The snowstorm that hit Washington has fouled up travel to today’s Federalist Society Lawyers Chapter event in Charlotte.  Profound regrets.  I will post and promote any rescheduling of the event. 

PJ Media has the story of a felon voting advocate facing felony charges.

The reply brief of Judicial Watch in the North Carolina Voter ID case is here.  One snip:

“The JWIs maintained that parties and attorneys who later filed private, related lawsuits met with the President and the Attorney General at the White House prior to the signing of HB 589, and then either planned or anticipated the consolidation of these lawsuits so that North Carolina would face an ideologically united opposition with the U.S. in the lead. JWI Br. at 18-19. The U.S. has failed to comment on the JWIs’ account of these events in any way. Accordingly, we respectfully submit that this account should be deemed true for the purposes of deciding this motion.

In its initial papers, the JWIs cited to one of the many briefs filed by the U.S. in which it supported the applications of various intervenors for permissive intervention. JWI Br. at 20, citing Texas v. Holder, No. 1:12-cv-00128, Doc. No. 6. In that brief, which is appended hereto, the Attorney General stated that, “[c]onsistent with his longstanding position in Voting Rights Act cases before this Court, and as represented by Movant-Intervenors in their papers, the Attorney General does not oppose permissive intervention under Rule 24(b)(1),” although he did contest intervention of right. Id. at 1. The Attorney General went on to state that, “[a]s elected officials, residents, and registered voters, Movant-Intervenors possess relevant knowledge and a ‘local perspective on the current and historical facts,’” citing County Council v. United States, 555 F. Supp. 694, 697 (D.D.C. 1983). The JWIs are the same kind of intervenors and can bring the same kind of local perspective. Indeed, it is unseemly, given its “longstanding position,” for the U.S. to oppose the JWIs’ motion to intervene here. It suggests that the U.S. hopes to close the door once it has arranged for the entry of only likeminded parties.

Front Page Mag: “History never stops turning the soil and what seemed impossible not long ago is always possible. Had you brought up fears in 2005 that the federal government would take over General Motors, shut down coal plants, destroy secured creditor rights of Chrysler bondholders, or taken over the health care system, polite company would have moved to the other side of the room. ‘Couldn’t happen here,’ would have been the response. . . .

Adegbile has pushed every other crackpot racial theory popular among the civil rights industry. His career has been characterized by attacking school discipline policies and employer background checks as racially motivated. He fought to keep Abigail Fisher out of the University of Texas Law School merely because she was white.

Just a decade ago, this radical racialist background would have been a disqualifier for any nominee to the Justice Department. But today, radicalism is a prerequisite for the job. . . . 

Sharpton has been invited to the White House for behind-closed-doors policy debates with top Justice Department officials.

Don’t forget, Sharpton’s past would disqualify him from even obtaining a security clearance. His racially motivated lies about Tawana Brawley are just a start. He led racially motivated rallies against Jewish-owned Freddie’s Fashion Mart in New York City. Afterwards, Ronald Smith went in with a gun, told the black customers to leave, and then burned the store down killing one. Sharpton was also the primary instigator of the 1991 Crown Heights riots where Orthodox Jews were attacked randomly and Yankel Rosenbaum was murdered. Sharpton even led rallies calling Jews ‘diamond merchants.'”
 

According to draft legislation proposed by Senator Leahy, voter identification laws will still be challenged by left wing groups on multiple different theories under the Voting Rights Act and other legal theories.  The proposal that voter ID laws would not trigger federal “preclearance” supervision if they are found to be discriminatory is an illusionary concession. 

  

States with voter-ID laws must implement them soundly.  National Review Online.

It is being reported that a witness for the United States, Wendy Davis, lied under oath in the Texas Voter ID case in the D.C. District Court.  Naturally, as in other instance of perjury touching the Voting Section, don’t expect much to happen.

Link to story:  Under the new proposal, “current conditions” would be used to decide which states had a worrisome record of racial discrimination at the polls. Four states would automatically fall into that category: Texas, Georgia, Louisiana and Mississippi.

Any bill from two of the most liberal members of Congress is a partisan bill designed to benefit Democrats and empower a partisan Holder Department of Justice.