Indiana Governor Mike Pence signed an election integrity bill this past weekend
(SEA 519) that naturally
Project Vote opposed.  The lengthy legislative description:

Various election law matters. Defines “domicile”, “inhabitant” and “immediate family” for purposes of election law. Removes references to “pasters”. Specifies that a county order to use electronic
poll books applies to all precincts in a county conducting an election. Makes changes in the standards for determining residency of voters and candidates. Requires the NVRA official to conduct an
annual residency confirmation and outreach procedure. Establishes the voter education outreach fund to receive, hold, and disburse funds for education and outreach to citizens concerning voter rights
and responsibilities. Permits county vote center plans to designate other titles for precinct election officials. Provides that the county vote center plan must specify which precinct election
officer is to perform a duty required of a precinct election officer by the election code. Provides that vote center plans are required to include certain provisions applicable only when an election
is not being held in all of a county. Provides that the NVRA official (rather than the secretary of family and social services) designates “full service” registration agencies. Makes several other
changes regarding the designation of voter registration agencies. Provides that the subscription of an entity to statewide voter registration file information expires on the first January 1 following
payment of the annual fee. Requires that a poll list used in a primary to indicate if a voter is less than 18 years of age. Specifies that a state agency or county voter registration office receiving
a voter registration application through the statewide voter registration system is not subject to the requirements applicable to a person who takes custody of an individual’s voter registration
application. Provides that a voter registration application is considered incomplete if another person takes custody of the application from the applicant, and files the application with the county
voter registration office without including certain information to be provided by the person with custody of the application. Specifies that registration forms previously approved by the Indiana
election commission which do not comply with the requirements to provide a …

Subject to review under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act: “Texas Education Commissioner Michael Williams named the new board of managers in
December, saying the replacements were needed to regain the public trust.”

Story. …

The Washington Times reveals how a federal
bureaucracy starts to believe the steady stream of rhetoric from the so-called “reform community” and become an organ of it. A bureaucracy and staff that fails to reflect the diversity of both
parties and differing legal approaches to campaign finance laws is destined for failure. Such harassment gives fodder to those who want to rein in the federal agency. To the story:

Crossroads GPS, the Karl Rove-affiliated conservative group that spent at least $30 million on issue ads and other advocacy leading up to Election Day, is darn tired of being asked by the
Federal Election Commission to tell the public where it gets its money and how it spends it. The FEC says that if donations were given to Crossroads GPS for the specific purpose of running issue ads
— which, to the public, appears to be the group’s main purpose — Crossroads GPS should disclose those donations. Prodded by the agency on Thursday, Caleb Crosby, the group’s treasurer, responded in a
tone not normally seen in official correspondence.

“This request is the fourth such [notification] we have received on this exact same subject,” he wrote. “If the cited provision has any relevance whatsoever to the reporting of contributions in
connection with independent expenditures, it is, by its own terms, inapplicable to Crossroads GPS. As we have noted before in response to your [requests for additional information], Crossroads GPS is
familiar with and understands the applicable reporting regulations. “If the organization receives any contributions that are required to be reported … those contributions will be reported as
required,” he wrote.

…

From the IG Report, page 121, et seq.

We found that as a result of their hostility to the Noxubee case, some career staff harassed a Black Voting Section intern who volunteered to travel to Mississippi to assist
the trial team, and mocked Coates for his work on the case.

The intern told the OIG that two career Voting Section employees made disparaging comments directly to him about his involvement in the trial. In particular, the intern recalled being questioned
directly and indirectly about why he participated in this trial and told the OIG that Voting Section personnel made comments like: “You know why they asked you to go down there,” “They used you as a
token,” and “People are saying, ‘Why did you go down there?’”

According to a memorandum drafted by Section management summarizing the incidents, the intern told a Section manager that the Voting Section employees informed him that someone who
was attending the trial was reporting his activities and, therefore, the employees knew exactly where he was sitting in the courtroom and what he did at the trial.

The intern stated that those employees also told him about disparaging comments by other career CRT career employees who questioned why he would work on the case and insinuated that
he was assigned to the matter because he was Black and that he had been used as a “token.” The intern told the OIG that he understood that those employees included Pat Tellson, an attorney in the
Voting Section, and Ellen Sydney, an attorney in a different CRT section who used to work in the Voting Section.

^{The intern stated that he understood from one or more Voting Section employees that Sydney had stated words to the effect that: “They only wanted you down there because you are a black face.
How would it look for four white men down there prosecuting all these black people? They wanted you down there to show that it is not white against black. They used you because you were black and
they needed a black face.” The intern said that similar comments were directed at his mother, who was employed in a different component of the …}

“Karen Lorrie, a non-attorney employee in the Voting Section, initially denied under oath to us that she had posted comments to
websites concerning Voting Section personnel or matters.

…

From the IG Report:

“Many of the career and political employees who were involved in the most

…

The Secretary of State questions the triggers in the "http://www.unionleader.com/article/20130303/NEWS06/130309804" target="">Union Leader: "FONT-SIZE: 12pt">“Forty-eight years ago, eight New Hampshire towns and two unincorporated places were incorrectly and unfairly subjected to the federal Voting Rights Act for discrimination,”
Gardner said.

…

PJ Media Rule of Law.

Here’s the other dirty secret – many of the longest lines occurred in Democrat-controlled urban areas. The fiercest opponents of long waits should
direct their fire at local election officials in their own backyard, not at Washington D.C.

The federal government is forever searching for more ways to snatch power from the states. That’s the nature of the beast. No Republicans should acquiesce to another federal power grab over state
elections.

Dispersing power over elections means that no one entity, or person, can easily manipulate the process. The Founders knew that decentralized control over the process helps preserve individual
liberty. Of course, this explains a great deal about why President Obama and leftist academics are such fans of increasing federal intrusion into elections.”

…

The Judicial Watch FOIA’s today of communications between Morris Dees and DOJ reveal something rather tacky – the SPLC forwarding a note sent privately from former DOJ Assistant Attorney General (during the Reagan administration) Brad Reynolds.Judy Bruno at SPLC writes DOJ attorney Barry Kowalski “thought you would want to see the attached note from Brad Reynolds.”  The […]

I  "http://pjmedia.com/jchristianadams/2013/01/10/justice-department-prepares-for-the-demise-of-federal-oversight-of-southern-elections/" target="">reported today on the meeting which took
place this week at DOJ about the potential demise of Section 5. In reality, it will be the Section 4 triggers that lead to the demise of Section 5 enforcement. The demise of Section 5 can be
traced back to 2006 when nobody had the stomach to deal with the Section 4 triggers. The truth of the matter is that no member of Congress from a state currently exempted from Section 5
obligations wanted to bring their state under the purview of Section 4. So nothing was done in 2006, and nothing was done since.

Of course the predictable corners will oppose this idea because it doesn’t give enough power to the federal government. They will point out that Section 5 coverage will be dependent on Section 2
liability. But come June of 2013, advocates of the current Section 4 triggers might find the opt-in to be a pretty good alternative to what the Supreme Court is liable to do with the preclearance
regime.

…