Search Results for: subject

Minnesota advocacy group pushes Board to investigate marriage amendment backers

The Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board has agreed to investigate complaints against two groups supporting the constitutional amendment that would ban same sex marriage. The
complaints were filed by Common Cause last month, and allege Minnesota for
Marriage and the Minnesota Family Council broke Minnesota’s disclosure laws. In the complaint filed against Minnesota for Marriage, Common Cause executive director Mike Dean wrote, “MFM filed a false
report with the Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board by not itemizing and disclosing the names of all individuals who contributed more than $100 to MFM’s campaign in support of the Marriage
Amendment.”

… (Minnesota Family Council CEO) Helmberger sent an email to supporters earlier this week with the subject line, “They want me in jail” and asked for financial support to defend the
organization against what he called “this baseless attack.” …

Helmberger told his supporters “Let me state emphatically: even though new campaign finance regulations exceed the requirements of the law and violate our Constitutional rights, I have followed
them to a “T.”  

Full story "">here.

…

“Dismantling the phony case against Voter ID”

This week Powerline analyzed the opposition to photo ID in Minnesota
– worthy of a Sunday post. First, the blog provides the language of the constitutional amendment question that may be considered, if approved by the Legislature:

Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended effective June 30, 2014, to require that all in-person voters present an approved form of government-issued photographic identification at
the time of voting; that those not voting in person provide government-issued proof of identity at the time of voting; that all voters be subject to substantially equivalent eligibility verification
before a ballot is cast or accepted; and that the state provide at no charge an approved photographic identification for voters?

Second, this comment describes the hysteria on the left:

As you can imagine, liberals are up in arms at the prospect that their voter slush fund–a few extra votes every election, in case they need them–may dry up. So they have launched a campaign of
deception against the amendment, fronted by the League of Women Voters–a once-respectable organization that perfectly illustrates O’Sullivan’s Law. As usual, Minnesota Majority, an excellent
grass-roots organization headed, as you might expect, by a friend of mine, is on the case. Minnesota Majority has set up a web site called We Want Voter ID, which currently features a video of a
League of Women Voters-sponsored meeting in Edina, Minnesota. The League spreads disinformation, but a lot of the citizens present at the meeting are on to them. The video begins with an ACLU lawyer
objecting to being videoed. Why, exactly, is the ACLU teaming up with the League on this issue? Because voting whether you are legal or not is a “right,” but having your vote canceled out by
an illegal voter isn’t a “right.”
…

Texas sues Holder for Voter ID approval

 Complaint is here.   Statement:

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott today issued the following statement about the
State’s legal action seeking a federal court’s approval to implement the Texas voter identification law.

“The U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled that voter identification laws are constitutional,” Attorney General Abbott said. “Texas should be allowed the same authority other states have to protect
the integrity of elections. To fast-track that authority, Texas is taking legal action in a D.C. Court seeking approval of its voter identification law.”

 

 

Under the Texas voter identification law, voters must show a government-issued photo identification in order to vote at a polling place.
Texans who do not already have a driver’s license, passport, military identification card, or other approved form of identification can get a state-issued voter identification card free of charge
from the Texas Department of Public Safety. Additionally, anyone who is disabled or over the age of 65 can vote by mail, which allows them to use mail-in ballots without having to get a photo
identification.

The Texas Legislature enacted the photo identification law in 2011 to help deter and detect election fraud. In a decision upholding a similar voter identification law in Indiana, the U.S. Supreme
Court recognized that all states have an “interest in deterring and detecting voter fraud.” Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that there “is no question about the legitimacy or importance of the
State’s interest in counting only the votes of eligible voters” and that states have “justification for carefully identifying all voters participating in the election process.”

The Supreme Court also ruled that the voter identification law was justified because “flagrant examples” of election fraud have been documented throughout U.S. history. According to the U.S.
Department of Justice (DOJ) website, federal prosecutors have secured election fraud convictions against more than 100 defendants since 2002. During the same period, the Texas Attorney General’s
Office has successfully prosecuted nearly 50 individuals for violating the Texas Election Code. Those convictions include a woman who submitted her deceased mother’s ballot, …

Secretary Kobach: Kansas ID law not being reviewed by DOJ

Here is the link. The U.S. Justice
Department is reviewing new voter-photo ID laws in some states, but apparently Kansas is not one of them. “We have not been contacted at all by the Justice Department in this respect,” said
Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach.

Secretary Kobach should understand that DOJ will focus its efforts on delaying voter ID laws only in those Section 5 southern states where they can hide behind their
obscure, subjective and ever malleable retrogressive standard.

Where, despite the best efforts and practices implemented by jurisidictions, DOJ can simply send a last minute letter stating that the jurisdiction has unfortunately failed to
meet its burden of proof in convincing the bureaucracy that the laws are not discriminatory.

It is not an accident that DOJ decides the fight the last battles over photoID in Section 5 states where they can hide behind their manufactured burdens of proof.

…

“Election Expert John Fund: Voter ID Laws Don’t Suppress Black Vote”

Article and video found @ Newsmax.com

Combating voter fraud shouldn’t be a partisan issue, Fund said, noting that Rhode Island’s Democratic-controlled Legislature also had to pass an ID law.

“Rhode Island last summer passed a photo ID law,” Fund said. “And the reason was there was compelling evidence that, in Democratic primaries and in some general elections, reform candidates were
having the election stolen out from under them by machine hacks who were rigging the ballot — especially with absentee votes — and they were preventing legitimate candidates from replacing machine
candidates.”

The chief sponsor of the bill, Fund said, was the only black senator in the state.

“What we have to have is not only a campaign against voter fraud, but we also have to have a set of laws that are clear, understandable, transparent, and not subject to vague interpretations of the
courts,” Fund said. “If we don’t do something to make sure that voter fraud is contained and voting incompetence by election officials is minimized, we’re going to have a situation just like Florida
2000 — except it could be across the whole country.”

…

Retrogression: The modern day Tower of Babel

At the link, everyone
in Florida has diverging opinions on the legal enigma of “retrogression” and while trying to say the same thing, speaking a different language.
 
The lack of any real guidance in the Voting Section’s redistricting guidelines have only added to the
confusion. This story reveals that the line drawers, experts, politicians, activists, judges, and now the general public all have a different understanding of the term. When there is no black and
white clarity in compliance standards or guidelines, retrogression can mean whatever a party subjectively wants it to mean.

What have we done to deserve this modern day Tower of Babel.
…

Human Events on Guam Section 2 Case

Terry Pell at Human Events here.  
A portion:

“. . .Guam, a territory of the United States, is subject to the U.S. Constitution and numerous federal laws that prohibit it from treating individuals differently on the basis of race. Unless
and until it secedes from the United States, Guam and its officials are bound to observe the Constitution and laws that prohibit treating citizens differently on account of race.

More troubling than the existence of this overtly discriminatory law is the failure of Justice Department officials to take action against it. Despite its clear authority to enforce federal laws
prohibiting race discrimination in voting, the Justice Department declined to intervene when presented with a complaint by Guam resident Arnold Davis, the plaintiff in the suit filed this week.
Davis, a retired officer in the U.S. Air Force, was told he couldn’t register because he was not descended from a native inhabitant.

The Guam plebiscite bears a strong similarity to Hawaiian laws that formerly limited certain elections to native Hawaiians. The Supreme Court declared such laws unconstitutional in Rice v. Cayetano
in 1996. Presumably to get around this problem, Guam claims its plebiscite is not limited by race at all, but only to ”native inhabitants.”

…

Texas Voter ID in Big Trouble

As I and many others have predicted, the new Voter ID law in Texas has "http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2011/11/voter-id-law-stalled-for-the-t.html" target="">hit a snag. The Department of Justice is reviewing the law under Section 5 of the
Voting Rights Act and has made a “more information” request. This is usually the first overt sign that an objection is coming. (Actually, the first sign an objection is coming is when the NAACP
and other voter fraud denying groups, with their direct access into the DOJ, start making it their number one issue.) 

Texas should immediately withdraw the submission from DOJ and file in Federal District Court before DOJ gets a chance to object to the law. If DOJ objects to the law, it will be forever tainted in
the media, and even to the court in practical terms, if Texas ends up filing with the court for approval. Florida  "http://electionlawcenter.com/2011/10/11/florida-amends-complaint-to-challenge-section-5-coverage-of-voting-rights-act.aspx" target="">withdrew a submission from DOJ after strange and troubling
discussions with certain DOJ lawyers about a law that merely moved early voting dates and shrunk time to turn in third party voter registration forms.

Academics have suggested that filing a submission with DOJ is faster and cheaper. Like the spider to the fly, they claim it is a perfectly friendly forum in the web of the DOJ. In reality, as Texas
may soon find out, it may be fatal to their Voter ID law. Because Texas will not be back in session, the more information requests adds months before a final objection might be forthcoming, and
thereby making it less likely that Voter ID will be used in the 2012 elections in Texas.

It was an avoidable mistake to submit this law to DOJ, a big avoidable mistake.

The solution?  Withdraw the submission immediately. Do not turn over a scrap of information to DOJ. Force them to obtain it in discovery, subject to the Rules of Civil Procedure.

…

DOJ Voting Section backs off legal fight with South Carolina over senate redistricting plan

Late yesterday, the media here and "http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/5cfadcf066f940b58f9d9a701fddc844/SC--SC-Senate-Redistricting/" target="" class="">here relayed the news that the Voting Section of the Department of
Justice has finally precleared the newly redistricted lines in the South Carolina state senate. This approval follows a previous delay caused by the Voting Section waiting until the last day of
their 60 day review process (September 27, 2011), to make an official
request for more information. In many cases, such a request is a precursor to an objection and ultimately spells doom for a redistricting plan.  

As ELC first reported in October, DOJ was wandering off the appropriate
retrogression analysis and adopting a maximization strategy pushed by the ACLU, NAACP, and other groups. In this case, South Carolina saw right through the juvenile badgering and immediately
responded by taking the issue directly to the federal courts.
Perhaps after reflection, the Voting Section has backed off from a legal fight that would highlight their actions.

As reported earlier, the Voting Section and front office political leadership in
the Civil Rights Division had fallen “hook, line and sinker” for the civil rights group’s desperate lobbying on behalf of a maximization policy in Louisiana, South Carolina, and other states still
under review. This unduly intimate relationship resulted in the Voting Section ultimately asking for more information and delaying the approval of the senate plan despite no evidence of
retrogression. Is there any doubt that the order to “request more information” came directly from the AAG Perez.

What’s the lesson here?  Despite no hint of retrogression, the threat of objection from DOJ was a naked ploy to extract another minority seat in an illegal maximization strategy. Fortunately,
South Carolina knew that this request may be forthcoming and promptly filed a complaint with the DC District Court to force sunshine and fairness on the process. The strategy to fight on principle
worked.

DOJ had earlier signed off on the South Carolina congressional and
state house plan. Now after backing down off the …