The evidence of the politicization of the Voting Section and the photo ID issue continues to be exposed. In 2007, the current Voting Section Chief, Chris Herren, helped draft the amicus brief from the Department of Justice supporting Voter ID and also assisted with the oral argument preparation for Solicitor General Paul Clement.  Sources (formerly employed at DOJ) reveal that Chris Herren has inexplicitly reversed himself from the DOJ amicus brief supporting voter ID laws, a position he worked on just a few years ago. Of course, it is very possible that he caved to pressure from the Obama political appointees, which caused his abrupt reversal.

In late 2007, the Department of Justice filed an amicus brief to the Supreme Court asserting that the photo ID provision would not impose any severe burden on voters and that the law had no discriminatory impact on minorities. The amicus was fully briefed and argued as the position of the Department of Justice to the Supreme Court in the seminal photo ID case of Crawford v. Marion County.  Sources indicate that even though his name was not included on the brief, then Deputy Chief Chris Herren was indeed part of the team that drafted and reviewed the amicus brief for content and prepared the arguments for then U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement.

These same sources also claim that Chris Herren was one of the senior members of the Voting Section to assist the Solicitor General in multiple oral argument prep sessions.  Herren was then one of the senior deputy chiefs in the Voting Section.  The audio and transcript of the oral argument can be found here.

These sources indicate that Herren signed off on the eventual amicus brief that was filed in the Supreme Court and that during the preparation of the brief, he did not support some changes that had been suggested by then Section Chief John Tanner.

How ironic that Herren, now promoted Voting Section Chief, has suddenly reversed himself and is now objecting to a voter ID law in which the former Solicitor General Clement he assisted will be defending all the way to the Supreme Court. Was he wrong then, or is he wrong now? Or is he just a tool easily influenced by the Obama political appointees?