Here is the link at TPM describing why DOJ is limited to fighting the voter ID wars on the little Pacific island called Section 5.  Experts have argued that Section 5’s constitutionality is already hanging tenously.  Why not politicize it some more.

But for all the other states that passed voter ID laws that aren’t subject to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, federal intervention is a long shot. The only other option for opposing a voter ID law is an argument under Section 2 of the VRA, where the burden of proof is pretty high.

The article quotes a recently departed DOJ political hire as to why DOJ’s ability to totally hijack voter identification laws is limited to alot of background noise and accusations of racism.

“In order to bring a Section 2 case, you’d have to as a practical matter show two things. One, that there’s a significant racial disparity and two, that the burden of getting an ID is significant enough for us to care about,” Samuel Bagenstos, who was until recently the number two official in the Civil Rights Division, told TPM. The Supreme Court’s decision in the Indiana voter ID case also suggests the court would be skeptical of a Section 2 case. And regardless of how the courts would find, any Section 2 case would almost certainly have to wait until after the 2012 election, since the evidence that the laws were discriminatory “can only be gathered during an election that takes place when the law is enacted,” Bagenstos said.”

Herein lies the problem with the way Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act is being exercised by the Holder DOJ.  The Voting Section is inappropriately inserting themselves into a political question much like partisan gerrymandering.  The actual analysis under Section 5 should be much more circumspect and targeted because the executive branch is actually using the full power of the federal government in the most invasive manner possible on state power under the Constitution – stopping a state law from being enacted on the subjective analysis (not endorsed by a Court) that it may be racially discriminatory.  Remember, DOJ requires the states to prove to them that the law is not discriminatory, not a federal court.  And DOJ is ignoring the Crawford case.  Section 2 is always available to fight these laws if the opponents truly believed they could prove the law is discriminatory.  However, they fear such a review because the Supreme Court has clearly articulated that they don’t believe Voter ID is discriminatory.