   

More to chew on – redistricting challenges, NVRA enforcement, MOVE Act compliance – and aside from factual disputes in various Section 5 cases cited, some of Perez’ conclusions raise questions:

And for those who believe that the country has eradicated voting discrimination in the 47 years since enactment of Section 5, the Justice Department’s ongoing work under Section 5 is among the best possible demonstrations that it remains critically necessary.

So Perez concludes that DOJ’s own objections to multiple Section 5 preclearance requests prove that Section 5 remains a necessary safeguard to be defended “vigorously” so DOJ can continue to object to preclearance requests?  Nice bootstraps.

[L]et’s make sure we do everything in our power to ensure that every single eligible voter can cast his or her ballot.  

How does Perez suggest we determine who is “eligible”?  Are we to take voters’ word for it, as did the DC poll worker who was willing to hand Eric Holder’s ballot to an unidentified stranger?

Let’s work to prevent fraud; let’s not erect new, unnecessary requirements that have a discriminatory impact.  

How does Perez propose to prevent fraud by NOT enacting new requirements to detect fraud?

Perez demagogues, DOJ sues, while Section 5 states are left to defend the integrity of their elections with little more than a reliance on the honor system.

 Breitbart’s BigGovernment.com.  “From the very start of the Obama Administration, it has seemed that Mr. Holder believes and believes in giving a great deal of latitude to the New Black Panther Party, as his department refused to entertain the very thought of prosecuting two members of the Party on charges of voter intimidation after they were video-taped by independent observers standing outside a Philadelphia polling place with billy clubs in hand.”

More on the fight between the RNLA and Eric Holder at the Daily Caller.

” . . . That was a very quick study to see where there were reported incidents of voter fraud.”

Norcross added that he thinks Holder is “just like his boss [Obama]” in that “he will say anything it takes to fit his argument at the time, whether it’s true or not.” Norcross said that Holder distorted his group’s study because he “needed to justify” the Obama administration’s stance that voter fraud isn’t real. “He obviously can’t find any studies that back his position so he takes ours and misquotes it,” Norcross said.

Because They Can.  Reports John Fund via NRO,