Reports from yesterday’s elections in Oklahoma from "http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20110914_11_A8_CUTLIN267429" target="">Tulsa World:

But “it was nothing like we thought it might be,” she added. …

I’ll be on Charlotte’s  "">blowtorch WBT-AM 1110 in the 5 o’clock drive hour today with Vince Coakley. Topic: The Justice Department Civil Rights Division’s politicized hiring which is the subject of a
Pajamas Media series, including this
and this story.

…

Covered at the Republic.

“Lawmakers held a series of 12 public hearings around the state to gather input but did not answer questions. They have been busy behind closed doors working on maps that could be shown as
soon as this week. Monday night’s hearing was billed as nonpartisan but the crowd leaned heavily Democratic. Georgia is subject to the Voting Rights Act revised maps must receive approval from either
the U.S. Department of Justice or the federal courts.”

…

A Salisbury Post article by John Hood worth reading about North Carolina redistricting:

“Anyone who tells you that North Carolina’s redistricting process is simple enough to be put on autopilot has not read the relevant court cases. If our state wasn’t under the jurisdiction of the
Voting Rights Act, redistricting could indeed be largely accomplished by a series of mathematical formulas. . . . The problem is that there is no consensus about what the Voting Rights Act requires.
As legislative staffers explain in this helpful backgrounder on the General Assembly website, the U.S. Supreme Court’s Gingles decision compels North Carolina to avoid “retrogression” of minority
voting interests in the 40 counties subject to Section 5 of the VRA. Historically, that was interpreted to mean that redistricting maps were impermissible if they appeared to make it less likely that
minorities could elected representatives from among their own group if they so desired.” …

Free training on June 11 between Green Bay
and Milwaukee (preventing, not perpetrating): 

Training is free but pre-registration is required by contacting Kohlman at pattyk@lsol.net with subject line “TEA” or call
(920) 732-3200.

…

Every state subject to Section 5 should follow Texas ( "">and Georgia): “A House committee on Monday heard a bill that would send any redistricting or Voter ID bills straight to a three-judge panel in Washington, D.C. for “pre-clearance” under the
1965 Voting Rights Act. The law requires Texas and other states, mostly in the south, to get federal approval before making major election law changes.

The bill by GOP Rep. Phil King would require the state to get approval for redistricting and Voter ID changes from a federal court — not President Barack Obama’s Justice
Department.”

Houston Chronicle.

…

The American Independent provides a discussion on
the Shelby County, Alabama challenge to Section 5 and 4b of the VRA and its potential implications on Texas Voter ID and other covered jurisdiction’s voting changes if the federal judge finds part
of the VRA unconstitutional. The same question can be asked about the pending court opinion’s potential impact on the redistricting process across the nation as the cost of submission of
redistricting plans and litigation by states and counties covered by Section 5 loom ahead. These litigation costs would argue for quick resolution by the courts before such expenses are incurred
in the redistricting cycle. If the 46 year old coverage formula and Section 5 preclearance requirement is found unconstitutional, it is only fair the issue be resolved with some finality before
millions are spent in submission and litigation costs.

The Fredericksburg Patch quotes civil rights attorney Gerry Hebert
as stating the preclearance process skirts the limits of the Constitution: “This process raises serious constitutional concerns via the concept of federalism and the separation of federal and state
powers,” said Herbert, who cited recent court cases challenging the constitutionality of preclearance winding their way through appeals courts. “It will likely be held unconstitutional by the Supreme
Court we have now because the formula has never been updated since 1964. If your state had a poll tax and if in 1964’s presidential election, if less than 50 percent who were registered to vote, or
50 percent of the voting age population didn’t vote in that election, then you’d be subject to [preclearance]”
…

Memo to Justices Scalia and Kennedy:  Take note that the State of Alabama, for reasons yet to be determined, "http://www.annistonstar.com/view/full_story/11436607/article-AEA-banned-from-enrolling-members-on-2-year-campuses?instance=home_news" target="">feels the
need to submit this legislation to the Justice Department for Section 5 preclearance under the Voting Rights Act:  “Representatives from the
Alabama Education Association will be banned from visiting two-year college campuses to enroll new members, under a rule imposed last week by the state’s Department of Postsecondary Education.
The ruling comes in the wake of the passage of a law known as Senate Bill 2, or SB2, which prohibited teachers from having their union dues automatically deducted from their paychecks. . .
.Supporters of the bill — mostly members the newly-elected GOP majority — said the measure was needed because taxpayers shouldn’t’t foot the bill for contributions that go to political
candidates.”

The Voting Rights Act was intended to leverage federal power to prevent states from backsliding towards discrimination. It was not intended to create federal oversight over a wide swath of state
political activities. If the DOJ attempts to use the Voting Rights Act to control rules against union recruitment on campuses, then it is applying the Voting Rights Act in an unconstitutional fashion
and it should be declared so by a court. Better yet, Alabama shouldn’t be playing along with the charade and submitting these matters to the Justice Department in the …

Michael Yaki and a lapdog blog has made much of the fact that the Black Panther investigation obtained a video from someone who runs a
website and sought information from Republicans about the identity of eyewitnesses. We truly have entered an age of journalistic tempests in real world teapots. Mike Roman was in possession of
videotape. Therefore any reasonable person would recognize you contact people who are possession of evidence, regardless of their identity. Mike Roman and other Republicans also knew the
identities of particular people who were at the polls and were possible eye witnesses. Obtaining the identity of individuals allowes for interviews to be conducted. That the individuals who knew
the identity of the eyewitnesses happened to be Republicans was of no import.    Any investigation into a similar event would do precisely the same thing. The Department of Justice
routinely relies on the aid of groups who have agendas other than the particular investigation conducted by the Department. For example, the ACLU, Mexican American Legal Defense Fund (MALDEF) and
the NAACP LDF routinely contact the Department with information that may be relevant in a case. The Department even seeks out their help in investigations. Certainly the broader agenda of these
groups, including their political agendas, should play no part in whether or not information about witnesses and evidence is received, at least to rational people. Justice lawyers routinely meet
and obtain evidence from groups many Americans would disagree with, and those contacts should not be subject to scrutiny, unless of course it is necessary.

The author of a blog inferring to the contrary has a long history of distorting facts and publishing inaccurate statements. If the broad agenda of organizations
providing evidence and information to the Department of Justice is properly subject to scrutiny, then reporters certainly have a fertile environment to write hit pieces about investigative
communications with third party groups. To the contrary, I believe it is perfectly acceptable for the Department of Justice to accept information and the names of witnesses …

The essentially "http://www.usccr.gov/NBPH/USCCR_NBPP_report.pdf">final report of the United States Commission on Civil Rights about
the New Black Panther dismissal is complete.
  What does it say?  I’ll leave that to Jennifer Rubin’s summary at the "http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-turn/2011/01/the_us_commission_on_civil.html">Washington Post. "mso-spacerun: yes">  What is my reaction?  The report is large and thorough.   I was highly
impressed by the writing of Commissioner Gail Heriot. "mso-spacerun: yes">  She provides compelling insight on a number of legal and factual issues that I believe nobody has yet provided including me. "mso-spacerun: yes">  I am particularly impressed with her writing as a writer, not just as a lawyer.   She commands the details of the
subject as well as the broader implications of the matter.   The dissent seems to have undergone a retreat of sorts from some of their earlier bluster.
  That is their right, and I would too given the circumstances.  On a number of occasions, the dissent make
plainly false statements.   I’ll not catalog all of them here.   What I will catalog are some of the more
interesting moments in the report, and reserve other opinions for those who ask:

This was news to me.
  Given dozens of us know they are true, the sands fall into the bottom chamber.   From the
report:

Michael Yaki, one of the investigation’s most vituperative critics,
…