Abby Thernstrom on Tim Scott’s election in National Review.

“Tim Scott will not be the first black Republican to secure public office, assuming he takes the district in November. His predecessors, however, have been few and far between. Many on the left will continue to describe American race relations as basically unchanged since the days of Strom Thurmond; true patriots know differently. And Scott’s victory is welcome evidence that of course they’re right — if we needed it.”

One characteristic of modern, lazy, biased amateur journalists is they often take statements and attempt to taint someone ideologically with them.  This tactic only works when you have an equally lazy and biased audience, or perhaps one not terribly bright.  One amateur blog renowned for inaccuracy and bias, called mainjustice, used Election Law Center’s description of the jurisprudence of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act to do just that.  In the same paragraph they inaccurately described criticism of a certain government office where none did lie.   You’ve come to expect that in a world where you don’t need paying readers.  Thankfully most nonpaying readers have the sense to recognize flimsy work when they see it.  Flimsy?   Indeed.

So is Section 5 on the “outer frontier of the permissible exercise of federal power over the states?”  Anyone who knows this area of the law knows the answer is yes.  Which side of the frontier it is on remains to be decided by the Supreme Court.  But that it rests near the frontier of federal power isn’t open to debate, and this statement doesn’t provide a credible opportunity to taint someone when they describe the jurisprudence.   One might look at the concurrence in the Northwest Austin MUD case for some particulars, if particulars even matter to some:

“Second, because it sweeps more broadly than the substantive command of the Fifteenth Amendment , §5 pushes the outer boundaries of Congress’ Fifteenth Amendment enforcement authority. See Miller v. Johnson, 515 U. S. 900, 926 (1995) (detailing the ‘federalism costs exacted by §5’); Presley v. Etowah County Comm’n, 502 U. S. 491, 500–501 (1992) (describing §5 as ‘an extraordinary departure from the traditional course of relations between the States and the Federal Government’); City of Rome v. United States, 446 U. S. 156, 200 (1980) (Powell, J., dissenting) (‘The preclearance requirement both intrudes on the prerogatives of state and local governments and abridges the voting rights of all citizens in States covered under the Act’); Lopez, 525 U. S., at 293 (Thomas, J., dissenting) (‘Section 5 is a unique requirement that exacts significant federalism costs’); ante, at 7 (‘[Section] 5, which authorizes federal intrusion into sensitive areas of state and local policymaking, imposes substantial federalism costs’ (internal quotation marks omitted)).

Indeed, §5’s preclearance requirement is ‘one of the most extraordinary remedial provisions in an Act noted for its broad remedies. Even the Department of Justice has described it as a ‘substantial departure … from ordinary concepts of our federal system’; its encroachment on state sovereignty is significant and undeniable.’ United States v. Sheffield Bd. of Comm’rs, 1978) (Stevens, J., dissenting) (footnote omitted). This ‘encroachment is especially troubling because it destroys local control of the means of self-government, one of the central values of our polity.’ City of Rome, supra, at 201 (Powell, J., dissenting).  More than 40 years after its enactment, this intrusion has become increasingly difficult to justify.”

This report is not encouraging.  Each part of the Constitution has a purpose, and usually a very well thought out purpose.  There are many reasons why the Electoral College is an important part of the Constitutional arrangement.  One suspects those who seek to dismantle it know the reasons why that is so; they just happen to disagree with them.

Then you really won’t like this.

Port Chester (NY) recently elected a Hispanic to town council using a cumulative voting remedy.  This widely criticized plan gives 6 votes to each voter.  The voter is free to cast all 6 for one person, or spread the six among different candidates.  It is designed to remedy a Section 2 violation under the voting rights act.  If you don’t care for cumulative voting, you’ll really hate something the Brennan Center for Justice has come up with and wanted to see implemented in Port Chester.  It’s called “choice voting.”  The Brennan Center describes it thusly :

“Under choice voting, voters rank candidates in descending order of preference. Candidates who receive high rankings from a sufficient number of minority voters can still gain representation on multi-member legislative districts even if white voters support other candidates.”

That’s just what we need voters to do in the booth: make top 10 lists to bind us all.  Keep in mind that these very bad ideas won’t go away just because most people recognize them as bad ideas.  A well funded industry exists whose raison d’etre is to generate more bad ideas, without any of the normal market forces which otherwise exist to eradicate bad ideas. 

A voter in Dillon County reports to the SC Election Commission that when she went to vote, the rolls showed that she had already voted absentee.  In South Carolina, there is no way to spoil an absentee ballot in this circumstance.  Here is the most revealing part of thestory:

“‘The individual in question that signed as a witness on that particular ballot—they signed as a witness on several absentee ballots,’ [the police] said.”

Trouble seems to follow people who roam about harvesting absentee ballots.  Whether “messenger” ballots in New Jersey, or the notorious Dillon County, collection of absentee ballots by interested parties is one of the weakest links in the electoral system.  Dillon has long been problematic.  Is is perhaps one of the roughest parts of the rough and tumble Palmetto State.  Every election seems to bring some sort of problem out of Dillon County.

David Lewis and Ramon Martinez are charged with being ineligible felons when they voted in the November 4, 2008 Presidential election.  WISN-TV has more.  

Georgia is going after the Department’s objection to their citizenship verification procedures.  Georgia implemented rules to ensure that only citizens are registered to vote and the Justice Department blocked implementation, wielding power under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.  Georgia in this complaint is going after both the objection but also the statute underlying the objection – Section 5.

This case is now the third active attack on the Constitutionality of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.  Section 5 is on the outer frontier of the permissible exercise of federal power over the states.  The other cases are from Kinston (NC) and Shelby County (AL). 

I expect more cases to follow this one.

The District to allow overseas voters to vote online.  It’s an open source platform so the electronic voting fan club won’t be so outraged.  Washington Post.

An update to the Autuaga County (AL) voter fraud story we posted about.  The DA has concluded no vote fraud occurred but it is unclear whether someone gained illegal access to election computers.  A voter also filed a complaint with the Justice Department, although the Department spokesman would not return emails to confirm whether or not the Department has received the complaint.  More at the Montgomery Advertiser.

The ACLU has intervened in the constitutional challenge  to the preclearance provisions of the Voting Rights Act.  Donors to the ACLU might rightfully question whether this is a wise use of their donations.  After all, what does the ACLU legal team bring that the Justice Department legal team doesn’t??  The Shelby County Reporter has more.   Maybe someone should let David Gelbaum know his money isn’t being used terribly wisely on this one.