Some preliminary hard numbers received from the Election Assistance Commission’s (EAC) new study on UOCAVA voting in the 2010 election. 

• Of the 211,749 UOCAVA ballots submitted for counting, States reported counting 197,390 (93%). The same percentage of UOCAVA ballots were counted in 2008.

Unfortunately, the 7% of individuals who had their ballots discarded is significantly higher than other comparable methods of voting.  Modifications to the MOVE Act may be necessary to reduce that rejection rate to comparable percentages for regular absentee ballot rates for non-UOCAVA voters.  It will be interesting to dig into the data and determine if the number of UOCAVA ballots used by the EAC in this analysis includes absent military voters in the Continental United States.  While absent military voters in the U.S. are defined as UOCAVA voters, they may not have the same challenges as overseas and military voters in remote locations. The UOCAVA voters in the U.S. would presumably have an increased rate of return and their inclusion in the numbers would skew the numbers upward.   From the report:    

• States reported rejecting 14,824 ballots. The most common reason for rejecting a UOCAVA ballot was that the ballot was not received on time. Thirty-two percent of the ballots were not counted for this reason.

The large numbers of people directly disenfranchised by postal service limitations is very unfortunate.  The primary rejection cause for UOCAVA ballots is simply not enough time being provided for the ballot to make the lengthy and slow transit to an overseas location and back.  This failure rate more than justifies the MOVE Act’s 45 day requirement for mailing ballots and requires strict DOJ enforcement of this hard deadline.  The fact that time and distance is still the overwhelming obstacle to voting for UOCAVA voters argues for consideration of other methods and technologies that would shorten the transmittal process of the ballot.  The one issue that will take longer to glean from the data is the total participation rate of UOCAVA voters in the voting process.  More to follow.

From the Clarion Ledger, a prediction that the voter ID initiative will pass in Mississippi by a significant majority of votes.

The author opines that “voter ID requirements are long overdue in Mississippi and have reached the ballot over the most specious and manufactured objections.  But as critics suggest, voter ID won’t solve Mississippi’s most prevalent voter fraud issues – absentee ballot fraud and affidavit ballot fraud.”

Sources indicate Tom Wilkey has submitted an official letter of resignation from the Election Assistance Commission (EAC).  This leaves the EAC with two commissioners and dwindling staff to conduct any sort of business.  More to follow.

I will be on KOA in Denver in the 7pm hour local time on the Michael Brown Show.

The interview at Roll Call with Assistant Attorney General Perez that must have taken place after the daily yoga session.

Perez’s division has become one of the GOP’s most prominent targets as the division considers new voting laws passed by GOP-controlled state legislatures and hires dozens of new career civil rights attorneys who Republicans charge are too liberal. “One of my principal goals in coming here, not only in the voting section, but across the board, is to make sure that politics doesn’t infect the decision-making process,” Perez told Roll Call last week. “Now, when we make decisions, do they affect how elections are carried out? Undeniably, because that’s what the Voting Rights Act is about.”

On that score, Perez seems to have failed on multiple counts:  Count 1:  His wholesale hiring of left wing Obama supporters into the Voting Section leaves no doubt the answers that he seeks.  Count 2:  A majority of the states that currently (and forever apparently) interact with DOJ on Section 5 issues sincerely believe that “politics has improperly infected the decision making process.”  Enough so that they have walked with their feet to federal court, not allowing final decisions of import to rest with Perez or the partisan hires at DOJ.  How is that for a vote of confidence in Attorney General Holder’s shop.

“Preclearance is a deeply complicated process, and Perez noted several factors go into his division’s analysis and decisions. Certain House districts must have a combination of the right minority voting age population, turnout performance, candidate crossover appeal and racial community cohesion. “There’s no magic numerical formula. It’s a very holistic analysis that involves looking at prior elections, voting age data, things of that matter,” Perez said. “We’re trying to demystify the process.”

No magic formula?  A holilistic approach? Should not the law be the magic formula.  Perez wants to look at all aspects of the voting process and this approach may be the current Department’s problem.  Perez is essentially telling states that there is no magic formula to receive preclearance from him.  But he knows discrimination when he sees it and when a voting change fails to meet this subjective holilistic standard.  The law requires guidelines that set standards and actually provides guidance, provide bright lines and safety harbors, applies consistent retrogression standards, and does not rely on some “holilistic” analysis that involves casting judgment on the vastly different voting processes across the country.  It appears many states are mystified.

A while ago, Florida submitted a law to the DOJ that would amend early voting days (but keep the same aggregate amount of early voting time) and require third party voter registration groups to turn in applications in a timely fashion.  They submitted this law to the DOJ for preclearance under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. 

Then a funny thing happened.  Florida starting hearing from DOJ Voting Section Attorney Elise Shore.  In my book Injustice (<—— Link to purchase book over there), I go into detail about Shore’s background with the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund.  Before coming to DOJ, Shore was an opponent of voter integrity efforts in Georgia that included verification that only citizens are registering to vote.  DOJ initially objected to Georgia’s law before caving after a lawsuit was filed challenging Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.  The civil rights groups were outraged, though their grumbles were largely kept “in the family,” shall we say.  

DOJ made odd inquiries that led to the more level headed folks in Tallahassee begining to wonder if the fix was in.  Good faith inquiries, they seemed not to be.   DOJ could have precleared the law when it had the chance to.  Instead, Florida yanked the submission and filed in District Court for approval.  They knew the federal court would not be as biased in reviewing the law.  Smart move.

Now in an amended complaint, Florida has rolled out the artillery – a constitutional challenge to Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act.  This lawsuit threatens to unravel the whole Section 5 enforcement scheme.  And there seems little doubt that a Federal court would preclear the pretty small election changes.  These are not the facts DOJ wants in front of the high court.  Had odd lines of inquiry not been made by DOJ, this untidy mess could have been avoided.  Even a stealth objection, one without the obvious warning signs, might have avoided this mess, cost and risky lawsuit.

DOJ could, of course, moot out this risky and costly lawsuit by making it clear to the court (or at least to Florida) that they will speedily preclear the change in early voting dates and time requirements for voter registration forms.  And it all started with an inquiry that made it seem that DOJ was about to go a bit too far.

I am scheduled to be on the Dallas talk monster KSKY in the 7pm hour Wednesday with the amazing John David Wells.  Wells is one of the very best talk show talents in the nation.  

 Daily Caller.

AL.com has more.