Exactly three years ago, Eric Holder was sworn in to be Attorney General.   In that time, Holder has admitted that Fast and Furious – where law enforcement officials sold guns to drug dealers in Mexico and a gun was used in the murder of a United States border patrol agent – is “wholly unacceptable.”  Lawmakers in the House of Representatives that chief law enforcement official have found Eric Holder’s behavior just that – wholly unacceptable – as well.

Yesterday, Attorney General Eric Holder appeared before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee to discuss Fast and Furious.  Over a year after the time he claimed he discovering there was a operation Fast and Furious that his own agency was undertaking, Eric Holder has not disciplined a single individual.  Rep. Patrick McHenry called the Attorney General’s (mis)handling of the matter to be “incompetence in terms of management” because his only “action is to move people around” rather than actually firing people involved.

Rep. Darrell Issa, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, sent a letter Wednesday threatening to hold the Attorney General in contempt of Congress, because the Obama administration continues to stonewall members of Congress about documents related to Fast and Furious.   Only a paltry 8% of documents related to Fast and Furious have been released by the Obama administration.  Furthermore, the DOJ has refused access to numerous witnesses by House Oversight investigators.  Rep. Dan Burton declared at the hearing yesterday to Holder: “I think you are hiding behind something that will not stand up.”  Burton also urged the Chairman to issue a contempt citation.

Rep. Trey Gowdy pointed out  a correspondence back in 2010 between senior officials in the Justice Department– the real smoking gun in this case.  Holder did not even know about this document, one that his Department had submitted to Congress last Friday.  After a brief recess to discover what Congressman Gowdy was referring to, Holder came up with a weak excuse.  The Attorney General claimed that the senior officials could not know about Fast and Furious was going on because there was “no mention of tactics.”  The Attorney General kept resorting to the the term “tactics” as a euphemism for law enforcement agents doing illegal activities of walking guns to drug dealers.  As for Congressman Gowdy, the evidence is apparent that senior officials at the Justice Department “had actual and constructive knowledge” of Fast and Furious early on, knowledge that the main Justice has denied having.

Rep. Paul Gosar declared, “I am appalled” and found it outrageous the way that Fast and Furious was being trivialized when one American and over three hundred Mexicans were killed.  The Attorney General claimed he deserved “credit” for his handling of the matter.

When Rep. Walberg pointed out the incompetence of an attorney general who admits failure to read important papers that come across on his desk, Eric Holder proclaimed to the House Committee:  “I am the Attorney General!”  Rep. Ann Marie Buerkle took issue with this blanket assertion of authority, telling Eric Holder that with this position “you are accountable to American people” and “responsible for all activities that come under umbrella of your agency.” If only the Attorney General recognized that fact as well.

Normal 0 false false false EN-US JA X-NONE

Last Friday, liberals unfairly condemned a Florida law that will prevent vote fraud.  On January 27, mere days before the Florida primary, Democrat Senators Bill Nelson and Dick Durbin held a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in Tampa, Florida. 

The hearing, titled “New State Voting Laws II: Protecting the Right to Vote in the Sunshine State,” was in response to Florida House Bill 1355, which was signed into law last year.   At the hearing several witnesses spoke out against the new voting laws, arguing that the measures are anti-democratic and discriminate against minorities.   However, these opinions are without merit.  Florida’s new election laws intend to combat voter fraud in a nondiscriminatory fashion, despite witnesses’ testimony to the contrary.

HB 1355 changed the schedule of early voting days.  Although the number of early voting days was decreased, the total time to vote early will not necessarily decrease.  Most early voting locations will now be open twelve hours a day, rather than the previous six. 

The revised voting period was implemented to compress the early voting period in order to prevent “mischief and mishap,” which the RNLA previously discussed here. 

Daryl Parks, President of the National Bar Association, testified at the hearing about how “data demonstrates that black voters disproportionately voted more during weekend hours than during weekday hours.”  Parks said that not having early voting the Sunday before the election will have a “tremendous impact upon historically disenfranchised voters, such as African Americans and Hispanics.”  He supported this theory by contending “places of worship have, historically, rallied their members to travel from their churches to their voting sites.” However, groups may still organize voting trips on Saturdays, and there is still a Sunday that falls within the current early voting period.

Early voting, after all, is not required of states.  Michael Ertel, the Supervisor of Elections for Seminole County, expressed to the committee that when it comes to early voting, “Florida is one of the most active states in the nation.”  According to Mr. Ertel, Florida is one of only twelve states that even offer statewide early voting on weekends.  Additionally, early voting is not even allowed in several states.  Nevertheless, Democrat senators find having only an eight-day voting period before the election to be unconstitutional. (Senator Leahy even claimed that Florida’s laws “run contrary to our Constitution’s text and history.”)

Opponents are also against requirements placed on third-party voter registration organizations.  Brent Wilkes, National Executive Director of The League of United Latin American Citizens, claimed that the law would prevent minorities from registering to vote “by requiring third-party voter registration organizations to submit voter registration applications within 48 hours of receipt instead of 10 days as provided by existing law…”

Get-out-the-vote organizations are also required to register with the state and submit names of all workers signing up voters, and fines are in place to deter people from engaging in duplicate, fraudulent, or dishonest registration practices.  However, the League of Women Voters, which claims to be a non-partisan organization focused on “encouraging informed and active participation in government,” has abandoned this mission and is taking a partisan stance against the bill.

Deirdre Macnab, President of the League of Women Voters, told the Gulf Breeze News that she believes the bill’s restraints on third-party organizations will “make it more difficult for voters to participate in our democracy […],” and announced that the organization was going to cease registration efforts in Florida.  However, Supervisor of Elections Michael Ertel contacted the organization before the bill was even passed and offered to have someone from his office attend every registration drive and collect registration forms directly from voters in an effort to accommodate the organization. The League of Women Voters never responded.  Are they really trying to reach voters? The organization does not appear to be truly committed to assisting voters with registration.

Mr. Ertel justified the new regulations as necessary for advancing open, fair and honest elections.  “As elections administrators, we have the obligation to ensure opportunity,” said Ertel.  “As voters, we have the obligation to ensure that we take this most precious gift from our constitution and use it responsibly.” 

Floridians can be confident that their state is taking action to prevent vote fraud.  Florida’s election reforms are designed to ensure efficiency and accuracy during the election process.  These new voting laws do not take away anyone’s right to vote, but they do make certain that each vote truly counts… and is not diluted by vote fraud.

Again and again, the vote fraud deniers claim that reforms of voting laws are “a solution in search of a problem.”  But it is a problem in Florida.  In November of 2011, eight people were arrested by the FBI for vote fraud in the 2010 election in the Sunshine State. 

The individuals charged with crimes such as casting illegal votes, corruptly influencing voting, perjury and providing false report to law enforcement included Abra “Tina” Hill Johnson, Ernest Sinclair Johnson, Jr., Judy Ann Crumitie, Laverne V. Haynes, Ora Bell Rivers, Raven Simona Williams and Shalonda Michaelle Brinson.    In addition to these individuals, Jada Woods Williams, the Madison County Supervisor of Elections, was also charged with allowing the distribution of these fraudulent absentee ballots.  In all, the prosecutor made charges for the entire fraud scheme totaling 75 counts.  One of the most vocal vote fraud deniers, the NAACP, is even defending one of those charged in the vote fraud probe.

Florida legislators passed changes to the state election laws in HB 1355 with overwhelming support. Governor Rick Scott, who signed the bill in May of last year, said, that he “want[s] to make sure there's no fraud involved in elections.”  He added, “All of us as individuals that vote want to make sure that our elections are fair and honest."

Claims of disenfranchisement in Florida have been made, but the reform of the election laws is aimed at rooting out fraud, not to lower turnout. Florida Secretary of State Kurt Browning, the chief elections official, said, “I don't think this bill is bad for Florida. … It doesn't negatively impact Florida voters.”  And Pinellas County Supervisor of Elections Deborah Clark explained that the longer early voting days put forth in the bill would make it more convenient for people who want to vote before or after work.

There were no reports of problems for college voters who sought to participate in the primary yesterday.  In fact, Kayla Westbrook, chairwoman of the Florida State University College Republicans, said, “it isn't very difficult to [register].”  She referred to the changes to the election laws, saying, “I think that this is doing a good job to try and help with the voter fraud.”

On Al Sharpton’s Politics Nation last month, Republican Florida State Rep. Dennis Baxley was interviewed regarding the Florida election law that he sponsored, which was passed by the state legislature and signed by Governor Rick Scott.

Baxley explained the reasoning for the change in election laws, by saying, “We have to have credible results in close elections.  Only the legislature can protect the credibility of the process.”  Thus, he sponsored a bill to protect elections “from mishap and mischief.”

Democrats have tried to engage opposition to the changes to Florida election laws in anticipation of the Florida primary.  But 76 of the 80 parts of the election law changes have already been cleared by the Justice Department.

Among the changes to the election laws include: (1) a revised early voting schedule; (2) a requirement for third-party groups to register and subject them to fines for delaying turning in voter registration forms;  and (3) the use of provisional ballots by voters who move from another county without updating their addresses.

With regard to the revised early voting schedule, Baxley said on Politics Nation that this was actually a change to the election laws that had bipartisan support.  By having the early voting period all on one day instead of partial days, voters would not be turned away from the polls for arriving too late.

As for third party voting, Baxley explained the reason for the change by saying, “People who submit voter information to others, they have that manipulated.  They don’t know what gets turned in and what doesn’t. This is a much more secure process.”

Finally, provisional ballots was a response to a concern about local elections being “polluted by anyone coming to other communities” and changing their residence the day of the election to vote for someone where they didn’t actually consider their home.  Baxley pointed out that no one is actually turned away from the polls, because “Everyone gets to vote by provisional ballot if they don’t have their affairs in order.”  On the whole, he said, “We are a very accessible system.  It’s accessible to everyone in the same way.”

Baxley explained that he did not the public’s faith in the integrity of elections – especially close ones – to be at issue.  This is a measure aimed at reducing fraud.  He said, “Unless you are trying to intentionally violate the election laws, you don’t have a problem under this bill."

On Friday, the Overseas Voter Foundation held its sixth annual Uniformed and Overseas Citizen Absentee Voting Act Summit, a conference dedicated to overseas military voting rights.

Representatives from the government tried to emphasize that turnout increased among military voters.  However, the Military Voter Protection Project (MVVP) released a separate report, basing it off of Election Assistance Commission Data.  The MVVP found that the turnout of military voters did not increase.  (Click here for the differences between the government’s data and the MVPP’s data.)

Even if you accept the Federal Voting Assistance Program’s data, there is still reason for concern. The 2010 Federal Voting Assistance Program report did indicate that:

Unfortunately, 29% of active duty military voters indicated they never received the absentee ballot they requested, up from 16% in 2008.  That represents approximately 120,000 active duty military personnel who never received their absentee ballot.

How can the federal government celebrate the “progress” in terms of military voting rights when they admit “[u]nfortunately” disenfranchising 120,000 of them?

At the 2012 summit, the 2009 Ed Meese Award winner and Heritage Foundation scholar Hans von Spakovsky offered a few explanations for how military voters have been disenfranchised.  He criticized the “inattention and incompetence by the Department of Justice” with regard to enforcement of the MOVE (Military Voter and Overseas Empowerment) Act.  (Click here for last year’s Veterans’ Day post from the RNLA blog covering these topics). 

Is the Obama administration truly committed to combating the disenfranchisement of voters, when they disregard the rights of the men and women in uniform?

Louisiana Secretary of State Tom Schedler said that the Obama administration is using the Federal Motor Voter Law “to advance a political agenda.”  On July 12, 2011, the Justice Department sued Louisiana claiming that “Louisiana officials have not routinely offered voter registration forms, assistance and services to the state’s eligible citizens who apply, recertify or provide a change address for public assistance or disability services.” Schedler said there is no evidence of state employees deliberately neglecting to make voter registration forms available.

This week we also learned about the results of Freedom of Information Act request received by Judicial Watch.  What Judicial Watch discovered sheds light on the political agenda being advanced.  Just look at who the Department of Justice is meeting with:

On March 17, 2011, Associate Attorney General Thomas J. Perrelli met with Project Vote, the American Association of People with Disabilities, Demos, the League of Women Voters, the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, the Brennan Center for Justice, the Fair Elections Legal Network, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) Legal Defense Fund, and Paralyzed Veterans of America.

On March 29, 2011, Project Vote attorney Estelle Rogers and the same groups that met on March 17, 2011, sent recommendations to the associate attorney general for strengthening “compliance with the NVRA.”

Project Vote and the NAACP filed a lawsuit on April 19, 2011, against the State of Louisiana alleging violations of the National Voting Rights Act.   Suing states under the National Voting Rights Act is a nationwide objective of these liberal organizations, which have pursued public agency registration cases in Missouri, Ohio, Indiana, Georgia, and New Mexico.

The evidence of liberal political organizations exercising influence on the Justice Department doesn’t stop at meetings and filing similar cases.  Estelle Rogers made many efforts to get the Voting Section Chief at the Department of Justice to hire individual applicants with the Civil Rights Division.  And (thanks to another FOIA request from Pajamas Media) we know that the Justice Department was very responsive to efforts to hire liberal attorneys, but made not a single hire of conservative or nonpolitical individuals for staff (nonpolitical) attorney positions.

There’s only selective enforcement of the Voting Rights Act by the Justice Department.  Section 8 mandates that voter rolls be purged of ineligible voters.  But the Justice Department has no interest in enforcing that part of the law.  Shouldn't the Justice Department be interested in open, fair and honest elections through enforcement of Section 8 too?

There’s a reason this agency is called the United States Department of Justice, because it should uphold all the laws of this nation, not advance a political agenda of certain leftist groups.

Professor Rick Hasen lists as his “questionable quote of the day” a quote not questionable at all. 

The quote, taken from a timely op-ed by FEC Chairman Caroline Hunter in the Washington Times, is that “SuperPACs may not coordinate with any candidate.”  Hasen says the quote should say: May not “illegally coordinate” with any candidate, but that much is understood.

These days the reform community, of which Professor Hasen is in sympathy if not a member, is making any argument to denigrate the freedom from regulation provided by the Citizens United and SpeechNow.org opinions. 

It is true that Hasen lists factors that demonstrate a parallel interest between the candidate and the SuperPAC, in much the same way there is parallel interest in Oprah’s endorsement and President Obama.

Presumably, both want roughly the same policy outcomes and believe that comes about by electing the right candidates. 

Call Chairman Hunter, the Courts and I sticklers, but that is called “democracy,” not coordination.

Still, let’s take Hasen’s tedious barbs one by one.

First, Hasen says “a federal candidate may solicit funds for a super pac (but not ask for unlimited sums).”  True enough.  This is because McCain-Feingold’s soft money ban still prevents candidates from soliciting funds above hard dollar limits, not because soliciting funds creates coordination that can result in a contribution from the SuperPAC to the candidate.  The ability to solicit is protected by the right of association.

Second, Hasen says “the candidate may appear in a SuperPAC’s ad” well before the election, then he admits that the question is open; “pending before the FEC.”  Both are true.  But they are true because the FEC regulates coordinated “expenditures” and “electioneering communications” that occur inside elections, not coordinated "anything."  For this, Hasen should blame the reformers, who had to curtail the definition of the electioneering communication because the Supreme Court limited the term expenditure to speech containing “express advocacy” in 1976.

Third, Hasen says that “a candidate may use footage from a super pac in his own ads.”  True enough—and utterly beside the point: No one worries whether federal candidates are subsidizing the speech of independent Super PACs by recycling it.

Fourth, in a bid to make the reader squirm, Hasen says “that a super pac may be made up of a candidate’s former campaign manager, his father, his best friends, and his former co-workers.”  Keep in mind that under the regulations former campaign managers and former co-workers cannot have been on the candidate's payroll recently enough to have their understanding of what a candidate needs said to the public to get elected.  And while the hearts of a candidate's father or best friends are probably in the right place, their political skills are nil and as likely to damage campaign as help it.  If Dad hires a consultant to guide him, regulation keeps him from knowing the candidate’s plans.  If Hasen is arguing that both father and friend forfeit their rights to spend money independently in an election his son has entered, I’d like to see the reasoning under the First Amendment.

I’ll skip Hasen’s fifth barb; it is too similar enough to his fourth.

And last, Hasen says SuperPACs don’t have to meaningfully report.  This argument needs to be unwound: too many reformers are indulging in it.  Individuals that give money to a group for independent speech must be reported.  This requirement is right out of the opinion in SpeechNow.org.  The wrinkle comes from Citizens United, which rightly allowed corporations to spend their treasury funds on independent political communications.  What, then, would Hasen have these corporations report?  The disclosure of both the purchasers and purchase price of a Ford Fusion or F-150?  And how the funds from that transaction resulted in dues paid to a trade association that decided to exercise its speech rights in an election?

Stephen M. Hoersting is counsel at DB Capitol Strategies, and was co-counsel to plaintiffs in the case creating the nation’s first SuperPAC, SpeechNow.org v. FEC. 

The recent passing of the two-year anniversary of Citizens United v. FEC has brought predictable handwringing on the left. The hysteria has included debates on whether the decision portends the “end of democracy as we know it” and calls for constitutional amendments stripping all legal protection from corporations. Perhaps ironically, these calls are coming from people who have organized in the corporate form to disseminate political speech.

But are the dire warnings and extraordinary solutions justified? Brad Smith, former Chairman of the Federal Election Commission who now chairs the Center for Competitive Politics, recently discussed Citizens United’s effects on our political system with Joseph M. Birkenstock, former chief counsel of the Democratic National Committee.

Smith addressed the common misperceptions about Citizens United explaining: (i.) how it actually changes campaign-finance law, (ii.) where the law could possibly be improved, (iii.) its likely effect on the current election cycle; and (iv.) what the decision means at the state and local level.

At its core, Citizens United aligned an inconsistent area of law by overturning the speech-repressive outlier Austin v. Michigan State Chamber of Commerce. Its primary impact is to permit corporations and unions to spend money on campaigns. The Citizens’ ruling, combined with SpeechNow.org v. FEC, which allows unlimited contributions to “527” advocacy groups, enables competing speakers in the political marketplace to get their messages out quicker and easier. The net result is a better-informed citizenry and a stronger democracy.  

According to Smith, any defects in the current set-up involve disclosure requirements. While people often mischaracterize Citizens United as allowing clandestine Super PAC donations, Super PACs are still PACs and have to abide by all previous disclosure requirements. The problem, to the extent it exists, is identifying large corporate donors contributing to generic-sounding PACs. Any change could involve removing overly burdensome regulations on small donors and requiring more transparency on “mega-donations.”  But these issues are minimal as internet research can usually apprise the curious to underlying funding sources.

Regardless of disclosure issues, however, Citizens United changes very little about our political process. In 2010 for instance, Citizen United-enabled political spending accounted for about 300 million dollars—an amount less than one-tenth that spent by candidates and political parties. The 2012 election cycle will be nasty and expensive, and a contrary Citizens United holding would have almost no effect on that premise. There will be slightly more money spent this election cycle but the main change will be who is spending.

Any deviations from the current campaign-finance paradigm would stem from the minority of states that ban Citizen United-type expenditures for state and local races. Smith commented on the recent Montana ruling, which the RNLA previously discussed here. He views the decision as a direct challenge the Court’s holding. And believes the Supreme Court will summarily reverse the Montana court, thus blocking any further attempts by states to dodge Citizens United by proclaiming their “uniqueness.”

Thus contrary to the “sky is falling” meme disseminated by some, Citizens United has not wrecked our democracy, but made it stronger by allowing more voices into our national conversation.  

Why should New Hampshire have photo identification requirements?

New Hampshire Secretary of State (which is the chief elections official) William Gardner offers an answer. He said: Because “Someone’s going to be less likely to commit voter fraud.”

Today, the New Hampshire Senate is considering a voter ID bill.  State Senator Russell Prescott (R-Kingston) proposed a bill to be heard today by the Senate Public Municipal Affairs Committee.

It is hoped that Prescott’s bill will generate widespread support in the chamber, from both parties.  William Gardner, the New Hampshire Secretary of State, is a Democrat.  Prescott, a Republican, has crafted the New Hampshire voter ID bill in response to Gardner’s comments on the 2011 bill.

According to the Associated Press:

The latest bill would require voters to present government-issued photo identification to vote but voters without proper identification could sign an affidavit swearing they are who they say they are and vote. Beginning in 2016, the affidavits would include a photo of the voter and the voters would be told to return a letter verifying their identity.

In five months, a new bill is before the New Hampshire Senate, five months after the body failed to override Governor Lynch’s veto of the previous voter ID bill.   What changed was James O’Keefe created a stir in the Granite State in his latest exposé video showing how New Hampshire polling officials, who are not required by law to ask for photo identification, do unwittingly hand out ballots to people impersonating dead voters.

Former Congressional Black Caucus Chair and former Democrat Alabama Congressman Artur Davis now favors voter ID, despite his opposition to such legislation while in Congress.  Davis responded to the news about O’Keefe’s New Hampshire video saying, “Voter fraud is common in many jurisdictions.  I’m struck by the people who forcibly argue there’s no such thing, that it never happens. Many jurisdictions are slow to purge their rolls, so people who have been dead for a number of years can still be on those rolls, and people who have died more recently are certainly on them.”

Given the fraud in New Hampshire, which includes voting in the names of the deceased, there is an opportunity today for the Democrat Secretary of State, who has said he supported voter ID laws generally, to throw his support behind a specific bill.

On May 2, 2007, Judge John Gerrard of the Nebraska Supreme Court authored an opinion on capital punishment six days before the date of an execution of an inmate named Carey Dean Moore.   The opinion by Judge John Gerrard demonstrates reason for very serious concern about whether Gerrard lets an agenda influence his judicial rulings.  Gerrard wrote an unprecedented opinion intervening in the matter, when the inmate didn’t actually request a stay of his execution in 2007. 

The Nebraska Supreme Court, on its own motion, intervened in order to evaluate whether the electrical chair was a constitutional method to conduct the death penalty.  As the dissenting opinion by three justices in the 2007 case said that the Nebraska Supreme Court “has no immediate basis to act and it is unprecedented to do so.”  The dissenters explained, “there have been no requests for relief to this court by Moore, nor has he rescinded his earlier request that no action be taken by this court in his case.”  Furthermore, the dissenters could find “no case which a court suspending a state’s executions outside of the court’s authority to act in response to a request for relief in an existing case by the condemned person.”

Later, the Nebraska Supreme Court received the opportunity to decide the constitutionality of electrocution and decided in another case that the electrical chair was unconstitutional.  Currently, there are still 9 states (Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia) that permit electrocution. The state legislature passed a law allowing for capital punishment by lethal injection, and Moore was resentenced to death by lethal injection.   Moore has a new execution date: June 12, 2012.

On June 20, 1980, Moore was first sentenced to death for the 1979 murders of Omaha taxi drivers Reuel Van Ness, Jr.  and Maynard Helgeland.  Moore confessed that he planned and carried out the murders.  Moore said of the 2007 stay of his execution: “I was confused. Very confused.  I mean, I gave up my appeals.”  Moore then wrote a pamphlet detailing how he committed the killings.  He has not said differently, and he told the Lincoln Journal Star just last June: “I am guilty.”

Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) has opposed Judge John Gerrard's nomination to be a federal judge on the District of Nebraska.  Sessions has expressed “very serious concern” about Gerrard’s role in authoring the 2007 stay of execution.   Judges should not use their position on the bench to rewrite the law, because that’s not the proper role of the judiciary.

According to the Director of the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) in South Carolina, 957 deceased voters appeared to have voted in recent elections.  He said, "This is an alarming number, and clearly necessitates an investigation into potential criminal activity."  The South Carolina Attorney General requested an investigation by the State Law Enforcement Division, writing, “No right is more precious than the right to vote and no process is more important in terms of integrity than the election process. Voter fraud cannot be tolerated.”

This news was uncovered by the DMV Director Kevin Schwedo in testimony before a South Carolina House subcommittee.  The DMV analyzed the records of the South Carolina Election Commission, the South Carolina Department of Vital Statistics and the Social Security Administration.  The DMV discovered that more than 239,000 voters who do not have an South Carolina driver’s license or identification card, and about 37,000 of them were dead; 957 of those people could have voted.

You might be one of those that dismisses claims of this type of vote fraud (posthumous voting), but apparently it’s pretty easy to convince election officials that you are a voter they don’t realize is dead, as expose videographer James O’Keefe discovered (and shows in his newest Youtube video).  At the New Hampshire primary (a state that does not have photo voter ID), O’Keefe arranged for a person to claim to be a voter who is actually dead but still on the voter rolls.  Because there was no photo ID confirming that person’s identity, election officials were going to let that person cast a ballot.

Vote fraud in elections can be combated by certain reforms like voter ID.  South Carolina state legislators recognized the threat that fraud poses to the integrity of elections, and that’s why they passed a voter ID law last year and the governor signed it.  But there is opposition to this necessary electoral reform by Obama’s Justice Department, which rejected the voter ID law using its authority under the Voting Rights Act.

As South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley said at the signing and continues to say today even after the DOJ rejected the law: “if you can show pictures to buy Sudafed, if you can show a picture to get on an airplane, you should be able to show a picture to make sure we do what is incredibly inherent in our freedoms and that’s the ability to vote.”

Obama’s Justice Department will go to whatever lengths to distort data in order to pursue their “aggressive” agenda against voter ID.  The Department of Justice is misusing its power where it has authority not to preclear voting statutes if they violate civil rights laws.

The Department of Justice rushed out its letter denying preclearance of the South Carolina voter ID law by relying on statistics on the number of photo IDs that the Department of Motor Vehicles discovered were not accurate.  Furthermore, the decision also fails to discuss all the evidence of vote fraud by limiting its discussion only to voter impersonation.  Other forms of vote fraud (multiple voting, non-resident voting, etc.) can be prevented by voter ID, but there is no discussion of them.

But South Carolina is not the only state where the DOJ is distorting statistics.  Texas is another state which the DOJ has authority to review its state voting laws.  The DOJ requested its own statistics, demonstrating that it seeks to find evidence from the state – no matter how misleading – to drum up support for its political agenda.  The Department of Justice requested data about minority voters’ names.  However, it should be noted that Hispanic surnames don’t necessarily indicate a voter’s race.  Texas complied with the Department of Justice’s request, but noted that the data is not

Keith Ingram, the director of the Texas elections division said, “By requesting Spanish surname data, the DOJ’s request acknowledges that the DPS database does not accurately reflect the number of Hispanic voters in Texas who possess a driver’s license or photo identification card...Nonetheless, in a good faith attempt to satisfy the DOJ’s request, the State has compiled the requested data – despite the State’s reservations about the reliability of that data.”

Under Obama’s leadership, the nation’s law enforcement agency is unjustly distorting evidence to pursue a politicized agenda against voter ID.  The Department of Justice is failing to live up to its name.

Current Colorado Secretary of State Scott Gessler and former Kentucky Secretary Trey Grayson (both RNLA members and speakers at the 2011 National Election Law Seminar) were quoted in a recent NPR piece.   The NPR article, entitled “Secretaries of State at Center of Election Battles,” only mentions three Republican Secretaries of State (from Colorado, Florida and Kentucky).  However, chief state elections officials, no matter what party they may belong to, are charged with ensuring that elections are open, fair and honest.  Voter ID is one method to pursue those goals by preventing vote fraud in elections.

Besides Gessler in Colorado, there are other Secretaries of State who support voter ID. Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp recognizes the need for voter ID in states like his own, which has had a photo ID law for years.  According to the Associated Press, Kemp believes “stricter identification requirements enacted by Georgia and other states are needed to deal with attempts to commit voter fraud.”  In Tennessee, Secretary of State Tre Hargett is committed to fairly applying the new state voter ID law and does not believe voter ID discourages turnout saying, “I think that nothing could disenfranchise an eligible voter more than finding out that ineligible voters are voting.”  Then, there’s Iowa Secretary of State Matt Schultz who supported a new law in his state and said last August, “You have to show an ID before you get on an airplane, you have to show an ID before you open a checking account, and if you like beer you have to show ID before you buy a beer so why not when you vote?”  

But voter ID is not supported only by Secretaries of State who are Republicans.  Rhode Island Secretary of State A. Ralph Mollis, a Democrat, said, “The perception that identity theft could occur at the polls weakens the public's faith in the fairness of our elections. Voting should be at least as secure as everyday tasks like renting a car or getting a library card that routinely require ID. Photo ID ensures that poll workers can match a face to the name that voters give them when they obtain their ballots at the polls. The simple act of asking for ID protects the rights of every voter.”  Then there’s New Hampshire Secretary of State William Gardner, also a Democrat, who favors photo identification requirements, because, as he explains, “Someone’s going to be less likely to commit voter fraud.”

Voter ID is a common-sense election reform; that’s why so many state legislatures considered it last year and so many Secretaries of State support it.

 On December 30, the Montana Supreme Court ruled that the United States Supreme Court’s holding in Citizens United v. FEC, which recognized corporate political speech rights, did not apply in Montana. The court held that a “Montana Exception” exempted compliance with Citizens United because of the state’s supposedly unique political, historical and demographic characteristics. The plaintiffs—consisting of both nonprofit and for-profit corporations—have retained the successful Citizens United attorney and 2009 Republican Lawyer of the Year James Bopp, Jr. for the United States Supreme Court appeal.

Although the majority conceded two central premises of Citizens United: (1) corporations have First Amendment protections; and (2) PACs are not a constitutionally permissible alternative to banning independent political expenditures), the majority nonetheless insisted the government had met its burden to uphold the speech-restricting law by cataloging all the criteria that make Montana supposedly particularly susceptible to corruption. These “atypical” characteristics included its history, rural population, abundant natural resources, destination as a transportation corridor and traditionally low campaign costs.

The primary dissent rejected the majority’s “Montana Exception” rationale noting Citizens’ broad language: “no sufficient government interest justifies limits on political speech of nonprofit or for profit corporations.” In fact, the dissent demonstrated that Citizens United itself had considered and rejected all of the “unique” criteria on which the majority had relied. Further, the dissent concluded even if all of the factors the majority cited did make Montana particularly susceptible to corporate influence, Citizens United had specifically rejected the state’s chosen remedy of outright banning independent political expenditures. Again, quoting broad language from Citizens United:

We must give weight to attempts by [the legislative branch] to seek to dispel either the appearance or the reality of these influences. The remedies enacted by law, however, must comply with the First Amendment; and, it is our law and our tradition that more speech, not less, is the governing rule. An outright ban on corporate political speech during the critical preelection period is not a permissible remedy.

Finally, the dissent aptly noted the real possibility Citizens United would be “state lawed” out of existence by incumbent state-level politicians eager to maintain control of the political dialogue by restricting corporate speech rights in state and local elections.

One such politician is Montana’s Democrat Attorney General, Steve Bullock, who personally represented the state in defending the challenged law and who is now running for governor. Mr. Bullock convinced the court to adopt his “Montana Exception” legal theory; the United States Supreme Court may not agree. He was correct on one aspect of the state’s “uniqueness,” however; while twenty-four states had laws affected by the Citizens’ decision, nine have repealed or suspended them, only one—Montana—has defended it. The United States Supreme Court may soon decide Montana is also unique in being the state that unwittingly strengthened First Amendment protections for corporate speech, by refusing to heed the Citizens United holding.

The South Carolina Attorney General is suing the Department of Justice for denying preclearance of the state voter ID law.  As the Republican presidential candidates are gearing up for Saturday’s primary in the Palmetto State, they have been vocal on this topic.  The GOP field supports voter ID laws like South Carolina’s and has been critical of Eric Holder’s Justice Department decision to reject the voter ID law. 

Former Speaker Newt Gingrich tweeted last week, “Requiring ID to vote is common sense defense against fraud. SC is right to challenge Obama DOJ” and wrote a longer defense of voter ID laws in The Daily Caller.  Gingrich wrote, “Instead of standing in the way of good government, the Obama administration should applaud efforts to bring integrity to South Carolina elections and elections in all states, especially as we enter 2012 and what will perhaps be a contentious election year.” 

Governor Rick Perry said, “Each of our states are under assault right now by this administration. We may be under assault - South Carolina, they're actually at war with you” in a public forum in Charleston.  He added, “I’m saying the state of Texas is under assault by the federal government. I’m saying also that South Carolina is at war with this federal government, and with this administration.”

Former Governor Mitt Romney said, “I find it extraordinary that Eric Holder is one more time making a very serious error.  The idea that people should not able to be identified when they vote so we know that they are not voting multiple times.  And that’s the purpose here of course.   We don’t want people voting multiple times. And you can get a photo ID free from your state and get it at the time you register to vote… There are ways that we can do this that would protect our voting system.”

When asked about the South Carolina voter ID law, former Senator Rick Santorum called voter ID laws “common-sense, anti-fraud measures” and noted the common uses of photo identification: “You need photo ID to buy a drink; you need photo ID to get on an airplane. You need photo ID to buy cigarettes."