Link here.  Includes discussion of Texas voter ID.

Federal Judges rule South Carolina redistricting lines don’t discriminate against black voters.  full story here.

In an interview with NPR, Artur Davis, the former member of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC), says Alabama and the South is a very different place than when the Voting Rights Act (VRA) was passed over 40 years ago, or much different than even 20 years ago. 

Davis said the biggest unintended consequence of the Voting Rights Act is what he called the “overinterpretation of the Voting Rights Act” that has resulted in hyper racial gerrymandering that has resulted in racially polarized voting patterns and non-competitive races.   

Davis stated that the Voting Rights Act was built on the premise that “Bobby Jindal (the Indian-American Governor from Louisiana and Tim Scott (the Black Republican Congressman from South Carolina)” would never exist.   But in fact, they do.  He noted that in Alabama he was able to receive over 40% of the white vote in his run for Governor and actually received less support from black voters than did other candidates.  He says the modern south shows that white Republicans will vote for Blacks who are Republicans or believe in the same things.  

A link to the full audio interview entitled Is the Voting Rights Act Still Necessary?

Over the history of Presidencies, the U.S. Attorney General has routinely been accused of playing politics, but we are hard put to find one that has practiced the art form more than Eric Holder. Monday’s decision to reject Texas’s voter identification law on grounds that it would hurt minorities is the latest case study.

Bear in mind that 31 states have voter ID laws, which passed under Republicans and Democrats alike. It would take a distinctive kind of naivete to believe there is no voter fraud in America.

…In a December speech on voter ID, Mr. Holder warned that “we will examine the facts, and we will apply the law.” It’s no surprise that his civil rights division has now massaged the data in such a complicated fashion that it can charge bias. The courts won’t be able to clean up the mess until after the election.

Full editorial from the Wall Street Journal

I will be on with Dana Loesch at 3:30 pm EDT today in St. Louis and Indianapolis to dicuss the DOJ objection on Texas Voter ID, the attorneys responsible for the objection and Eric Holder’s factual exagerations in the objection letter.  Dana Show.

Last year, a photo ID voter bill passed the Republican House but was defeated in the Democratic Senate. Republicans generally consider photo IDs a necessary safeguard against voting fraud. Democrats argue that voter impersonation is rare but that photo ID requirements could hurt people without IDs, especially the elderly and needy.  Link here.

Since the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, which lifted the unconstitutional ban on independent political expenditures by corporations and unions, The New York Times and other liberal media outlets have had their editorial knickers in a twist. Outrage verging on hysteria emerges from their constant stream of editorials on the topic. Yet every time the Times criticizes the Supreme Court for striking down the restrictive federal censorship law, the Gray Lady reveals that its real concern is not “the potential for corruption” as it claimed in a Feb. 24 editorial, but the ability of those with whom it disagrees to speak out.  Full opinion at Human Events, link.

Closing loopholes in Michigan’s photo identification laws for voting is one of the reforms Michigan Secretary of State Ruth Johnson wants the Michigan Legislature to address.  Johnson said it’s possible today for someone to register to vote and then try to vote absentee without showing identification or signing an affidavit of identity.  story here.

Before his next speech, Holder should bone up on the Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision in 2008 upholding Indiana’s voter-ID law. The liberal Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the majority opinion. The court held that “there is no question about the legitimacy or importance of the state’s interest in counting only the votes of eligible voters,” and “we cannot conclude that the statute imposes ‘excessively burdensome requirements’ on any class of voters.”  

.. Not that any of this matters to Attorney General Holder. Just as the administration is manufacturing a “war on women,” he wants to manufacture a “war on voting rights.” It is the same MO of fevered rhetoric and distortions in the service of the same end of motivating key voting blocs. Holder’s tenure as the government’s top lawyer is an ongoing disgrace. 

full story here.

The bill, which would give Pennsylvania one of the nation’s toughest voter ID laws, was expected to pass Tuesday in the Republican-controlled House, the last step before it can go to the desk of Gov. Tom Corbett, who plans to sign it.  story here.