Forbes link. Some highlights: The emergency in 2011 was very different than in 1965. In 1965, evil practices kept blacks from voting, and Section 5 solved that. In 2011, the President faced a political emergency. Black voters were unenthused about Obama’s reelection, and a Section 5 objection solved that, at South Carolina’s expense. . . .
“Section 5 has also become a partisan weapon cloaked in the noble history of civil rights. In the South Carolina case, Section 5 was a way for the federal government to abuse power for partisan ends. Holder’s objection to the common sense South Carolina law in December 2011 was intended to energize a moribund political base.
Even the coverage formula itself is clumsy. Among the states subject to Section 5 are New York. Michigan and New Hampshire. Coverage of New Hampshire was so clumsy that Justice Department bureaucrats took it upon themselves to ignore the law for decades and not require compliance. But law should matter more than the whims of bureaucrats, and Section 5 has been a corrosive force on that score. . . .
Unfortunately, Section 5 has corroded the integrity of the Department of Justice in other ways. Courts have imposed monetary sanctions on DOJ attorneys for abuses and dishonesty in the Section 5 review process. One current Section 5 DOJ staff reviewer was found to have recently committed perjury during the course of an investigation by the DOJ Inspector General. Yet that employee still reviews important state election laws for the Justice Department.”