Department of State launches campaign to educate Tennessee voters about new photo ID law

You knew this had to be coming.  Government funded Florida radio station WMFE has corrected erroneous “election law expert” (and University of Central Florida professor of constitutional law) Derek Brett.  Earlier, the radio station had reported that Brett was flummoxed by the decision of Florida Secretary of State Kurt Browning to chose the option available under 42 U.S.C. 1973(b)(a) and obtain approval from neutral federal judges for election law changes.  Brett wondered:

How does a federal judge do that? The only way a federal judge could do that is if Mr. Browning is able to, in some way, present some type of constitutional argument,” says Brett. He adds he’s not sure what that argument might be.

Now the radio station has backpeddled:

Contrary to analysis heard on Wednesday’s Morning Edition on WMFE, the Voting Rights Act does allow a jurisdiction to choose whether to seek that pre-clearance from the Justice Department or from a federal court.

It makes you wonder how much other false legal analysis is being reported by the media.

The nomination of Leon Rodriguez for Wage and Hour Administrator was withdrawn by the President this week.  Rodriguez is serving as the Chief of Staff in the Civil Rights Division.  Hans von Spakovsky earlier penned this expose about, in part, Leon Rodriguez, “Amateur Night at the Justice Department” and this second piece “Radicalizing Civil Rights.”

“None of that is deterring Democrats from using voter ID to drum up racial fears. Democratic Party Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz used the “Jim Crow” line earlier this year, adding “photo I.D. laws, we think, are very similar to a poll tax.” Democratic Senators and House members have asked the Justice Department to take action. Look for this to be a consistent Democratic theme as the election approaches, amid party fears that declining real incomes will dampen enthusiasm about re-electing President Obama. “

Full editorial here.

A government funded radio station in Florida runs a story critical of Florida Secretary of State Kurt Browning and the decision to seek preclearance in federal court.  They mangle the story.  Why does this not come as a surprise:

“He’s attempting to have a federal judge rule that the Voting Rights Act – the pre-clearance requirements of the Voting Rights Act – don’t apply,” explains Orlando attorney Derek Brett. He’s an expert in election law and he teaches constitutional law at the University of Central Florida.

“How does a federal judge do that? The only way a federal judge could do that is if Mr. Browning is able to, in some way, present some type of constitutional argument,” says Brett. He adds he’s not sure what that argument might be.

Unprecedented?  The Voting Rights Act doesn’t apply?  Constitutional argument?  Good lord.  This guy is teaching law to students?  Heaven help us.

Professor Brett – take a look at 42 USC 1973(b)(a). It ought to clear up a few things.

BigGovernment.com.

“The group, Wisconsin Jobs Now! was offering food and prizes to voters who then hopped in a van and were shuttled to Milwaukee City Hall to vote early via absentee ballot. (The use of ‘walking around money’ and such inducements for voting may be common in other states but they are illegal in Wisconsin.)”

The Pelican Report: 

“The timing of the Justice Department’s lawsuit is suspicious, raising the prospect that it is working with a special interest group for mutual partisan purposes, Roger Clegg, president and general counsel of the Center for Equal Opportunity observed.  “There have been other instances over the years of the Justice Department doing the NAACP’s bidding in voting matters, and the politicization of the Justice Department in the Obama administration, in particular, has been widely criticized.”

 

Link here to watch live starting at 2pm EDT.  The forum is sponsored by Judicial Watch and includes John Fund and Catherine Englebrecht.

From the Associated Press: 

“The U.S. Justice Department said it will monitor the primaries in 11 of Mississippi’s 82 counties to ensure black voters’ rights are protected. Federal observers will be in Bolivar, Clay, Copiah, Humphreys, Jefferson Davis, Noxubee, Panola, Quitman, Sunflower, Tallahatchie and Wilkinson counties. Ten of the 11 counties are majority black. Only Panola is not.”

Hans von Spakovsky has this piece today at PJ Tatler on South Carolina’s strange decision to go to the Department of Justice for preclearance of a voter ID law.  Sources in South Carolina tell me that the submission was made to DOJ only because that’s how they “always do it.”  Texas, Louisiana, Georgia, Florida and Virginia “always did it that way” too, but were savvy enough to recognize changed circumstances.  South Carolina may be ready to yank the submission if trouble appears.  But trouble has already appeared.  What more might South Carolina need to know to demonstrate the submission is heading for the rocks than the NAACP announcing they are “betting the farm” on an objection?  Maybe Democratic members of Congress inserting themselves politically into the process perhaps???  The SC Attorney General could call Florida Secretary of State Kurt Browning’s office and listen to the account of the telephone calls from Voting Section lawyer (and former MALDEF lawyer) Elise Shore that pushed Florida toward yanking thier submission.  (Read her screed against Georgia Voter ID here, before she moved to DOJ).  Every minute and every penny South Carolina spends on the submission to the DOJ is likely a waste of time and taxpayer money. 

Von Spakovsky:

Those same people who wanted an objection to Georgia’s voter ID are now in charge and will call the shots on South Carolina’s voter ID. The fact that DOJ previously precleared Georgia’s voter ID law as well as Arizona’s ID law is precedent that they will probably do their best to ignore.

The NAACP recently announced it is “betting the farm” that the Holder Justice Department will object to the South Carolina voter ID law.

That’s a safe bet, considering that the new leadership of the Voting Section is comprised largely of former NAACP officials. Why would the state submit its statute to these officials for review when the Voting Rights Act provides for an alternative path — going straight to federal district court? Inexplicably, Attorney General Wilson rejected the federal court option. When the NAACP bets the farm, General Wilson should be concerned that the cards won’t be dealt fairly. If Justice does object to South Carolina’s statute, he will have no one to blame but himself.

Wilson’s colleagues to the south are playing it smarter. Last week, Florida Secretary of State Kurt Browning yanked a submission from DOJ that the NAACP targeted and instead went to court. The NAACP also labeled the Florida law as the return of Jim Crow. What did the law do? Move early voting days and require voter registration forms to be turned in by third party groups in a timely fashion. Quite likely, the NAACP’s hyperbole (not to mention its overly cozy relationship with Voting Section attorneys and staff) is what caused Florida to pull the submission from DOJ.