The New York Times urges the DOJ Voting Section to sue Florida over the fact that Florida believes that DOJ has acted in extra-legal ways regarding illegal voters on Florida voter rolls. (National Review has the legal context of the fight.)
The GOP couldn’t get a bigger gift from the DOJ than a lawsuit against Florida.
There could hardly be a bigger issue to hand the GOP than the Holder Justice Department suing Florida to prevent them from removing illegal aliens and non-citizens from the voter rolls. Are such people registered on American voter rolls? Undoubtedly, I’ve seen the applications forms where they even admit they are noncitizens.
After yesterday’s disastrous performance by the Attorney General before the House Judiciary Committee, Holder’s standing has fallen even further. He is by far the most unpopular figure in the administration. Even ranking member Nadler was visibly unhappy with Holder.
If the Justice Department uses a risky interpretation of Section 5, and an absurd interpretation of NVRA to keep illegal voters on the rolls, it will be used like a club all through the fall against Holder and Obama. Congress has already started. Americans don’t want ineligible voters on the rolls, period. They don’t want gamesmanship and the smartest people in the room devising ways to keep them on the rolls. If that happens, there will be a steep political price five months before the election. An excited base can’t swamp and outraged majority.
One thought on “New York Times on Florida: “So Sue Them””
New York Times on Florida: “So Sue Them”
The New York Times urges the DOJ Voting Section to sue Florida over the fact that Florida believes that DOJ has acted in extra-legal ways regarding illegal voters on Florida voter rolls. (National Review has the legal context of the fight.)
The GOP couldn’t get a bigger gift from the DOJ than a lawsuit against Florida.
There could hardly be a bigger issue to hand the GOP than the Holder Justice Department suing Florida to prevent them from removing illegal aliens and non-citizens from the voter rolls. Are such people registered on American voter rolls? Undoubtedly, I’ve seen the applications forms where they even admit they are noncitizens.
After yesterday’s disastrous performance by the Attorney General before the House Judiciary Committee, Holder’s standing has fallen even further. He is by far the most unpopular figure in the administration. Even ranking member Nadler was visibly unhappy with Holder.
If the Justice Department uses a risky interpretation of Section 5, and an absurd interpretation of NVRA to keep illegal voters on the rolls, it will be used like a club all through the fall against Holder and Obama. Congress has already started. Americans don’t want ineligible voters on the rolls, period. They don’t want gamesmanship and the smartest people in the room devising ways to keep them on the rolls. If that happens, there will be a steep political price five months before the election. An excited base can’t swamp and outraged majority.
One thought on “New York Times on Florida: “So Sue Them””
-
Jinsky Jean-Pois
The Section 5 provision of the Voting Rights Act (§5 VRA) is unconstitutional for inconsistency with the Tenth, Fourteenth, Fifteenth Amendments and Article IV of the Constitution with for the reason that it is not congruent or proportional to the problem it sought to resolve for enforcement legislation enacted pursuant to the Section 2 provision of the Fifteenth Amendment under the 1997 Supreme Court Decision in the City of Boerne v. Flores doctrinal congruence and proportionality test to enforce an article guaranteeing an enumerated right in the Constitution with appropriate legislation. If the rational basis test is applied by the judiciary, then there is no rational basis to impose this provision under the current formula based on 1968 presidential election participation rates because of the equal protection clause, delegation of power reserved to the states clause, states may not abridge or deny the right to vote on account of states clause, and the powers prohibited by the states clause. AZ Attorney General Tom Horne, TX Attorney General Greg Abbott filed Section 5 legal challenges on the constitutionality of the preclearance regime. If the DOJ sues the State of FL for the administrative actions to ensure the objective of efficient and legitimate elections, then FL should ask the constitutional question of Section 5 provision of the VRA. §5 VRA is no longer valid assertion of congressional authority as enumerated by Section 8 of Article I for the enforcement power under Section 2 (§2) of the Fifteenth Amendment to ensure that the right to vote is not denied on the basis of race or ethnicity. South Carolina v. Katzenbach is no longer viable jurisprudence to sustain §5 VRA is a valid assertion of congressional authority pursuant to the second section of the Fifteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution. TX and SC and other §5 VRA states should be allowed to implement Photo Voter-ID laws to ensure legitimacy and integrity in the electoral process thereof. The prerogative of the states to enact duly constituted and constitutional state law is a standard that governs state sovereignty.
The Section 5 provision of the Voting Rights Act (§5 VRA) is unconstitutional for inconsistency with the Tenth, Fourteenth, Fifteenth Amendments and Article IV of the Constitution with for the reason that it is not congruent or proportional to the problem it sought to resolve for enforcement legislation enacted pursuant to the Section 2 provision of the Fifteenth Amendment under the 1997 Supreme Court Decision in the City of Boerne v. Flores doctrinal congruence and proportionality test to enforce an article guaranteeing an enumerated right in the Constitution with appropriate legislation. If the rational basis test is applied by the judiciary, then there is no rational basis to impose this provision under the current formula based on 1968 presidential election participation rates because of the equal protection clause, delegation of power reserved to the states clause, states may not abridge or deny the right to vote on account of states clause, and the powers prohibited by the states clause. AZ Attorney General Tom Horne, TX Attorney General Greg Abbott filed Section 5 legal challenges on the constitutionality of the preclearance regime. If the DOJ sues the State of FL for the administrative actions to ensure the objective of efficient and legitimate elections, then FL should ask the constitutional question of Section 5 provision of the VRA. §5 VRA is no longer valid assertion of congressional authority as enumerated by Section 8 of Article I for the enforcement power under Section 2 (§2) of the Fifteenth Amendment to ensure that the right to vote is not denied on the basis of race or ethnicity. South Carolina v. Katzenbach is no longer viable jurisprudence to sustain §5 VRA is a valid assertion of congressional authority pursuant to the second section of the Fifteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution. TX and SC and other §5 VRA states should be allowed to implement Photo Voter-ID laws to ensure legitimacy and integrity in the electoral process thereof. The prerogative of the states to enact duly constituted and constitutional state law is a standard that governs state sovereignty.