Melting Pot? No, Just Melting

You’ve heard all about Donald Trump’s shocking notion to secure our borders, I’m sure. Have you heard about the recent chicanery by the Justice Department regarding voter-ID laws in four American states?

In brief, here’s what happened: the good people of Kansas, Georgia, Arizona, and Alabama, exercising their states’ right under the Constitution, decided to require that voters show ID. The Election Assistance Commission, which is a Federal agency that certifies voting systems, agreed to let them do so. This caused so irritated various leftist organizations that they filed a lawsuit in Federal court seeking an injunction against the EAC, in order to prevent the states from imposing this requirement.

So on one side, we have an array of left-wing activists, seeking to expand their franchise to include anyone who can show up at a polling booth. On the other hand, we have the DOJ, whose job it is to defend the government when it is sued.

But when the DOJ lawyers showed up in court, they immediately filed a pleading that agreed with the plaintiffs, and consented to the injunction they sought.

Think about how sneaky that is. If the EAC had simply refused to allow the states to require ID, they’d have had a fight on their hands, one that would probably have gone all the way to the Supreme Court. (And with one of the solicitors being Kansas’s Kris Kobach, they’d have had a real scrap on their hands.) But by playing it this way, they turned the lawsuit around, and then all they had to do was to show up and cave in. Their little rope-a-dope didn’t work, though, thanks to Judge Richard J. Leon (may he live long and prosper), who gave them the spanking they so richly deserved. Read the rest of the story here, and a follow-up here.

Meanwhile, here in New York City (where, under current management you’ll soon be singing this in the seventh-inning stretch at Yankee Stadium), voters soon won’t even have to pretend to be American citizens. More about that, here.

Related content from Sphere


  1. This being the same Justice Department that oversees the FBI? The same FBI which is investigating the (alleged) felonious conduct of HRC with regard to her (mis)handling of classified information? The same FBI that every Leftist simply knows is investigating HRC at the behest of the GOP, which in turn is undermining the integrity of the Federal Government via the well known vast right-wing conspiracy? Got it. Case closed.

    DON MEREDITH – Turn out the lights… the party’s over – YouTube4.flv

    Posted March 3, 2016 at 2:51 am | Permalink
  2. Whitewall says

    The Social- Justice Department under Obama is a get even with them operation. I’m not confident of anything regarding them. The FBI is another matter. Those agents are still patriots unlike their bosses. Only one issue matters between now and November-is HRC above the law? If so, the rest really doesn’t matter.

    Posted March 3, 2016 at 7:40 am | Permalink
  3. Robert,

    I didn’t mean to imply that the FBI agents won’t do their jobs with integrity. It’s just that once their investigation is completed, any indictment, based on any incriminating evidence that may have been discovered by the FBI, will be greatly in doubt, IMHO.

    Once the issue proceeds out of the agents’ purview, it becomes entirely a political matter. We know how that rolls, especially in the current administration.

    Posted March 3, 2016 at 12:07 pm | Permalink
  4. Whitewall says

    Henry, I understood. If the FBI has the amount of evidence I believe they do, and DOJ tries to bury it, then like JK mentioned a while back, I think the sheer amount of leaking from Quantico will amount to a “super soaker”. The FBI will be enraged.

    Here recently I have been following the Convention of the States movement now picking up momentum. Could be interesting and perilous.

    Posted March 3, 2016 at 1:29 pm | Permalink
  5. An enraged FBI should strike shock and awe into the hearts of mortals. Hope JK is right …

    BTW, do we know whether the Clintons are mortal?

    Posted March 3, 2016 at 2:01 pm | Permalink
  6. Whitewall says

    Henry, the Clinton’s are mortal…mortally flawed. The FBI in “not gonna take it anymore” mode would be a good thing for America. If trouble is to come, which it appears to be, better the premier law enforcement agency in America be the spear head. We patriotic citizens can fall in behind their lead. When it comes time to deliver justice to some people, it is always best to be “justified”.

    Posted March 3, 2016 at 2:55 pm | Permalink
  7. …, it is always best to be “justified”.

    Amen to that, bro.

    Posted March 3, 2016 at 3:03 pm | Permalink
  8. Philip Ngai says

    Since 1993, it has been a violation of Federal law to require proof of citizenship.

    The NVRA requires States to “accept and use” a uniform federal form to register voters for federal elections. 42 U. S. C. §1973gg–4(a)(1). That “Federal Form,” developed by the federal Election Assistance Commission (EAC), requires only that an applicant affirm, under penalty of perjury, that he is a citizen.

    Arizona law, however, requires voter-registration officials to “reject” any application for registration, including a Federal Form, that is not accompanied by documentary evidence of citizenship.

    Respondents, a group of individual Arizona residents and a group of nonprofit organizations, sought to enjoin that Arizona law. Ultimately, the District Court granted Arizona summary judgment on respondents’ claim that the NVRA preempts Arizona’s requirement. The Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that the state’s documentary-proof-of-citizenship requirement is preempted by the NVRA.

    On June 17, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against Arizona in the case Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Ariz., Inc.. The Court held the NVRA preempted a 2004 Arizona proposition, Proposition 200. It was a ballot initiative designed in part “to combat voter fraud by requiring voters to present proof of citizenship when they register to vote and to present identification when they vote on election day.” Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U. S. 1, 2 (2006) (per curiam). It was a 7-2 decision striking down the law. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the majority opinion.

    Posted March 6, 2016 at 6:54 pm | Permalink
  9. Malcolm says


    It isn’t “a violation of Federal law to require proof of citizenship”. It is a violation of Federal law to do so without the consent of the EAC.

    I’m afraid the devil is in the details here. In the Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Ariz., Inc. decision (have you read it?), Justice Scalia acknowledged that there was no reason the States cannot petition the EAC for inclusion of their eligibility criteria (i.e., ID) into the state-specific sections of the Federal form, and seek judicial review if their petition is denied. (Read the opinion, starting at the bottom of page 12.)

    In the current case, the states did exactly that, and the EAC agreed to their request (presumably seeking to avoid a court battle about their grounds for refusing what is, after all, an eminently reasonable request).

    The DOJ then thought they could get what they wanted the easy way, by refusing to defend their own agency against a blocking injunction. But thanks to Richard Leon, their sneaky little scheme appears to have backfired.

    Posted March 6, 2016 at 8:38 pm | Permalink