Eric Holder’s progress.


"The most transparent administration in history suffered a defeat Monday, when U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson turned down the Justice Department's request to dismiss a lawsuit seeking "Fast and Furious" documents hidden by Attorney General Eric Holder and the Justice Department after President Obama invoked executive privilege."


"The most transparent administration in history" seems to have enough judges in the DC Appelate court in its pocket to ride this one out.  I don't know Judge Berman but my hat is off to her.  pl


"An organization of black conservatives says the Eric Holder-led Justice Department's latest lawsuit in North Carolina is clearly intended to do one thing: help encourage voter fraud in The Tar Heel State.
In August, North Carolina enacted a new law that requires prospective voters to present a valid ID at their assigned polling place in order to obtain a ballot. The ballot integrity measure came in the wake of the Supreme Court decision that reformed the Voting Rights Act by requiring that the federal government prove in court that minorities are affected by a law, rather than the sweeping unregulated control it had over certain state's election statutes."


Priceless.  I suppose Holder et al realize that with suits like this they are exposing the Voter Rights Act to further erosion by SCOTUS.  pl





This entry was posted in Justice. Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Eric Holder’s progress.

  1. Fred says:

    “…North Carolina … at their assigned polling place in order to obtain a ballot.”
    This is the law in Michigan, too. Or at least has been for the ten years I’ve been here.
    ” Later, Deputy Attorney General James Cole, in another letter to Congress, wrote: “Facts have come to light during the course of this investigation that indicate the Feb. 4 letter contains inaccuracies.” That letter was formally withdrawn. In other words, the Justice Department lied to Congress in covering up “Fast and Furious.”
    So AG Holder lied to Congress; DNI Clapper lied to Congress; head of the NSA General Alexander lied to Congress. Perhaps Congress should pass that funding resolution, along with articles of impeachment against this trio, or at least Obama for keeping liars on the public payroll.

  2. Will Reks says:

    I think folks who are opposed to the new laws in North Carolina believe Holder is standing up for them. Whether the SC uses this suit to further erode the VRA is on their heads. Further challenges to the VRA are just as likely to come from conservative lawsuits. Either way it will be good to have the law settled.
    Also worth noting that objections go well beyond to just the ID requirements. The GOP legislature also rolled back early voting used extensively by black voters and ended same-day registration.
    I am fine with voter ID requirements because it is not an inconvenience to me. Then again its perfectly clear that voter fraud is a canard and likely that far more votes will be lost to people who lack the requisite ID than who would vote fraudulently. The left used to constantly whine about Republicans stealing the 2000 (Florida) and 2004 (Ohio) elections. This is just partisan bs.

  3. The Twisted Genius says:

    I’m curious. Don’t all states require voter registration and maintain voter roles? I’m only familiar with Virginia. When I show up to vote my name is checked against a now computerized voter role. I’m required to state my full name and address and present some kind of ID. My paper voter registration card, without photo, is sufficient. The county clerk mails this ID to my residence. A Social Security Number is required to register. I’m not sure how a homeless Virginia citizen is registered and provided with a voter registration card. Next time I’m in the Stafford County Government Center, I think I’ll ask the County Clerk.
    My only improvement to the Virginia system is to require less days between registration and voting, currently 22 days for a general election, 10 days for a special election. Three days should be more than sufficient to check the SSN. Whatever form of valid ID required should be issued upon registration.

  4. steve says:

    Is there any connection between voter fraud and the North Carolina law? Perhaps it’s a remedy without a cause.
    Holder has a hard row to hoe in winning this lawsuit. He has to prove effectively that the effect is denial of minority voting rights. He will never be able to prove that imho.
    While that removes things from the purview of the voting rights act, at the same time and regardless of racial implications, fewer will cast ballots.
    Because it’s a bad move on the part of the feds doesn’t transform the state law into a good move.

  5. Alba Etie says:

    It should be a bedrock goal that all voters who are qualified to vote can vote . We should have twenty four hour three day voting windows for every national election as a minimum standard – . Furthermore we should continue the discussion about who can vote. I for one believe that we should have some type of national service as a requirement for citizenship – m

  6. Alba Etie says:

    And we need to do something about the gerrymandering in the House of Representatives . Neither political party should be given the ability to self select the Congress Critters – otherwise you arrive where we are today with the Government Shutdown . A pox on both Parties …

  7. nick b says:

    I don’t necessarily see a down side to AG Holder’s suit against N.C.. If he chooses not to sue, then the law remains in place. If he chooses to sue and wins, he may get remediation. Action by Holder also puts other states on notice that he’s willing to sue if additional restrictive voter ID laws are enacted. Perhaps most importantly, it keeps the issue out in the open and demands media attention.
    The Govt’s complaint:
    SCOTUS will get a crack a section 3 of the VRA in any case. If not from this suit, than from the Texas lawsuit. There are others suing the state of NC over this as well. The NAACP and ACLU have already filed. Col., can I assume from you mentioning this, that you believe the SCOTUS will strike down more of the VRA? Curious as to your thoughts there.
    In poking around to be sure I had my facts straight, I ran across some interesting asides. First, I had never heard of ‘Project 21’ the black conservative group that is cited in the post. In trying to find some information, I found that newly SST recommended author Max Blumenthal had some really choice words for this group:
    I also ran across a quote from the state of Texas’ reply to The federal govt’s complaint. I appreciate it’s honesty, but am left stunned at the same time.
    “DOJ’s accusations of racial discrimination are baseless. In 2011, both houses of the Texas Legislature were controlled by large Republican majorities, and their redistricting decisions were designed to increase the Republican Party’s electoral prospects at the expense of the Democrats. It is perfectly constitutional for a Republican-controlled legislature to make partisan districting decisions, even if there are incidental effects on minority voters who support Democratic candidates.”
    From the State of Texas:

  8. turcopolier says:

    nick b
    “can I assume from you mentioning this, that you believe the SCOTUS will strike down more of the VRA?” I think that it is likely that the conservative majority in SCOTUS will seek to further weaken the VRA. they have made it clear that they think the act is an unconstitutional infringement on the power of the states to run federal elections. The question will bw whether or not the five will hold together enough to write such an opinion. Max Blumenthal is an admirable man but I am not under any obligation to agree with all his opinions. pl

  9. nick b says:

    Col., my apologies if I insinuated that you are obligated to Max Blumenthal’s opinions in some way. That was not my intention. I am more familiar with his father’s work, and probably would not even have made the connection, or bothered to read what he had written had it not been for your post about Max’s book, Goliath. So for that, I thank you.

  10. Jose says:

    In Florida, you have to register to vote 29days before an election and present a valid identification at the polling booth, so what is the big deal?
    Does Mr. Holder want all districts to vote like several precincts in Philly that 100% of the voters voted 100% for BSHO, but only when the Republican monitors were kicked out?
    Everyone knows the real voter fraud is in the Absentee ballots process…
    BTW, the Judge was aa BSHO appointee.

  11. steve says:

    Of course, that would require a constitutional amendment.
    I would be concerned as well about the political implications as to what particular service would be required, and how that might change insofar as different administrations might consider certain activity “worthy” of citizenship.
    I prefer a more or less “neutral” concept of citizenship–you are born here or you are not.

Comments are closed.