“Federal judge: For blacks, ‘voting rights’ include identifying Democrats on ballots”

U.S. District Court judge has rejected a challenge to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 — filled when the Department of Justice barred the city of Kinston, N.C. from holding nonpartisan elections — reasoning that lack of access to party affiliation would discriminate against minority voters who otherwise wouldn’t know how to find Democratic candidates on a ballot.

The challenge was initiated after the Justice Department rejected a 2008 referendum vote in which the city of Kinston voted to stop listing candidates’ party affiliations on ballots.

Daily Caller with the full story at the link

Georgia AG vows to defend new maps if Democrats challenge them

In Georgia, the ink is not yet dry on the preclearance letter approving newly redistricted maps and the Democrats, specifically the Georgia Legislative Black Caucus, intends to fight the new districts with a lawsuit under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

In response, Georgia Attorney General Sam Olens says, he’ll vigorously defend Georgia’s redistricting maps in court if plans to challenge them come through.

“I would suggest to you, at the point that the state Democratic party is taking a more extreme position than the Obama Justice Department, that doesn’t bode well for the state Democratic party down below,” Olens says. “The legal standard is whether you assure one man, one vote, whether you make sure there’s no retrogression, whether you make sure there are communities of interest. If more people vote Republican, that’s their right.”

Illinois & DOJ ignores inflated registration rolls….ooops it’s already 2012

One more example of ignoring statutory required list maintenance procedures despite past instances of voter fraud and prior knowledge of the inflated voter rolls. 

And where has DOJ been?  Oh yeah, they don’t enforce that federal voting law.  They are more worried about objecting to voter ID laws for the first time in 20 years.  

It’s been more than a year since Alexander County officials learned they had more registered voters than voting-age residents, but local officials appear to have taken no steps to remedy the problem.  Francis Lee, the top election official in the state’s southernmost county, said she has received no money to conduct a purge of her voting rolls, which show more than 7,800 registered voters in a county with a population of 7,100 residents over the age of 18.

“We’re having financial problems all around,” said Lee, who was appointed county clerk in November 2009. Although Lee contends the situation has not led to any voting irregularities, the county has experienced voter fraud issues in the past. The fact that nothing is being done is troubling to some residents.

full story @ the link



Additional voter ID battles in 2012 may have political and legal ramifications

As the new year approaches, Politico predicts more voter ID laws and more battles in 2012:

Even as the feds move to block South Carolina from requiring voters to show a photo ID, a handful of other states are set to ring in 2012 with new laws mandating that voters produce picture identification cards before they are permitted to cast ballots. Beginning on Jan. 1, new laws will take effect in Kansas, Rhode Island, Tennessee and Texas requiring residents present a certified government-issued ID if they want to vote, according to a list of new 2012 laws compiled by the National Conference of State Legislatures. 

Both the Supreme Court and the Carter-Baker Commission on Federal Election Reform tried to take the politics out of reasonable requirements for photo ID verification.  However, the Holder Department of Justice has now poisoned the well with racial politics, trying to use voter ID as a political issue to energize the political base of the Democratic Party. 

Holder’s abuse of the preclearance process under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) may very well backfire in both political and legal terms.  The issue has certainly galvanized conservative Republicans and some commentators believe that the voter ID fight may well serve as the vehicle for the Supreme Court ending the invasive nature of Section 5.  When something so reasonable as photo ID can become a special punching bag for race under Section 5, it may be time for a change.

Because the administrative review at DOJ has shown itself susceptible to politicization, another potential result is that the Supreme Court finds that Section 2 of the VRA would adequately serve as a less invasive protection for any racially discriminatory voting laws (i.e. witness the numerous eager plaintiffs in the Texas redistricting litigation).