Search Results for: subject

“Cruz Reacts to NRO Story on Sensenbrenner’s Voting Power Grab”

National Review has  target="">Senator Ted Cruz reacting to my story on the Sensenbrenner bill. Snip:

“It is disturbing that new efforts are being made in the House and Senate to resurrect voting rules that were recently deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. We should protect the civil
rights of every American, and other sections of the Voting Rights Act already provide strong protections against racially discriminatory voting practices. The Supreme Court held that circumstances
have changed dramatically in the last 50 years, and the old justifications for preclearance are no longer constitutionally applicable. We should respect the Supreme Court’s judgment.

Texas has a strong record regarding minority voting rights. According to 2012 census data, African-American voter turnout in Texas was ten percentage points higher than white turnout, and
African-American voter registration was more than six percentage points higher than white registration. Additionally, the gap between Hispanic and white voter registration in Texas for 2012 was a
percentage point better than the national average, and the gap in voter turnout was nearly identical to the national average. Moreover, federal legislation should treat every state equally, and
Texas–which has elected more African-Americans and Hispanics statewide than most other States–should not have its legislative decisions unfairly subjected to second-guessing by unelected federal
bureaucrats.”

 

…

Despite Predictions of Voter Fraud, Colorado House Dems Move Expanded Elections Bill


Colorado Democrats are “fixing” the loose voting residency requirements they "http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/clics2013a/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/0F25BA96A1C5D81E87257AEE005819A6?open&file=1303_enr.pdf" target="">passed last year on a strictly partisan vote
by extending them to local elections.

 

"Verdana">The Colorado Observer reports:

 

The state House gave final approval Thursday a bill to bring special district and non-partisan elections in line with the 2013 Voter
Access and Modernized Elections Act, over the objections of Republicans who said the measure would expand the potential for voter fraud…

 
 House Majority Leader Dickey Lee Hullinghorst (D-Boulder) scoffed at warnings
that the bill would open the door for outside voters to cast ballots in local races… “Why in the world would you do this intentionally when you’re subject to a felony?”

 

Holbert countered that such voters would be able to argue they had not committed a felony as long as they repeat “the seven magic words: I
intend to live in the district.”

 

Democrats were relying on a couple of Republicans for a veneer of bipartisanship, but Rep. Carole Murray has already removed herself as
a co-sponsor, and Senate co-sponsor Ellen Roberts is expected to follow suit.

 

The bill now goes to the Senate, which two successful recalls reduced to a one-Democrat majority. But however "http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/clics2014a/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/6125AA4642B2117C87257C300005FD7D?Open&file=1164_ren.pdf">House Bill
14-1164 plays out, the serious defects in Colorado’s electoral process created by HB 13-1303 remain.

…

Fox News Tuesday on Debo Adegbile

“ "">Questions arise over Obama’s pick for Justice post“

“At the same time, Ed Whelan, President of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, contends there are questions about Adegbile’s qualifications. There were reports that President Obama intended to
nominate him to serve as a judge on the D.C. Circuit back in 2011, and that Adegbile was submitted to the American Bar Association (ABA) for a rating.  Whelan says Adegbile didn’t make it past
the ABA’s qualification screening.

Skeptics are also publicly speculating about whether Adegbile is the best fit to head up a department that has been the subject of much recent criticism.  Last year the Justice Department’s
Inspector General released a report blasting the Civil Rights Division, citing inappropriateconduct, harassment of conservatives in the division, and the appearance of partisanship and racial
politics.

Many wonder why the White House would tap such a controversial nominee when the Division is in need of a public relations boost.”

…

“Debate Heating Up Again Over Voter ID in Ohio”

In Ohio, local media is reporting on legislation that would require Ohioans
to present a government-issued photo ID before voting is once again the subject of debate at the Ohio Statehouse. Ohio Public Radio’s Jo Ingles reports lawmakers who support and oppose it are
trying to rally their supporters right now.

Republican State Rep. John Becker says voter fraud is a problem in Ohio.

“You know the issue is there has been some documented issues of fraud going on,” Becker said. “There’s a perception that having voter ID would go a long way to eliminate some of the current
fraud that we know of, and what might be more concerning is the fraud that we don’t know of, you know what’s slipping through the cracks.”


…“Some 70 percent of Ohioans support an idea of photo ID requirement for the polls to cast a ballot,” Long said. “There’s been some recent polls as well that indicate those numbers are holding. So
we feel that it’s time to bring photo ID to Ohio.”
…

Bad Grammar and Lawlessness in DOJ Foreign Language Dispute

Ed Whelan has this  "http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/359657/doj-vs-michigan-foreign-language-interpreters-part-1-ed-whelan">must read story about more radical bumbling over at the DOJ. Last week it was
a federal judge in New Orleans  "">spanking the Civil Rights Division. This week it is a Michigan Supreme Court Justice spanking the Civil Rights Division.

The issue is whether Michigan courts must provide foreign language interpreters and to what extent. The other issue is what does the law say about the matter. On the latter question, Michigan
Supreme Court Justice Stephan Markham says not very much. Whelan tees it up:

Under the rules that have existed in Michigan, for example, interpreters have been provided for all criminal defendants who need them, and courts in civil matters have had discretion to appoint
interpreters. . . . Nevertheless, on August 16, 2010, Thomas E. Perez, the Assistant Attorney General for the U.S. Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division, sent a "http://www.lep.gov/final_courts_ltr_081610.pdf">form letter (“Dear Chief Justice/State Court Administrator”) to Michigan’s chief justice in which he purported to “provide greater
clarity regarding the requirement that courts receiving federal financial assistance provide meaningful access for LEP individuals.” Perez’s letter includes among matters “of particular concern”
limits on the types of proceedings for which interpreters are guaranteed; failing to “provide language assistance to non-party LEP individuals whose presence or participation is necessary or
appropriate”; charging interpreter costs to non-indigent parties; and failing to provide language services for court-managed operations outside the courtroom.

Who needs laws when you work at Eric Holder’s civil rights division?  Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act doesn’t say a thing about the federal government approving state procedures for
translating ballots. No matter, they say it does and no state or locality ever fought back.

The Americans with Disabilities Act doesn’t say a thing about a federal mandate to force apartments to accept “emotional assistance” ferrets and hamsters to help the emotional well being
of tenants. Who cares what the law says when you are the Justice Department. Sue them anyhow.

Michigan Supreme Court Justice Markham deserves a free copy of Injustice. He …

Attorney General Holder needs to brief President Obama that he may no longer “move administratively” against states and block voting laws

Attorney General Holder is falling down on the job. class="">National Review Online reports that President Obama is very confused on the current power of the federal government:

In an interview on PBS NewsHour following his speech
commemorating the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington yesterday, President Obama said that he would “move administratively” to block state laws “that seem to be intent on preventing people
from voting and that have a racial element to it.”

Apparently, Holder has not briefed the former constitutional law professor that the Department of Justice no longer has any covered states to “move administratively” against. It is also interesting
that the President would administratively move against a state simply based on the whim that there “seems to be intent to prevent people from voting.”  Instead of responding to the echo of MSNBC
commentators, whatever happened to actual evidence of vote denial that can withstand scrutiny in court. However, this is exactly indicative of how DOJ has reviewed laws when they had the opportunity
for mischief before Shelby. After such subjective abuse for years, it is highly doubtful the Congress will give DOJ bureaucrats the unilateral power to administratively halt state voting laws based
on their “whims” and “seems.” 

The states should swear to never again submit any voting change (even the slightest change) to the DOJ for administrative review. If ever covered by reversed engineered federal formula, the state
should promise to go to federal court for each and every single voting change. It would be a principled stand and the Courts and DOJ should be prepared for states to exercise their rights and have
full judicial review for every voting procedure. The radical lawyers at the DOJ should never be given the opportunity to review voting changes (any voting change) and insert their ideology into the
process.
…