Assistant Attorney General Tom Perez toes the administration line in remarks at Rutgers Law School Voting Symposium, April 13 (H/T Texas Redistricting):

We are also involved in a number of Section 5 matters arising out of recently enacted state laws relating to voter identification requirements, voter registration requirements, and changes to early voting procedures.   In December, we interposed an objection to South Carolina’s voter identification law.   In March, we objected to a photo ID requirement from Texas on the ground that the law would have a retrogressive effect on Hispanic registered voters. . .

And also last month, we filed a notice in court taking the position that several of Florida’s recent election law changes – including changes to the early voting period, changes to the procedures for third-party voter registration organizations, and changes that affect people who move between counties and want to update their address on election day – did not meet the Section 5 standard and should not be precleared. . .

These are just a few examples that illustrate why the Department must – and will – continue to vigorously defend Section 5 against challenges to its constitutionality.   

More to chew on – redistricting challenges, NVRA enforcement, MOVE Act compliance – and aside from factual disputes in various Section 5 cases cited, some of Perez’ conclusions raise questions:

And for those who believe that the country has eradicated voting discrimination in the 47 years since enactment of Section 5, the Justice Department’s ongoing work under Section 5 is among the best possible demonstrations that it remains critically necessary.

So Perez concludes that DOJ’s own objections to multiple Section 5 preclearance requests prove that Section 5 remains a necessary safeguard to be defended “vigorously” so DOJ can continue to object to preclearance requests?  Nice bootstraps.

[L]et’s make sure we do everything in our power to ensure that every single eligible voter can cast his or her ballot.  

How does Perez suggest we determine who is “eligible”?  Are we to take voters’ word for it, as did the DC poll worker who was willing to hand Eric Holder’s ballot to an unidentified stranger?

Let’s work to prevent fraud; let’s not erect new, unnecessary requirements that have a discriminatory impact.  

How does Perez propose to prevent fraud by NOT enacting new requirements to detect fraud?

Perez demagogues, DOJ sues, while Section 5 states are left to defend the integrity of their elections with little more than a reliance on the honor system.