Trump's War on Iran Looks to Be Used as Pretext for Midterm Voter Purge

Voting rights activists may face toughest tests as Donald
Trump's administration attempts a brazen voter obstruction 
project aimed at stopping millions from voting in midterm 
elections. Trump claimed Iran interfered in 2020-24 elections,
a pretext to take charge of elections, as Trump declares his 
intention to nationalize administration of state elections, 
in violation of U.S. Constitution. Photo is from In These Times.

Voting liberties to be slaughtered like so many Iranian children

Madison, Wisconsin — The U.S. Dept of Defense, and Dept of Justice will likely be used by Donald Trump to attempt to obstruct voting liberties of millions of eligible Americans.

President Trump referenced this coming escalation against the voting public on Feb. 28, when he falsely linked the illegal American-Israeli invasion of Iran with American midterm elections.

Trump seeks power, and Americans who vote present huge barriers to his sustaining power. 

Notes election law and voting rights expert, Marc Elias of Democracy Docket, who has brought this story to the public, while corporate media has imposed a black-out of Trump's plan: Trump has made public his intention to subvert American elections while pursuing war against Iran, then using the war as the basis to declare elections illegal.

Crazy plan, but Trump appears to have every intention of pursing this madness.

Said Elias of Democracy Docket:

At 2:30 a.m. on Saturday morning (Feb 28), Donald trump posted a video on Truth Social to announce that he had ordered the bombing of Iran. As crazy as that was, that he announced a war on Truth Social in the middle of the night, it's even crazier that two hours later, he wrote: 'Iran tried to interfere in 2020, 2024 elections to stop Trump, and now faces renewed war with United States.'
That's right. the very next social media post, back-to-back with the one announcing the war, was him tying a connection between this alleged interference in 2020 and 2024 and the war that he had just launched.'
These two posts tell you everything you need to  know about where Donald Trump is going for the next eight months, [until Election Day, November 3].

Elias, a civil liberties attorney, will fight this coming Trump action in court, Elias vows.

Elias notes Trump's unhinged social media posts follow Trump's effort to obtain state voting rolls so the administration can purge eligible Americans from voting because of voters' suspected non-Republican sentiment.

Wisconsin Voting Rights Supporters Hit GOP Suppression Action in Madison

Madison, Wisconsin—Wisconsin Republicans have implemented an offensive against voters through the GOP-led Dept. of Transportation's planned closing of two accessible DMV centers that will be consolidated into a new complex sited on the far-west side of the city.

Many voters seeking the Republican-approved photo voter IDs would have to obtain this Republican-prescribed qualification to vote at the relatively inaccessible, new DMV building.

The City of Madison, voting rights groups, and Dane County legislators have all condemned the GOP plan, (Wisconsin State Journal).

The Republican move is part of a long Republican voter obstruction project aimed at suppressing unwanted voters.

Wrote Brook Soltvedt, president, League of Women Voters of Dane County in Madison.com:

Transit-dependent citizens must visit the Division of Motor Vehicles to obtain a Wisconsin ID card for voting.

Who are our most transit-dependent? Students, the elderly and disabled, racial minorities and economically challenged citizens.

A study from the UW–Madison Center for Elections Research showed that about 17,000 registered voters in Dane and Milwaukee counties were deterred from voting in the November 2016 election because they either did not have a valid ID, or believed that they did not have one -- even if they did.

Meanwhile, on the national Republican voter-obstruction front, a federal judge has ordered an end to the 35-year-old consent decree against the Republican National Committee's 'ballot security' activities implemented to intimidate minority citizens from casting votes.

Below is the text of the letter from Dane County legislators to Secretary Dave Ross, Wisconsin Department of Transportation.
---
Secretary Dave Ross, Wisconsin Department of Transportation
Hill Farms State Transportation Building
4802 Sheboygan Avenue
Madison, WI 53705

Dear Secretary Ross,

As you know, on January 3, 2018, the City of Madison filed a civil rights complaint against the Wisconsin Department of Transportation over the decision to cease providing Division of Motor Vehicle Services at the Sheboygan Avenue and Odana Road locations and to consolidate those offices in a new location at 8417 Excelsior Drive.  As members of the Madison area legislative delegation, we share the concerns of the City of Madison and urge you to take steps necessary to resolve the issues the city raises in its complaint.

While the Odana Road and Sheboygan Avenue locations are readily accessible by bus, public transit near the proposed Excelsior Drive location is very limited. It is not reasonable to expect a person without a car to spend over two hours for bussing and transfers and up to an hour waiting for the arrival of a bus to take them home. Additionally, most service utilizes a bus stop nearly half a mile away, posing challenges for individuals with disabilities or those traveling with children. Due to the move and consolidation of locations, a simple errand to the DMV could take substantially more time and effort to complete for people residing in neighborhoods predominantly comprised of the elderly, racial minorities, and lower income families.

Additionally, the Excelsior Drive location is not pedestrian or bicycle friendly. Both the Odana Road and Sheboygan Avenue locations are served by a number of safe and accessible routes for pedestrians and bicyclists. However, the Beltline Highway will serve as a barrier for individuals who accessed the former locations on foot or by bicycle.

Given the current state voter ID law, reduced accessibility to the DMV is particularly alarming. In this case, those who lack transportation to get to the new location are likely to be the same individuals who are most likely to be disenfranchised.  For low-income individuals, minorities, and disabled individuals who rely on public transportation, this move will increase barriers to accessing the facility and various DMV services.

As we had similar concerns to those raised by the City of Madison, staff from Representative Subeck’s office contacted your office earlier this fall to inquire about plans for the move and to share our concern that access to services could be diminished because the new facility is underserved by public transportation. Since that time, your office has never been back in touch with us about the move until we received your January 2 press release. Perhaps if the Department had engaged legislators after we contacted your office, the problems raised by the city could have been addressed before now.

We want the Wisconsin Department of Transportation to recognize that the complaint filed by the City of Madison has merit. Corrective measures need to be taken to ensure Madison residents in need of a driver’s license or state identification card do not face unnecessary and sometimes costly barriers.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Lisa Subeck                            Terese Berceau                        Jimmy Anderson
State Representative            State Representative            State Representative
78th Assembly District          77th Assembly District          47th Assembly District

Chris Taylor                            Melissa Sargent                         Fred Risser
State Representative            State Representative            State Senator
76th Assembly District          48th Assembly District          26th Senate District

Mark Miller
State Senator
16th Senate District
#

Wisconsin Republicans Coexist with Peninsula Paradise

Yoda has advice for white Wisconsinites voting Republican

Water and racist politics get around in the Wisconsin Peninsula

Updated - Nobody visiting Wisconsin likes cow shite in their beer and rightfully so.

But in their water, that's okay with a bare majority of folks who live here.

Consider the people living in Wisconsin's peninsula jutting out into Lake Michigan, offering a political culture approximating the Badger State as a whole.

Two overwhelmingly white, sparsely populated counties—Door and Kewaunee—comprise the beautiful peninsula with a combined voting population of some 28,000 people in the 2016 presidential election, (Wisconsin Elections Commission, County by County Report - President of the United States Recount).

And no matter how clear the value of fresh, safe water may appear with the massive Lake Michigan staring these folks in the face every day, there is roughly 50 percent of the voting population of the peninsula that will vote anti-water Republican and Scott Walker-and-Jesus-loves-polluters, (Wisconsin Elections Commission) as the state abandons water protection under Republicans' anti-water agenda.

Political strategists looking for an effective counter to the white, rural and small-town Republican lock look at water politics with hope. But right now at this moment, despite huge organizing successes for clean and safe water citizen groups, electorally, polluting the water past safety and decency plays okay.

A reader today can visit the Kewaunee County webpage and read about the stunning natural resources, a new Revamped Tourism website, alongside of new Well Water Testing Presentations by Dr. Mark Borchardt, and Dr. Maureen Muldoon on the danger of cow feces in your drinking and bath water from Republican-supported factory farms, how to test for fecal contamination in your water, and how water wells work in different geological regions. Kind of sciencey so Republicans are not too thrilled with the presentations.

To be Republican in Wisconisn is as well to cast your lot consonant with the constant racist appeals to white Wisconsin that goes back decades. [In 1983 for example, Wisconsin supplied a full three of the 90 House votes against the establishment of Martin Luther King, Jr. Day: racists Reps Tom Petri, (R-Fond du Lac), Toby Roth, (R-Green Bay), and James Sensenbrenner (R-Whitefish Bay) (Gov Track), (Mal Contends)].

Racist politics are no problem as in no deal breaker. Northeastern and east-central Wisconsin remain white, racist and proud, for example.

Donald Trump could call for a final solution to the black and brown problem, and roughly 14,000 of the 28,000-voting gentle peninsula folk would go along.

This with, broadly speaking, heightened consciousness of the value of water and of Latino workers in the polluting factory dairy operations. Yep, Latino folks have a 'role to play' in Wisconsin, but this role has nothing to do with their humanity.

Two residents of the Wisconsin peninsula offer an analysis of Republican politics and the nascent destruction of safe water in northeastern Wisconsin: Don Freix, small business owner in Door County in the Door County Daily News, and Nancy Utesch, small farmer in Kewaunee County in the Capital Times. Both pieces are worth reading repeatedly.

Writes Utesch:

The Department of Natural Resources' recent low-key roll-out of help for Kewaunee County residents dealing with contamination so great that they cannot drink nor should they bathe in their water highlights the DNR’s continued failures, lack of integrity, and continued lack of urgency in responding to Kewaunee’s health and water crisis.

Lack of urgency, as in come to Wisconsin' peninsula but don't drink the water but at least there are plenty of white people and pretty leaves in the Fall.

James Sensenbrenner Remains One of Six in Congress Who Opposed Martin Luther King, Jr. Day

Wisconsin U.S. House roll call vote in 1983 on establishment
of Martin Luther King, Jr. as a legal public holiday, (GovTrack)

Updated - The birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr. is celebrated as a national holiday on the third Monday of January every year.

President Reagan signed the Rev. King Holiday bill (H.R. 3706 (1983)), into law on November 2, 1983. Only three people have a national holiday observed in their honor (Congress.Gov), (White House).

[Note: No links are made here to the The Martin Luther King, Jr. Center for Nonviolent Social Change website, (funded by by J.P. Morgan Chase Co.), or The Estate of Martin Luther King, Jr. because these groups see fit to copyright and privatize speeches, images and photos of King, profiting from a leader of the American civil rights movement.]

Getting Martin Luther King's birthday through congress as a legal national holiday was a difficult legislative process.

Wisconsin Republicans' Shameful Performance

If you are from Wisconsin, the Congressional record reveals familiar Republican names who were loyal members of the opposition to King: Reps Tom Petri, (R-Fond du Lac), Toby Roth, (R-Green Bay), and James Sensenbrenner (R-Whitefish Bay) (Gov Track).

These three Wisconsin congressmen represented overwhelming white districts in east-central and northeastern Wisconsin, and suburban Milwaukee. Petri, Roth and Sensenbrenner were among 90 House members who joined segregationists and white supremacists in opposing the King holiday in an August 2, 1983 vote that sent H.R. 3706 (1983) to the United States Senate (Gov Track) (Congress.Gov), (New York Times).

The years-long battle featured a fierce debate in 1979 in which the "strongest opposition came from lawmakers in the Deep South, such as Senator Jesse Helms, Republican of North Carolina, and Senator Strom Thurmond, Republican of South Carolina, who ran for president in 1948 on a segregationist platform," (Stack, New York Times). Still the deep south had nothing on the rural north with respect to racism. Reps. Petri, Roth and Sensenbrenner all played to their white rural and suburban constituencies.

Racism Lives

Six serving members of Congress— Senators Charles Grassley (R-Iowa); Richard Shelby (R-Alabama); John McCain (R-Arizona); Orrin Hatch (R-Utah); and United States Representatives Hal Rogers (R-Kentucky) and James Sensenbrenner (R-Wisconsin)—remain what is left of the congressional opposition who worked against Martin Luther King, Jr. Day (Mal Contends), (Washington Post). All six were reelected in 2016, and all six represent very white and very safe Republican jurisdictions today.

If you live in Arkansas, Alabama, or Mississippi today you can jointly observe Robert E. Lee Day, to give some balance to this most-uppity of black men (Little, National Geographic).

Bill introduced by Rep. Katie Hall [D-IN1, 1981-1984] on July 29, 1983, H.R. 3706 (98th):
A bill to amend title 5, United States Code, to make the birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr.,
a legal public holiday. 98th Congress, Aug 2, 1983, (Congress.Gov)

It is more important than ever to observe Martin Luther King's birthday as a moment to celebrate the abolitionist and civil-rights movements that remain today a promise still unfulfilled.

Republicans Got What They Want in Wisc DMV Clerks Deciding Who Votes; Fight's Not Over

Thank you Ruthelle Frank and Eddie Lee Holloway Jr.
for sticking up for our rights in 2011 and beyond, (ACLU)

Wisconsin Republicans frustrated, confused and blocked voters: Mission Accomplished

Wisconsin is better than North Carolina in voting rights, but that's nothing to brag about.

For the some 300,000 registered voters without a Republican-approved voting ID, Wisconsin voting rights activists face a situation where DMV clerks, intrepid students of the Constitution, are making value decisions about who gets to vote.

The result and Republican Party objective is voter confusion, frustration and obstruction.

Writes EPWisco this weekend: "We hope DMV now following correct rules - u should be able to get ID w/whatever docs u have. Let us and @VoteRiders @votermolly know [if] u can't[.]"

From February 2015, consider the unthinkable state of affairs (also seen from 2011) we face today, we did not get here by accident:

[from 2015] If Republicans and Scott Walker get their way, [they did], DMV clerks will make the decision on whether 10,000s of Wisconsin citizens get to vote, exercising the clerks' "discretion in a constitutionally sufficient manner." [Frank v. Walker, p.36]

Election law expert, Rick Hasen [in 2015], says Wisconsin voting right activists make a persuasive case for the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the Wisconsin photo voter ID case, Ruthelle Frank v. Scott Walker and League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) of Wisconsin v. Barland.

Hasen notes the timing and disposition of the Wisconsin voting rights case facing the U.S. presidential elections next year, and the five-to-five split of the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit pitting Judge Easterbrook's opinion with Judge Richard Posner's.

"This case comes to the Court with an extensive trial record, an exhaustive district court decision, and a pair of diametrically opposed Seventh Circuit opinions by Judges Easterbrook and Posner." [p.11 of 2015 Reply Brief]

If the Supreme Court does not grant cert, the GOP-passed bill signed into law by Scott Walker would become effective.

From Wisconsin voting rights activists' Reply Brief filed [in 2015]:

...The district court identified other problems with the saving construction [by the Wisconsin Supreme Court]. A voter applying for photo ID “must still provide ‘[w]hatever documentation is available which states the person’s name and date of birth,’ and then the [DMV] administrator, in his or her discretion, may accept or reject ‘such extraordinary proof of name and date of birth.’” App. 197a (quoting Wis. Admin. Code § Trans. 102.15(3)(b), (c)). To guide DMV clerks, the Wisconsin Supreme Court offered this cryptic instruction: ‘the administrator, or his or her designee, shall exercise his or her discretion in a constitutionally sufficient manner.’” Id. (quoting NAAC, 851 N.W.2d at 279). It is unthinkable that the right to vote could depend on the “constitutionally sufficient” exercise of discretion by a DMV clerk. See Louisiana v. United States, 380 U.S. 145, 153 (1965) (voting rights “cannot be obliterated by the use of laws ... which leave the voting fate of a citizen to the passing whim or impulse of an individual registrar”).  [p. 14]

Repulsive work by Republicans and bureaucrats.

Voting Rights Advocates: "Unthinkable" DMV Clerks Decide Constitutionality of Voters

If Republicans and Scott Walker get their way, DMV clerks will make the decision on whether 10,000s of Wisconsin citizens get to vote, exercising the clerks' "discretion in a constitutionally sufficient manner." [Frank v. Walker, p.36]

Election law expert, Rick Hasen, says Wisconsin voting right activists make a persuasive case for the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the Wisconsin photo voter ID case, Ruthelle Frank v. Scott Walker and League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) of Wisconsin v. Barland.

Hasen notes the timing and disposition of the Wisconsin voting rights case facing the U.S. presidential elections next year, and the five-to-five split of the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit pitting Judge Easterbrook's opinion with Judge Richard Posner's.

"This case comes to the Court with an extensive trial record, an exhaustive district court decision, and a pair of diametrically opposed Seventh Circuit opinions by Judges Easterbrook and Posner." [p.11 of Reply Brief]

If the Supreme Court does not grant cert, the GOP-passed bill signed into law by Scott Walker would become effective.

From Wisconsin voting rights activists' Reply Brief filed today:

...The district court identified other problems with the saving construction [by the Wisconsin Supreme Court]. A voter applying for photo ID “must still provide ‘[w]hatever documentation is available which states the person’s name and date of birth,’ and then the [DMV] administrator, in his or her discretion, may accept or reject ‘such extraordinary proof of name and date of birth.’” App. 197a (quoting Wis. Admin. Code § Trans. 102.15(3)(b), (c)). To guide DMV clerks, the Wisconsin Supreme Court offered “this cryptic instruction: ‘the administrator, or his or her designee, shall exercise his or her discretion in a constitutionally sufficient manner.’” Id. (quoting NAAC, 851 N.W.2d at 279). It is unthinkable that the right to vote could depend on the “constitutionally sufficient” exercise of discretion by a DMV clerk. See Louisiana v. United States, 380 U.S. 145, 153 (1965) (voting rights “cannot be obliterated by the use of laws ... which leave the voting fate of a citizen to the passing whim or impulse of an individual registrar”).  [p. 14]

Civil Rights Activists Petition High Court to Halt Wisconsin Photo Voter ID Law

Ruthelle Frank of Brokaw, Wisconsin
fights for her right to vote against Scott Walker
and Republican efforts to obstruct non-GOP
voting Wisconsin citizens in Frank v. Walker

It's 2015 and the major white-dominated political party—the Republican Party—continues its voter obstruction efforts against blacks and Latinos and other voters likely to cast votes for non-GOP candidates.

Civil rights activists are fighting back.

After successfully halting Wisconsin's photo voter ID law intended to stop non-Republican voters from voting, Wisconsin's Voter ID law remains unenforceable to the chagrin of the Republicans who passed it on a party-line vote in 2011.

So corrupt are the Republican Party of Wisconsin's purposes, even after the U.S. Supreme Court ordered the Voter ID law halted on October 9 in Ruthelle Frank, et al., Applicants v. Scott Walker et al, the Republican Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen told the Wisconsin press Voter ID would become the law anyway for the November 2014 election.

"We will be exploring alternatives to address the court’s concern and have voter ID on election day," Van Hollen said the day after the Supreme Court's order that contained no "concerns" or reasoning but was a terse order of what Wisconsin was ordered to do. (Hall, Wisconsin State Journal)

Van Hollen lied in asserting the Court had issued concerns when Van Hollen knew perfectly well the 107-word Supreme Court order was an order (with Justices Thomas, Alito and Scalia dissenting) lacking concerns or conditions other than the timely filing of a Petition for Writ of Certiorari as was done yesterday by litigants for voting rights in this case.

Van Hollen did successfully confuse some voters on whether they needed voter IDs to vote, and then backed down in the face of the ludicrous spectacle of a state attorney general defying the U.S. Supreme Court.

So nonsensical in the Republican Party's legal position that Judge Richard Posner of the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit took the extraordinary step of requesting a rehearing on behalf of the five judges dissenting from Judge Frank Easterbrook’s [a member of the radical right wing Robert Bork-founded, Koch Brothers-funded "Federalist Society"] opinion in September that had temporarily reinstated Wisconsin's Voter ID law in September 2014, after absentee voting had already begun. [See also Canning, Freidman's Posner's Penance: Revered Reagan-Appointed Jurist's Plea to SCOTUS to Overturn His Own Landmark Ruling on Photo ID Voting Laws.]

As the more GOP jurists become entrenched in the judiciary, the rule of law and rights of citizens begin to dissipate and nonsensical rulings from the GOP justices become routine.

If the U.S. Supreme Court denies the petition to hear this case, Wisconsin's Voter ID law will be reinstated. If the Court hears the case, the law remains enjoined pending the judgement of the Court.

Numerous other challenges to state Photo Voter ID laws enacted by Republicans could also be heard before the Court singly or in consolidation.

The ACLU's press release on its and other litigants' petition before the Supreme Court is reproduced below:

WASHINGTON – The American Civil Liberties Union today filed a petition asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review a federal appeals court ruling upholding Wisconsin's voter ID law. The ACLU is challenging the law, which a federal judge struck down as unconstitutional and in violation of the Voting Rights Act last April. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals overturned that decision, but in October the Supreme Court placed the law on hold as the case winds its way through the courts.

Dale Ho, director of the ACLU's Voting Rights Project, said:

"Efforts to restrict access to the ballot demand a full and thorough hearing, which is why we are asking the Supreme Court to review this case and ultimately strike down Wisconsin's voter ID law. Throughout years of litigation, Wisconsin has failed to identify a single instance of the type of fraud this law purportedly seeks to prevent. At the same time, it is absolutely clear this law would prevent thousands of voters from exercising the most fundamental right in our democracy. The Supreme Court has an opportunity now to help protect the right of all Americans to vote free from undue burdens."

Karyn Rotker, Senior Staff Attorney for the ACLU of Wisconsin, said:

"We will continue to take all possible steps to ensure that all Wisconsin voters can exercise the right to vote - even if they are poor or homeless or disabled or for whatever other reason lack ID."

The ACLU challenged the law on behalf of numerous Wisconsin voters, charging the measure violated the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause and Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

The ACLU, the ACLU of Wisconsin, the National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty and Dechert LLP are co-counsel in this case, Frank v. Walker. The Supreme Court petition was jointly filed with the League of United Latin American Citizens, represented by Arnold & Porter and the Advancement Project.

Civil Rights Org Calls for Voting Rights Bill

Civil rights activists held a press conference by the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights this morning, calling for a Committee hearing, debate, markup and passing of the Voting Rights Act Amendment (VRAA), HR 3899.

The VRAA is meant to repair the damage wrought by the five Republicans on the U.S. Supreme Court in Shelby v. Holder.

No voting rights activist likes the bill. They pretend to like to the bill.

No speaker today dared mention the anti-voting rights provisions in the Voting Rights Act Amendment.

HR 3899, among other provisions, contains language that would protect states' photo voter ID laws, a clause inserted by its chief sponsor Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-White People) who refers to his home state's (Wisconsin) photo voter ID law as "common sense."

Wisconsin's voter ID law was struck down last month by a federal judge who found that up to 300,000 voters lacked voter ID; Latinos and African Americans would are unfairly burdened by the law and prevented from voting, that voter fraud does not exist in Wisconsin and that the law is in violation of the Voting Rights Act and the U.S. Constitution.

This is Sensenbrenner's conception of a "common sense" law.

Sensenbrenner was caught on camera in February saying, "I hope the president vetoes the bill. If the president vetoes—well, let me rephrase that – if the president vetoes this bill (VRAA), he will lose an awful lot of the African-American support that he has." (Roth, TRMS)

So we have the so-called fix to the VRA protecting state voter obstruction laws that the VRA was originally enacted in 1965 to stop, and the co-author of the bill, Sensenbrenner, who is a demonstrated phony voting rights advocate.

Progressive congressional supporters say they can amend the bill though they are afraid to publically express their opposition to the anti-voting provisions in the bill because this would offend Republicans who would then not allow the bill to be debated, amended or would vote against it, while Republicans continue their work against voting rights.

If this legislative strategy does not appear to make any sense, this is because the strategy is dumb, dumb, dumb.

Wisconsin AG Van Hollen Vows to Seek Stay of Decision Halting Voter ID

Update: Worth noting is that state voter ID laws meant to obstruct voters (in a sick irony) would be specifically protected by H.R. 3899, the Voting Rights Act Amendment (VRAA), introduced by Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-White People). The Voting Rights Act was first enacted in 1965 to "enforce the fifteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and for other purposes."

The Fifteenth Amendment reads in part, the "right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."

Progressive Democrats, such as Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Madison) are hoping against hope that Speaker John Boehner will suddenly become amiable to amendments to take out the language of the VRAA that makes HR 3899 a steaming pile of very toxic and fetid waste. See this bizarre March 27, 2014 letter by House Democrats that in part reads "some of us believe the bill should be enacted in its current form, and some of us prefer to see it amended" in an appeal to John Boehner. This is the same John Boehner who said during the 2012 campaign that he hopes Latinos and Blacks do not show up and vote. (Reeve, August 27, 2012; Yahoo News) at a Christian Science Monitor luncheon.

Meanwhile, Sensenbrenner was caught on camera in February saying, "I hope the president vetoes the bill. If the president vetoes—well, let me rephrase that – if the president vetoes this bill, he will lose an awful lot of the African-American support that he has." (Roth. TRMS)

Anybody really doubt where Republicans like Sensenbrenner and Boehner stand on voting rights?

What if this anti-voter VRAA actually passes Congress? Did House Democrats consider this scenario?

Dumb, dumb, dumb.
---
Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen has learned a lot from Scott Walker in service to the Republican Party while ripping off the Wisconsin people.

Make up statements and don't back them up with facts.

For some three years during Walker's tenure Van Hollen has been using the attorney general's office in service to the Republican Party, and Van Hollen typically throws out fact-free lines for reporters' consumption.

Now, Van Hollen's office says Federal Judge Lynn Adelman's decision barring enforcement of Act 23 is "flawed," and the Wisconsin DoJ with Walker's blessing will seek a stay, vacating the permanent injunction. (Hall, Wisconsin State Journal)

What's flawed about the Adelman's decision? Van Hollen won't say.

But Van Hollen and Walker, with Rep. James Sensenbrenner's help, keep up their GOP-crafted-law-is-common sense and "constitutional" lines of malarkey.

Writes Adelman:

The evidence at trial established that virtually no voter impersonation occurs in Wisconsin. The defendants could not point to a single instance of known voter impersonation occurring in Wisconsin at any time in the recent past. ...

Some have suggested that voter fraud might be more widespread than the low number of prosecutions indicates because the laws that prohibit voter fraud are under enforced. However, the defendants do not suggest that there is any underenforcement of such laws in Wisconsin. And the evidence at trial indicates that such laws are vigorously enforced (citations omitted by me).

What do Walker and Van Hollen and the Republicans say to this? Nothing.

Local conservative, William R. Wineke, has something to say today, Republicans should listen. Writes Wineke at Channel 3000 (WISC TV):

Ever since Republicans took control of state governments around the country in 2010, they have thrown conservative principles out the window.

They keep passing laws to limit abortions and keep trying to pass laws that would outlaw some forms of birth control and force women who become pregnant from rapes or incest to bear their rapists’ children.

They use the power of state governments to interfere with the rights of local governments. Want to pass a minimum wage law for Milwaukee? Let’s strip the right of municipalities to do that.

But the voting rights thing is the big one. We all know why our state wants voter ID It’s because the governor and legislators who gained power through the ballot box want to make sure no one can take that power away from them through the ballot box.

That may be good politics, but it sure isn’t conservative.

No, it's not. Stopping Americans from voting is unAmerican.

Trying to stop Americans from voting is typical Van Hollen, and is a Republican mission. Recall Van Hollen's corrupt use of office in 2008, for example.

Van Hollen tried to use the Help America Vote Act to suppress Democratically leaning voters to stave off a landslide defeat for the McCain-Palin ticket of which he served as co-chair, an effort thrown out of court never to see light again.

In 2008, WisPolitics uncovered an audio recording revealing Van Hollen promising action on alleged "voter fraud" during an address at the Republican National Convention held in St. Paul, Minnesota, after multiple conversations with Reince Priebus, then Wisconsin GOP party chairman.

The fact that there is no voter fraud is of no concern in GOP land.

Said Wisconsin candidate for attorney general, Ismael Ozanne in April about Van Hollen's 2008 scheme: "The ethical concern is serving as campaign chair and then taking official actions as attorney general that are intended to benefit the campaign in question, and not reflecting the law and the best interests of the people of Wisconsin.  If AG Van Hollen thought it was necessary in his official capacity to participate in legal action involving the campaign, he should have either stepped down from any role in the campaign or recused himself from the legal action."

Van Hollen, Walker and the Republicans should spend their time trying to help Americans vote, not attempting to prevent Americans from voting.

Proposed Fix to Voting Rights Act Is Worse than Court-gutted Corpse

James Sensenbrenner exposed as phony
on voting rights by James O'Keefe. See
three-minute, 19-second mark.

Update: Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Madison), a co-sponsor is hoping against hope that Speaker John Boehner will suddenly become amiable to amendments to take out the language of the Voting Rights Act Amendment that makes HR 3899 a steaming pile of very toxic and fetid waste. See this bizarre March 27, 2014 letter by House Democrats including Pocan that in part reads "some of us believe the bill should be enacted in its current form, and some of us prefer to see it amended" in an appeal to John Boehner. This is the same John Boehner who said during the 2012 campaign that he hopes Latinos and Blacks do not show up and vote. (Reeve, August 27, 2012; Yahoo News) at a Christian Science Monitor luncheon.
---
Five Republicans Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court ruled last year in a case that became instantly infamous: Shelby County v. Holder.

The five-four majority gutted sections four and five of the Voting Rights Act (VRA), destroying one method of the VRA's protecting people's right to vote against hostile state efforts to obstruct and deprive the vote.

As Justice Ginsberg writes in dissent: The majority decided the Voting Rights Act had worked so well the "conditions" (Roberts) of racism are a remnant of long-ago: "Throwing out preclearance when it has worked and is continuing to work to stop discriminatory changes is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet."

John Roberts has for years declared racism is over.

Sensenbrenner has been in negotiations with major civil rights groups and champions of civil rights for months, finally releasing his draft of the Voting Rights Act Amendment, Section Four formula, H. R. 3899 in January, cosponsored by Rep Conyers.

HR 3899 actually enshrines and protects voter obstruction laws such as Wisconsin and Texas' Photo Voter ID laws.

Thankfully, the official statement (January 2014) of the NAACP's Lorraine C. Miller, Interim President and CEO, pissed on HR 3899: "The NAACP appreciates that the U.S. Congress has made a bipartisan effort to update the Voting Rights Act, however we have serious concerns about the ability of some provisions in this bill to protect ALL voters from discrimination at the polls."

As the nation's oldest and largest grassroots civil rights organization we have the responsibility to ensure that any proposed legislation is in the best interest of our members, our community and our country. Participation in our democracy should be unfettered and all votes should be properly counted. From the exceptions for voter ID laws to decreased preclearance coverage to increased reliance on costly litigation, there are essential revisions and amendments to this bill that must take place to ensure ALL voters have fair and equitable access to the ballot box."

Sensenbrenner has called Wisconsin's Voter ID law, Act 23, "common sense," and decried the DoJ effort to challenge Texas under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

Sensenbrenner's proposed law's new Section Four formula also protects states with its "five strikes" formula that would allow a state five different Court-determined acts of voting rights discrimination before placing the state under preclearance.

In so many words, Sensenbrenner—with the aid of Rep. Conyers and others who should know better (but apparently do not)—drafted a law that actually codifies voting right violations as fine under the Voting Rights Act as long as the a given state confines obstruction laws to four or less in a 15-year time span.

Sensenbrenner is a voting rights phony, a fake, and liberal writers from Ari Berman to Rick Hasan to Steve Benen have been aiding Sensenbrenner in this enterprise since Shelby last June.

In February in Wisconsin Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-White People) decided his fake support for voting rights perpetuated by a friendly media would take too much a toll on his racist buddies in the GOP.

Sensenbrenner was caught on camera saying, "I hope the president vetoes the bill. If the president vetoes—well, let me rephrase that – if the president vetoes this bill, he will lose an awful lot of the African-American support that he has." (Roth. TRMS) See O'Keefe's video below:

In Wisconsin, we don't call this guy Senselessbrenner for nothing.

And here we don't say: Don't trust Sensenbrenner on voting rights for nothing.

Sensenbrenner is exposed as an utter phony on voting rights (not that more evidence was needed), calculating and disingenuous on the video below (O'Keefe's reading of the Act though mostly factually incorrect is also on his own video) :

So, we cannot trust Sensenbrenner.

Sensenbrenner's Voting Rights Act Amendment legislation is worse than the status quo post-Shelby, aka now, so why are progressives in Congress, major civil rights organizations and progressive writers still behind the Voting Rights Act Amendments and still lauding Sensenbrenner?

For no good reason. Maybe they think they Obama can sign this obscene piece of legislation, call it what Sensenbrenner calls it, and declare victory to Black and Brown folks targeted by the GOP, hoping ethic minorities are as dumb as Sensenbrenner thinks they are.

Anyone advocating support for Sensenbrenner's Voting Rights Act Amendment legislation is taking a position that is untenable.

There is a real Voting Rights initiative: The Pocan-Ellison Right to Vote Amendment to the Constitution "to provide all Americans the affirmative right to vote and empower Congress to protect this right," which of course Sensenbrenner and his Party will not get behind.

What are Democrats and civil rights champions thinking?

They hope against hope that Republicans will change course and get behind voting rights legislation after years of obstructing the vote?

I have an inquiry into these matters into Rep. Mark Pocan's (D-Madison) office, and will include the response in an update.

New Voting Rights Amendment Act Is Worse Than Nothing

Updated-Rick Hasen wants progressives to get agitated for the Voting Rights Amendment Act (VRAA).

(W)here are the public demonstrations to pass this desperately needed fix? Outside the minority community, which is pushing hard for the VRAA, where is the agitation? The voting rights issue seems to have fallen off the radar screen, even though the Roberts court's reasoning in the Shelby County case is just as indefensible as its reasoning in Citizens United and McCutcheon in the campaign finance arena.

Here's why the lack of political action for the Voting Rights Amendment Act (VRAA).

The VRAA sucks.

The VRAA actually enshrines one of the major state voter obstruction laws that Republicans use to obstruct minority voters, among other voters: Voter ID statutes. Moreoever, passage of the VRAA would torpedo many of the legal federal challenges to the GOP voter ID laws.

Nice way to mark 50th anniversary celebration of the Civil Rights Act. Maybe we'll have better luck next year with the 50th anniversary celebration of the Voting Rights Act.

Anniversaries and sentiment are needed, but the Republican Party is forever busy with new schemes, a phenomenon that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was intended to address.

"About one month after the Shelby decision, Republicans in North Carolina pushed through a package of extreme voting restrictions, including ending same-day registration, shortening early voting by a week, requiring photo ID, and ending a program that encourages high schoolers to sign up to vote when they turn 18," writes Dana Liebelson.

The Voting Rights Amendment Act of 2014 reads: Section 3(c) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 1973a(c)) is amended by striking ‘‘violations of the fourteenth or fifteenth amendment’’ and inserting ‘‘violations of the 14th or 15th Amendment; violations of this Act (other than a violation of section 2(a) which is based on the imposition of a requirement that an individual provide a photo identification as a condition of receiving a ballot for voting in an election for Federal, State, or local office) ... ."

Hasen wants people to hit the streets for this crap?

 Derick T. Dingle writes, "Legal scholars found the voter ID provision as a gaping hole in the law (HR 3899), avoiding one of the major voter suppression issues of the day."

Hasen writes, "It's about time for Congress to pass some new laws protecting voting rights, and it's high time – right now – for us to dare the supreme court to strike even more of them down."

Maybe if we double-dare the U.S. Supreme Court it will back down from ever disenfranchising Americans again because the five GOP justices really care what the American people think, and they cherish civil rights.

Voting Rights Amendment Act Should Be Renamed the Voter ID Obstruction Protection Act

Update III: GOP Rep. Sensenbrenner (R-White People) is also one of only six serving in Congress today who opposed the federal holiday for Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. What a hypocrite.

Update II:The exemption for voter ID laws was written to win the support of House Majority Leader Eric Cantor and other Republicans. The legislation strengthens Section 3 of the VRA, which has been described as the Act’s “secret weapon.” Under Section 3, jurisdictions not covered by Section 4 could be 'bailed-in' to federal supervision, but plaintiffs had to show evidence of intentional voting discrimination, which is very difficult to do in court. Under the new Section 3 proposal, any violation of the VRA or federal voting rights law – whether intentional or not – can be grounds for a bail-in, which will make it far easier to cover new states. One major caveat, again, is that court objections to voter ID laws cannot be used as grounds for “bail-in”under Section 3.) - Sharon McClosky in The Progressive Pulse.

The legislation strengthens Section 3 of the VRA, which has been described as the Act’s “secret weapon.” Under Section 3, jurisdictions not covered by Section 4 could be “bailed-in” to federal supervision, but plaintiffs had to show evidence of intentional voting discrimination, which is very difficult to do in court. Under the new Section 3 proposal, any violation of the VRA or federal voting rights law – whether intentional or not – can be grounds for a bail-in, which will make it far easier to cover new states. (One major caveat, again, is that court objections to voter ID laws cannot be used as grounds for “bail-in” under Section 3.)

This exemption for voter ID laws was written to win the support of House Majority Leader Eric Cantor and other Republicans. - See more at: http://pulse.ncpolicywatch.org/2014/01/16/bipartisan-proposal-to-amend-the-voting-rights-act/#sthash.FYh5tURQ.dpuf

This exemption for voter ID laws was written to win the support of House Majority Leader Eric Cantor and other Republicans. - See more at: http://pulse.ncpolicywatch.org/2014/01/16/bipartisan-proposal-to-amend-the-voting-rights-act/#sthash.FYh5tURQ.dpuf

Update: That the idiot caucus in the GOP hates the bill is no cause for support for this codification of the GOP's voter ID obstruction project, a project that has yielded results.

The return of the Voting Rights Act? Try the championing of state Voter ID laws, the go-to voter obstructionist tool of the Republican party.
---
Voting Rights Amendment Act of 2014: Section 3(c) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 1973a(c)) is amended by striking ‘‘violations of the fourteenth or fifteenth amendment’’ and inserting ‘‘violations of the 14th or 15th Amendment; violations of this Act (other than a violation of section 2(a) which is based on the imposition of a requirement that an individual provide a photo identification as a condition of receiving a ballot for voting in an election for Federal, State, or local office) ... ."

The Voting Rights Amendment Act (H.R.3899) should be renamed the Voter ID Obstruction Protection Act, which is why Rep. Sensenbrenner when he introduced the bill January 15, he made sure to note the legislation includes "provisions that continue to permit states to enact reasonable photo identification laws" in an act that would pit Sections of the Act against in each other.

From Sensenbrenner's website:

Voting Rights Amendment Act of 2014
Section by Section Description of VRA Draft Legislation
Section 2.
Violations Triggering Authority Of Court To Retain Jurisdiction
--
Provides that a court can “bail-in” a State or political subdivision based on a discriminatory result by amending Section 3(c) of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) to include violations of Section 2 of the VRA and violations of any Federal voting rights law that prohibits voting discrimination against racial and language minorities.It carves out from the new standard Section 2(a) cases that are based on a photo identification on requirement

Well, at least Sensenbrenner did not say "common sense" measures to obstruct voters this time, a tiresome phrase used by Scott Walker too often for my taste.

H.R.3899 is a terrible bill.

This is because HR 3899 crafts language of the section 4 formula of the Voting Rights
Act (VRA) narrowly, specifying as Ari Berman points out that only states "with five violations of federal law to their voting changes over the past fifteen years will have to submit future election changes for federal approval."

Resurrecting Section 5 with an extraordinarily weak formula in Section Four is tantamount to getting raped five times before getting treatment, support and help from law enforcement, a terrible joke of the VRA, though the D.C. commetariat quietly applauds this bipartisan exercise in codifying state photo voter ID laws.

Should this bill be passed, one of Wisconsin's two federal consolidated challenges to the GOP-crafted Wisconsin Act 23, the photo voter id law is imperiled if the Voting Rights Amendment Act (H.R.3899) (2014) were to become law. The trial is now under submission to Judge William M. Conley, Western District of Wisconsin.

Maybe the Wisconsin case will make past the five GOP justices on the U.S. supreme court when it gets there.

Judge William M. Conley, who heard Frank v. Walker, (Case 11cv1128) and
League of United Latin American Citizens of Wisconsin v. Deininger (Case 2:12-cv-00185) in Wisconsin in a consolidated trial in November 2013 is taking the cases under submission (research, consideration and an intellectual enterprise to arrive at an order and opinion) that will involve a massive judicial undertaking.
 
In the Wisconsin League case, which is the first case to use Section 2 since Shelby County v. Holder, civil rights plaintiffs argues "The evidence conclusively demonstrates that the burdens of Act 23 fall disproportionately on voters of color. Two different expert studies introduced at trial, using two different sound methodologies, confirm Act 23’s substantial racially disproportionate impacts. As plaintiffs’ expert Leland Beatty concluded, 'Wisconsin minority voters are at a substantial disadvantage under Wisconsin’s voter ID law, and ... the effect of that law imprints an unavoidable disparate impact on minority election participation.'"

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act in the League case may not find relief from the new Voting Rights Amendment Act (H.R.3899) which in the words of Sensenbrenner, "includes strong, nationwide anti-discrimination protections and continues to permit states to enact reasonable voter-ID laws."
  
Rep. John Conyers (D-Michican) and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vermount) demonstrate again why politicians fail to understand that when 100,000s of citizens are obstructed from voting, and their new legislation does nothing to prevent this, they may have been living the high life a bit too long.

"Our sole focus throughout this entire process was to ensure that no American would be denied his or her constitutional right to vote because of discrimination on the basis of race or color," Patirck Leahy said in a statement, cited by Steve Benen and many others across the nation, all of whom ignore the plain language of HR 3899 enshrining state Photo Voter ID laws: "other than a violation of section 2(a) which is based on the imposition of a requirement that an individual provide a photo identification as a condition of receiving a ballot for voting in an election for Federal, State, or local office."

As Derick T. Dingle writes, "Legal scholars found the voter ID provision as a gaping hole in the law (HR 3899), avoiding one of the major voter suppression issues of the day."

On the up side, the League challenge is an "as-applied" challenge as opposed to the "facial" challenge in the Crawford vs. Marion County Board of Elections, as noted by Earnest A. Canning in the Brad Blog.

The problem is Section 2 is not much help to the Wisconsin case if the Voting Rights Amendment Act (H.R.3899) permits state photo voter ID laws, the favorite voter obstruction tool of the Republicans, as the case winds its way through a hostile GOP-heavy, federal judiciary.

The other federal Wisconsin challenge to the GOP voter obstruction Act makes Constitutional Equal Protection, Twenty-Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment arguments, irrespective of the Voting Rights Act.

Under Scott Walker, "Wisconsin has long been recognized as the Selma of the North and this case illustrates just why the Midwestern state bears this harrowing distinction,” said James Eichner, Managing Director for Programs, Advancement Project. “Wisconsin’s discriminatory voter ID law is virtually indistinguishable from Jim Crow laws of earlier eras which required poll taxes, property requirements, literacy tests and other contrived, racist measures designed to prevent African Americans from voting."

Walker is getting some company from Democratic congressmen. 

Oppose Voting Rights Amendment Act; It's a Sham

Update: Don't worry Republicans, state voter obstruction laws are safe.

Voting Rights Amendment Act of 2014: Section 3(c) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 1973a(c)) is amended by striking ‘‘violations of the fourteenth or fifteenth amendment’’ and inserting ‘‘violations of the 14th or 15th Amendment; violations of this Act (other than a violation of section 2(a) which is based on the imposition of a requirement that an individual provide a photo identification as a condition of receiving a ballot for voting in an election for Federal, State, or local office) ... ."
Translated, GOP state photo voter ID laws have been carved out as an exception by the Republicans, and just because the GOP obstructs voters there is no reason for this be considered a violation of the new and fetid VRA.

The Voting Rights Amendment Act, H.R.3899, is a con unprecedented in the modern fight for the right to vote.

The bill would allow for state GOP-crafted voter obstruction laws to pass muster under the Act, language which drew the NAACP's guarded statement that the "NAACP appreciates that the U.S. Congress has made a bipartisan effort to update the Voting Rights Act, however we have serious concerns about the ability of some provisions in this bill to protect ALL voters from discrimination at the polls."

This bill should be opposed, and a real act with teeth that codifies that voting is a federal fundamental right should be passed.

Such as an act exists; it's call the Pocan-Ellison Right to Vote Amendment. Republicans hate it because it protects the right to vote against GOP efforts to obstruct it.

Ari Berman writes: "Voting rights supporters will argue, justifiably, that the new Section 4 formula does not apply to enough states and wrongly treats voter ID laws differently than other discriminatory voting changes. Despite these flaws, the legislation represents a significant improvement over the disastrous post-Shelby status quo, which has seen states like North Carolina and Texas rush to pass or implement blatantly discriminatory voting restrictions after being freed from federal oversight." 

Berman's argument is that state voter obstruction laws are still legal, voter obstruction will occur, and we should still welcome this sham.

Talk about lowering the bar.

Call your congressional representative and register your opposition today. Our congressman here in southcentral Wisconsin, Mark Pocan, can be reached at Rep. Pocan.

Other representatives can be reached through the House of Representatives home page.

In the face of the Republican War on Voting, do some Democrats really believe the GOP has surrendered and suddenly morphed into voting rights champions?

Don't Trust James Sensenbrenner on Voting Right Act

James Sensenbrenner - Protector of
Republican Voter Obstruction

Update II: Sensenbrenner is also one of only six serving in Congress today who opposed the federal holiday for Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. What a hypocrite.


Update: Pennsylvania Judge Strikes Down GOP's New Voter ID Law, the injunction and opinion is at Applewhite et al v. Pennsylvania.

American democracy—Freedom and the right to vote, the light of the world

No kids, in America the Republican Party is hostile to these rights. For the GOP voting is a privilege reserved for those who vote the correct way, and the GOP continues its assault against the fundamental right of our democracy.

Now, the Republican Party is trying to codify and enshrine its state-level voter obstruction project that it says is perfectly in keeping with its 'fix' to the Voting Rights Act.

The national press is maintaining the pretension that Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-White People) cares about fixing the Voting Rights Act eviscerated by Sensenbrenner's GOP colleagues on the U.S. Supreme Court last year in Shelby County v. Holder.

Several liberal writers think it's the only shot at getting a weak repair to the Voting Rights Act through Congress. This effort is a crock.

The Republican voter obstruction project has as one of its primary tools: GOP-crafted state voter ID laws enacted with unanimous GOP support and unanimous opposition from civil rights groups and the Democratic Party.

Voter ID laws make it more difficult to vote for disaffected veterans, minorities, colleges students and other demographics not aware of their duty to vote Republican.

Such state voter obstruction laws are the policy rationale behind the Voting Rights Act (1965) and its reauthorizations.

But Sensenbrenner loves voter obstruction, Voter ID laws, slashing early voting, gerrymandering, and other GOP tricks to keep people from voting.

Steve Benen, writing for MSNBC, is one of the writers who likes to pretend Sensenbrenner is a champion of voting rights, while noting this new 'fix' of the Voting Rights Act is a bill that Sensenbrenner acclaims "includes strong, nationwide anti-discrimination protections and continues to permit states to enact reasonable voter-ID laws. Therefore, it prevents racial-discrimination and gives states the ability to address voter fraud."

That there is virtually no in-person voter fraud is, in the minds of Benen and Sensenbrenner, of no consequence.

As for Voter ID laws, what's "reasonable" in Sensenbrenner's mind? Texas and Wisconsin's restrictive Voter ID laws are.

Here's what Sensenbrenner had to say about Texas in August last year: "I regret that the Department of Justice announced its intent to file a lawsuit against Texas’ Voter ID law citing Section 2 to the Voting Rights Act.  The Texas legislature passed Voter ID, and Governor Perry signed this legislation into law in 2011. Voter ID laws are an essential element in protecting the integrity of our electoral process and do not have a discriminatory intent or effect"

There are of course serious efforts to protect voting: The Pocan-Ellison Right to Vote Amendment.

Sensenbrenner supporting this mega voting rights guarantee, and going against his Party's voter obstruction project is as likely as Sarah Palin winning a Nobel Prize in physics.

We noted here last November that in 2005-06, Sensenbrenner was chair of the House Judiciary Committee so he likes to preen that he was the champion of the renewal of the various sections of the Voting Rights Act that passed 390-33 in the House and 98-0 in the Senate and, history should remember, was signed into law by President George W. Bush. What guts.

In fact, Bush did one hell of a job of conjuring LBJ in the White House, and as noted by Gary May and Joseph Morgan Kousser cajoled Congress into passing a 25-year reauthorization in the Republican-controlled Congress.

Writes May:

(D)uring his second term Bush found it necessary to court black voters. The president's slow response to the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina, which hurt blacks disproportionally and revealed again the presence of widespread poverty in the South, damaged Bush's standing. In an attempt to recoup his political fortunes as congressional elections approached in 2006, Bush turned to the black community. On a trip to Memphis visited the Loraine Motel and stood on the balcony where Martin Luther King was assassinated in 1968. He also agreed to address the NAACP's annual convention, which he had ignored for six years. There Bush was received coolly but won a standing ovation when he expressed his support for the Voting Rights Act, urging congress to enact it then, one year before it was due to expire. This was not simply rhetoric. Behind the scenes Bush's staff encouraged Republicans, who now controlled both houses of Congress, to extend the Act. And this time the Republican congressional leadership in both the House and Senate were receptive to such appeals because if you weren't a southerner, there was no political payoff for attacking the now-iconic Voting Right Act. (pp 273-274)

So, House Judiciary Committee Sensenbrenner was going to defy Bush and Rove on the Voting Rights Act reauthorization of 2006? Right.

And Sensenbrenner is now going to declare war on the GOP's war on voting? Right.