U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder (Photo: Flickr/ryanjreilly)

During a speech given in Texas last night, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder criticized legal challenges launched by states — including Florida — against the section of the Voting Rights Act that requires approval of election laws in certain areas. Holder also affirmed the need for vigilance against laws aimed at rolling back voting rights.

According to a draft of his speech released to the press, Holder also said that he was taking a “thorough” look into Florida’s controversial new elections law.

“We’re also examining a number of changes that Florida has made to its electoral process,” he said, “including changes to the procedures governing third-party voter registration organizations, as well as changes to early voting procedures, including the number of days in the early voting period.”

“Although I cannot go into detail about the ongoing review of these and other state-law changes,” he continued, “I can assure you that it will be thorough — and fair. We will examine the facts, and we will apply the law. If a state passes a new voting law and meets its burden of showing that the law is not discriminatory, we will follow the law and approve the change. And where a state can’t meet this burden, we will object as part of our obligation under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.”

Florida has not been the only state facing scrutiny from the federal government. Holder also mentioned interest in other states such as Texas and South Carolina. Both states were among several that enacted new photo ID requirements to vote.

Holder said during his speech (according to the prepared remarks):

Despite this history, and despite our nation’s long tradition of extending voting rights – to non-property owners and women, to people of color and Native Americans, and to younger Americans – today, a growing number of our fellow citizens are worried about the same disparities, divisions, and problems that – nearly five decades ago – LBJ devoted his Presidency to addressing. In my travels across this country, I’ve heard a consistent drumbeat of concern from many Americans, who – often for the first time in their lives – now have reason to believe that we are failing to live up to one of our nation’s most noble, and essential, ideals.

As Congressman John Lewis described it, in a speech on the House floor this summer, the voting rights that he worked throughout his life – and nearly gave his life – to ensure are, “under attack… [by] a deliberate and systematic attempt to prevent millions of elderly voters, young voters, students, [and] minority and low-income voters from exercising their constitutional right to engage in the democratic process.” Not only was he referring to the all-too-common deceptive practices we’ve been fighting for years. He was echoing more recent concerns about some of the state-level voting law changes we’ve seen this legislative season.

Since January, more than a dozen states have advanced new voting measures. Some of these new laws are currently under review by the Justice Department, based on our obligations under the Voting Rights Act.

Holder also spoke about recent challenges to the Voting Rights Act, specifically the section of the law that requires federal “preclearance” of election laws in certain areas. In October, Florida Secretary of State Kurt Browning launched a legal complaint against that requirement.

In his filing, Browing argued that federal preclearance requirements for state election laws are “unconstitutional” and that “subjecting Florida counties and other jurisdictions covered exclusively under the language minority provisions of the [Voting Rights Act] to pre-clearance is not a rational, congruent, or proportional means of enforcing the Fourteenth and/or Fifteenth Amendments and violates the Tenth Amendment and Article IV of the U.S. Constitution.”

Last night, Holder said:

Despite the long history of support for Section 5, this keystone of our voting rights laws is now being challenged five years after its reauthorization as unconstitutional in no fewer than five lawsuits. Each of these lawsuits claims that we’ve attained a new era of electoral equality, that America in 2011 has moved beyond the challenges of 1965, and that Section 5 is no longer necessary.

I wish this were the case. The reality is that – in jurisdictions across the country – both overt and subtle forms of discrimination remain all too common. And we don’t have to look far to see recent proof.

Holder described recent problems with Texas and Louisiana’s redistricting efforts, which he said “failed to show the absence of discrimination.” Holder said, “To those who argue that Section 5 is no longer necessary — these and other examples are proof that we still need this critical tool to combat discrimination and safeguard the right to vote.”

The attorney general also announced that the issue of protecting voting rights in the country was a moral imperative that required public support.

“As concerns about the protection of this right and the integrity of our election systems become an increasingly prominent part of our national dialogue, we must consider some important questions,” he said. “It is time to ask: What kind of nation — and what kind of people — do we want to be? Are we willing to allow this era — our era — to be remembered as the age when our nation’s proud tradition of expanding the franchise ended? Are we willing to allow this time — our time — to be recorded in history as the age when the long-held belief that, in this country, every citizen has the chance — and the right — to help shape their government, became a relic of our past, instead of a guidepost for our future?”

Holder said new legislation that was formerly introduced in the Senate by then-Sen. Barack Obama, would be reintroduced by Sens. Charles Schumer and Ben Cardin. The law “would establish tough criminal penalties for those who engage in fraudulent voting practices — and would help to ensure that citizens have complete and accurate information about where and when to vote,” he said.

“Despite so many decades of struggle, sacrifice, and achievement — we must remain ever vigilant in safeguarding our most basic and important right,” he concluded. “Too many recent actions have the potential to reverse the progress that defines us — and has made this nation exceptional, as well as an example for all the world. We must be true to the arc of America’s history, which compels us to be more inclusive with regard to the franchise. And we must never forget the purpose that — more than two centuries ago — inspired our nation’s founding, and now must guide us forward.”

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said he hopes the border security bill will convince Republicans to support comprehensive immigration reform. (Pete Marovich/ZUMApress.com)

Today, reconvened during the August recess for a special session, the Senate passed a fully-funded $600 million bill for border security, providing funds for 1,500 new enforcement agents and additional unmanned drones along the border.

[Congress1] The bill has a convoluted history. It originally passed the Senate last Thursday, but was restarted in the House on Tuesday due to a jurisdictional problem with its funding. (The bill is funded through increases to visa fees for companies that provide temporary skilled worker visas for large numbers of workers.) Only two senators, Ben Cardin (D-Md.) and Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), were present today for a brief session to conduct the vote.

“This bill is enormously important because it will clear the path for the bipartisan discussions we need to have about our immigration system,” Schumer said at the vote today.

But immigrants rights advocates aren’t happy with the Democrats for pushing more harsh enforcement over comprehensive reform — and proponents of tougher immigration policies said the bill won’t convince them Obama and the Democrats are serious about securing the border.

“You can make the argument that it can reinforce the Obama administration efforts to disentangle the border issues from the immigration issues,” Mary Giovagnoli, director of the pro-reform Immigration Policy Center, told TWI. “But that’s probably not how it’s going to play out.”

The bill will have tangible effects on border enforcement. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said last week the bill will provide “important, permanent resources” to improving border security. Of the $600 million, $175.9 million will go to hiring additional border patrol agents along the U.S.-Mexico border. Another $32 million will go to purchasing and deploying unmanned drones along the border. The bill also includes funds specifically directed at maintaining safety, with $30 million for law enforcement activities targeted at reducing the threat of violence in border states.

Still, for those who would like to see tougher immigration enforcement by the Obama administration, the border security bill doesn’t do enough. Ira Mehlman, a spokesman for Federation for American Immigration Reform, said the bill is an attempt to distract from the fact that the DHS has “basically gutted interior enforcement.”

“They’re trying to do something that makes for a good photo-op at the border, but it doesn’t fully address the problem,” Mehlman told TWI.

Republicans who once supported immigration reform, such as Lindsey Graham (S.C.) and John McCain (Ariz.), have moved further right. Graham is now calling for a reconsideration of the 14th Amendment, which gives automatic citizenship to babies born in the United States to foreign parents, while McCain has said border security must be improved before he will consider supporting any other immigration reform.

Spokesmen for Graham, McCain and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) did not respond to requests for comment.

The bill is unlikely to “have any effect” on Republicans support for the DREAM Act or other paths to citizenship for illegal immigrants already living in the United States, said Mark Krikorian, executive director of the pro-enforcement Center for Immigration Studies.

“If that’s what [Democrat leaders] had in mind, they’re going to be disappointed,” he told TWI. “The border hasn’t been secured, they just passed a piece of legislation. Until border control measures have been not only legislated but fully litigated, you can’t even start a discussion on legalization.”

As Republicans move to the right on immigration, advocates for comprehensive reform argue the border security bill indicates Democrats are being dragged with them.

“Republicans have falsely and in bad faith used border security to whip up their base in the run up to the fall elections,” Deepak Bhargava, executive director of the Center for Community Change, said Tuesday. “They’ve blocked real reform and are demanding an endless and fruitless focus on pure enforcement. Unfortunately, Democrats have taken the bait and fallen into the trap.”

Some argued the border does not need amped up security because residents already feel safe there, according to a poll released Tuesday. The four-question poll commissioned by the Border Network for Human Rights surveyed residents of 10 communities along U.S.-Mexican border about their feelings of safety. About 70 percent said they believe they are as safe as they are elsewhere in the country.

Sheriff Richard Wiles of El Paso County, Tex., said on a conference call about the poll that previous efforts to amp up border security were sufficient.

“I do think that resources are misdirected at the border,” he said. “We have had a significant increase and I think they’ve done a great job, but now is the time to look at the real issues and put the resources toward the issues that are really affecting our communities.”

In the meantime, 903,000 unemployment insurance recipients have stopped receiving extended federal benefits. The National Employment Law Project has been blasting out one story a day from an unemployed worker facing poverty due to the joblessness crisis and Congressional inaction. Here’s today’s, from a broadcast radio worker laid off 18 months ago in Birmingham, Mich., the state with the second-highest unemployment rate in the country:

I had a radio show in Detroit for 15 1/2 years. I was let go recently due to budget cuts.  When I found out I was going to be let go, I offered to stay for LESS than one-half my pay but I was told even that was too much to satisfy the budget cuts. A few months later, the company hired me back to do a part-time show paying $15.00 an hour for 25 hours a week. When I found out about this opportunity, I was ecstatic.  Although it wasn’t a full-time job, it was income coming in that my family desperately needed to survive. However, this opportunity soon fell through…I was devastated.

I can’t find another job. I send out hundreds of applications a day, no call backs.  Radio stations use voice tracking, which eliminates the need for real human beings.  The full-timers tape the weekend shows so there aren’t even part-time positions anymore. And to add increased strain on my family life, my husband is now unemployed as well. He has an MBA and worked for years as an engineer.

During these past few years, we’ve lost 2 houses; it’s been awful.  Unemployment insurance has helped keep food on the table when I had no clue where my family’s next meal was going to come from…and without the COBRA subsidy, I would have gone this entire time without health coverage. However, with my COBRA subsidy ending in July, I can’t afford health insurance for myself or my family….it’s too expensive.

The impasse has Democrats incensed. Yesterday, for instance, Democratic Sens. Ben Cardin (Md.), Kay Hagan (N.C.) and Bob Casey (Pa.) led a fiery press conference on the matter. “Continued obstruction in the Senate could lead to 20,000 layoffs in Pennsylvania alone and poses a threat to public safety and schools,” Casey said. “Despite majority support, states around the country are facing harmful real world consequences because a minority of senators are blocking funding.” Democratic Sens. Casey, Debbie Stabenow (Mich.), Jeff Merkley (Ore.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.) argued for immediate passage of the bill on the floor yesterday night. Still, no movement yet. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) hopes to be able to move the bill this week.

“We’re still working through [this issue] in the interagency and, frankly, working with Sen. Graham as well,” Holder said. “Hopefully we will have something to share, and, more importantly, put into place” in the next several months, he said, later clarifying that he believes the administration can finalize that process by the end of the year. “There is a symbolic significance to this review process,” Holder added, comparing it to the negative symbolism posed by the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay.

The [EPA's] guidance for approving mining permits, based on these new scientific studies, will help control the damage caused by mountaintop removal mining. But the science shows us that if we are to truly protect our mountains, streams and the people who depend on them, we must bring the practice of mountaintop removal mining to an end.

Last year, Alexander and Cardin introduced legislation that would classify mining debris as a pollutant, which would force coal companies to truck their mining waste to off-site dumping grounds — something the industry claims would make mountaintop removal economically unfeasible (which, of course, is the whole point of the bill).

Last June, Cardin staged a hearing on the issue, the first of its kind in nearly a decade. At the time, the Maryland Democrat vowed to hold another, though none has yet been planned. The offices of both Cardin and Alexander are closed today for the Easter holiday.

Conveniently, Alexander has a bill that would do just that. The legislation, which is co-sponsored by Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), would redefine mining waste as a pollutant, thus barring companies from dumping debris into valleys below their mountaintop projects. The idea is that if it becomes too expensive to truck the debris off-site, then companies will stop blowing up mountains altogether.

“The new EPA guidelines are useful in stopping some inappropriate coal mining in Appalachia but Congress still needs to pass the Cardin-Alexander legislation that would effectively end mountaintop removal mining,” Alexander said in a statement issued Thursday. “By mountaintop removal, we mean blowing the tops off of mountains and dumping the waste in streams.”

Such statements put Alexander at odds with a number of Appalachian lawmakers, who view any new environmental protections in coal country as a threat to jobs in the region. But there’s good reason why Alexander has adopted his position. Tennessee is home to the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, by far the most visited national park in the country. Last year, nearly 9.5 million people visited the Great Smoky, compared to 4.3 million visitors to the Grand Canyon, which ranks second.

Considering those tourism numbers, Tennessee’s lawmakers have no interest in wrecking the same mountains that are drawing those people in. Indeed, they’ve discovered a way to create sustainable local jobs without poisoning their waters and communities.

“Coal is an essential part of our energy future,” Alexander said, ”but it is not necessary to destroy our mountaintops in order to have enough coal to meet our needs.”

“Expanding offshore oil sites when you already have tens of millions of acres currently available to the oil industry for exploration that they’re not using, to me, is something that really will not help a comprehensive energy policy for this country,” the Maryland Democrat said in an interview with PBS Wednesday. “We’re talking about a minuscule amount of oil, and the risks here are great.”

Cardin, of course, has good reason to be wary of any plan that would allow new drilling in the mid-Atlantic. Maryland’s economy hinges largely on the health of both the Atlantic and the Chesapeake Bay, where agricultural run-off already poses an enormous threat to the crab and fishing industries.

We’re talking about the fishing industry. We’re talking about watermen. We’re talking about tourism. We’re talking about property owners. It could have a major impact on the economy of the Mid-Atlantic.

The comments put Cardin sharply at odds with a number of other Atlantic-coast lawmakers, who see new drilling as a boon to the local economy. Just to Cardin’s south, Virginia Sens. Mark Warner (D) and Jim Webb (D) both applauded Obama’s proposed expansion this week. Virginia Gov. Robert McDonnell (R) told reporters yesterday that the White House announcement melds with “our plan to truly make Virginia the energy capital of the East Coast.” And Virginia Beach Mayor Will Sessoms said a drilling expansion will help tourism by keeping gas prices low.

“These things are miles offshore,” Sessoms told The Washington Post, referring to the oil rigs that could pop up off of Virginia’s coast. “They won’t be seen.”

But neither those arguments nor the claims that more underwater drilling will lead the country to greater energy independence has convinced Cardin that an expansion is worth the environmental risks that could ruin Maryland’s economy.

“There are places,” he told PBS, “that are too special to risk offshore drilling.”

“It’s going to be a long-term challenge to end corruption in Afghanistan,” Deputy Secretary Jack Lew said. “We have to see where our money is going, and if it’s not going to the right place, we move our money to other channels.” Constant audits.

At the highest levels, though?

Lew praised Afghan President Hamid Karzai. “But if there’s backtracking?” Lew: “Holding them accountable does not mean in five years from now … there won’t be corruption.” Hopefully there will be “indictments,” he continued, but said it’s just a long-term process.

In a statement, the lawmakers cite the reasoning behind the proposal.

Under current law, possession of five grams of crack cocaine (roughly the weight of two sugar cubes) triggers a mandatory minimum five-year prison sentence, while trafficking 500 grams (approximately one pound) of powder cocaine triggers the same sentence. The so-called 100:1 sentencing disparity has been in place since 1986. The Fair Sentencing Act would eliminate the disparity, treating crack and powder cocaine equally.

Sen. Richard Durbin (Ill.), the upper chamber’s second-ranking Democrat, said passage of the bill is long overdue.

The sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine has contributed to the imprisonment of African Americans at six times the rate of whites and to the United States’ position as the world’s leader in incarcerations. Congress has talked about addressing this injustice for long enough; it’s time for us to act.

Other sponsors of the bill include Democratic Sens. Patrick Leahy (Vt.), Arlen Specter (Pa.), Chris Dodd (Conn.), John Kerry (Mass.), Al Franken (Minn.), Ted Kaufman (Del.), Russ Feingold (Wis.), Ben Cardin (Md.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.).

In July, the House Judiciary Committee advanced a similar bill, sponsored by Rep. Robert Scott (D-Va.).

His sign didn’t just say ‘death to obama.’ It also said ‘death to michelle and her two stupid little girls.’ Very sad. I did hear that he was arrested, so that is good.

Dave also says he had a brief run-in with the protester, providing a brief glimpse (as if we wanted another) into the guy’s head.

I was stuck at the stoplight right next to where he was standing at the entrance to the community college and I yelled to him that he was an idiot. He yelled back, “Obama’s a Nazi.” I shouted back, “my father’s family was murdered by Nazi’s and Obama is NOT a Nazi.” He shouted back, “Obama’s a Nazi.” The light turned green after that and off I drove into parking lot for the town hall.