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.”

“I strongly disagree with the premise in Buckley and the Supreme Court’s recent reversal of precedent in Citizens United versus the FEC [Federal Elections Commission],” said Udall at the press conference introducing the bill. “The court had previously allowed Congress to pass laws preventing corruption and the appearance of corruption. But the latest reinterpretation of the Constitution has left our political system vulnerable like never before.”

For the bill to become law, it must pass with a two-thirds majority of both houses of Congress, then be ratified by three-quarters of state legislatures. While acknowledging the difficulty of amending the Constitution, Udall seems to want to capitalize on the growing mood of disaffection with big money overall as evidenced by the Tea Partiers and the Occupiers. In comments to the online site, Politico Influence, days after his proposal, Udall said, “I believe there is a significant grass-roots movement out there to take the money out of politics.”

He said that the momentum on Capitol Hill has already picked up since introducing the bill, claiming 10 of his fellow senators have agreed to co-sponsor the amending (in addition to the six who signed on with him and Colorado Senator Michael Bennet, including Richard Durbin of Illinois, Charles Schumer of New York, Jeff Merkley of Oregon, Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, and Tom Harkin of Iowa). “It’s pretty dramatic how the campaign landscape has changed.”

Although Udall had no response when asked about the recent kerfuffle over both Republican Governor Susana Martinez’s campaign-contribution issues or those of the state’s Democratic Attorney General Gary King, nor did he have anything to say about James Bopp Jr.’s lawsuit challenging the state’s constitutionality of those very same campaign-contribution limits, his bill cosponsor, Durbin, said at the press conference, “If you want to take our political campaigns out of the hands of special interest groups and Super PACs and groups we’ve never heard of, this is the way to do it.

“I do not begrudge corporations or lobbyists a seat at the table when it comes to making decisions in Washington,” continued Durbin. “But they aren’t entitled to own the table. The table really belongs to the American people.”

Schumer put it even more emphatically, referring to the Supreme Court’s Citizens United and Buckley decisions, stating, “These are awful decisions that need to be overturned.”

DeGette and Polis unsuccessfully ran the legislation last session, seeking to close the so-called “Halliburton Loophole” named for the oil and gas services company previously headed up by former Vice President Dick Cheney. It was during the Bush-Cheney administration in 2005 that Congress granted hydraulic fracturing an exemption from federal regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act.

A Bush administration U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) official in charge of water quality issues recently told the ProPublica website that an EPA study used to justify the Safe Drinking Water Act exemption should not have been used and that the current policy is too lenient in regulating fracking operations.

This is DeGette’s third crack at removing the exemption and requiring oil and gas companies to reveal exactly what chemicals they’re injecting under extremely high pressure, along with mostly water and sand, deep into natural gas wells to fracture tight geological formations and free up more gas.

DeGette, Polis and Rep. Maurice Hinchey, D-N.Y., — another sponsor of the FRAC Act — recently unveiled a congressional investigation that found oil and gas companies have been using diesel fuel in the fracking process, which many fear is contaminating groundwater supplies. A New York Times investigation of fracking found wastewater treatment facilities are being overwhelmed with sometimes radioactive fracking fluids.

“As we recognize the need for energy independence and alternative sources to power our nation, natural gas is an important economic driver and a critical bridge fuel,” DeGette said in a release.

“However, it is incumbent upon us to ensure the process for extracting natural gas from our land is done safely and responsibly. The FRAC Act takes necessary but reasonable steps to ensure our nation’s drinking water is protected, and that as fracking operations continue to expand, communities can be assured that the economic benefits of natural gas are not coming at the expense of the health of their families.”

State regulators who oversee oil and gas drilling in Colorado have said the FRAC Act is unnecessary and could create another layer of regulation that could actually spread the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission staff too thin.

Oil and gas industry officials have consistently pointed to a lack of evidence that fracking contaminates groundwater or poses a public health threat, but opponents of the practice say that’s because chemical ingredients are not being revealed so it’s difficult for regulators to know what to test for.

“There is a growing discrepancy between the natural gas industry’s claim that nothing ever goes wrong and the drumbeat of investigations and personal tragedies which demonstrate a very different reality,” Polis said in a release.

“The FRAC Act is a simple, common-sense way to answer the serious concerns that accompany the rapid growth of drilling across the country. Our bill restores a basic, national safety-net that will ensure transparency within the industry and safeguard our communities. If there is truly nothing to worry about, then this bill will lay the public’s concern to rest through science and sunlight.”

The House bill was introduced along with the Senate version, which is sponsored by Sens. Bob Casey, D-Pa., and Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.

According to today’s joint release by DeGette, Hinchey and Polis, the FRAC Act would specifically:

• Require disclosure of the chemical constituents used in the fracturing process, but not the proprietary chemical formula.
• The proprietary chemical formulas are protected under our bill – much like the way Coca-Cola must reveal the ingredients of Coke, but not their secret formula; oil and gas companies would have to reveal the chemicals but not the specific formula.
• Disclosure would be to the state, or to EPA, but only if EPA has primary enforcement responsibility in the state. The disclosures would then be made available to the public online.
• This bill does include an emergency provision that requires these proprietary chemical formulas to be disclosed to a treating physician, the State, or EPA in emergency situations where the information is needed to provide medical treatment.
• Repeal a provision added to the Energy Policy Act of 2005 exempting the industry from complying with the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), one of our landmark environmental and public health protection statutes.
• Most states have primacy over these types of wells, and the intent of this Act is to allow states to ensure that our drinking water is safe. EPA would set the standard, but a state would be able to incorporate hydraulic fracturing into the existing permitting process for each well, and so this would not require any new permitting process.

The move required special arrangements with Canadian regulators because the generators are so large that no International Atomic Energy Agency approved container can hold them and because the amount of radiation they contain exceeds the limits for shipments under international law.

Because the shipment would pass through U.S. territories in the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway en route to Sweden, U.S. approval is necessary.

The agency responsible for oversight of nuclear shipments in the U.S. is DOT’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, an agency that has come under criticism recently for its failure to prevent oil and gas pipeline ruptures.

In the final days of his tenure as a U.S. Senator, Democrat Russ Feingold of Wisconsin spearheaded an effort to ensure that the agency doesn’t simply rubber stamp the plan.

Feingold, together with Sens. Robert Casey Jr.(D-PA), Kirsten Gellibrand (D-NY), Carl Levin (D-MI), Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), Richard Durbin (D-IL) and Charles Shumer (D-NY), asked PHMSA to explain how it would handle the request to move the nuclear waste through U.S. waters.

In a Nov. 8, 2010 response PHMSA Director Cynthia Quarterman said the agency would begin considering Bruce Power’s application for a “special arrangement” once the shipping plan was approved by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission.

Over the past two decades the agency has made special arrangements for the shipping of approximately 40 large nuclear power plant components, she said, but “almost all of the prior U.S. consignments had a lesser radioactive hazard than the proposed Canadian steam generator transport.”

All but one of the previous nuclear shipments appear to involve ocean shipping rather than transport over the Great Lakes.

Quarterman said that PHMSA would solicit input from the U.S. Coast Guard and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission before granting Bruce Power an exemption from safety regulations.

Feingold asked whether PHMSA be complying with the National Environmental Policy Act [which requires formal environmental review of federal actions with significant environmental impact] and how the agency would ensure public participation and transparency.

Quarterman stated that the agency would comply with NEPA, but offered no details on actions to engage the public.

“It should be noted that although Canada may approve the initial certificate, the U.S. is in no way bound by their approval,” she said. “The U.S. could require additional conditions or elect not to validate.”

PHMSA must conduct a formal environmental review of the plan, said Toledo-based attorney Terry Lodge, who is working with a coalition of U.S. environmental and nuclear watchdog groups intent on stopping the transport.

“This precedent-setting project, if allowed to proceed, will normalize some risky practices that have larger implications for human health and the environment,“ he said. “Bruce Power’s aim is to save money on long-term stewardship costs of radioactive waste by reducing its volume and mixing some of it into recycled metal markets.”

“We believe the proposed shipment manifests as yet unquantified threats to water, the environment and public health in the event of a seal rupture on the generators,” Lodge said. “Radionuclides could enter the Lakes and Seaway, and if so, fisheries and resort activities will be seen as contaminated.”

Lodge said that the transport plans presented by Bruce Power do not detail emergency response measures in the event of a freighter accident and do not include cleanup plans, spill remediation protocols or drinking water protection measures.

Despite rumors that it might be stripped down to its essential elements mandating donor disclosure on campaign spending, it looks as if the bill will be identical to the one that was introduced by Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) in late July and failed to overcome a Republican filibuster. If you’re hoping to get the bill passed, and you’re hoping that either GOP Sen. Olympia Snowe or Susan Collins of Maine might sign on, this fact is not a particularly encouraging one.

“I’m reading a little bit into this but I suspect had Snowe or Collins agreed to vote on a stripped down version, it would have been a stripped down version that’s being introduced,” notes Craig Holman at Public Citizen, a citizen advocacy group that has argued on behalf of the DISCLOSE Act. “I’m worried they’re just going to force a vote and see if they can sway a Republican in the process or maybe just embarrass Republicans for voting against disclosure again.”

Despite this dose of pessimism, there’s still plenty of time for last minute negotiations and revisions, and sources confirm that Schumer’s office has been maintaining an open line of communication with the offices of Snowe and Collins. This one might come down to the wire yet again.

“In fact, this is the kind of proposal that Democrats and Republicans have agreed on for decades,” Obama said while decrying the Supreme Court’s Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision from earlier this year, which allows corporations, unions and other associations to spend unlimited dollars directly advocating for or against political candidates. “Yet, the Republican leaders in Congress have so far said ‘no.’ They’ve blocked this bill from even coming up for a vote in the Senate. It’s politics at its worst. But it’s not hard to understand why.”

The “why,” Obama explained, is that “a partisan minority in Congress is hoping their defense of these special interests and the status quo will be rewarded with a flood of negative ads against their opponents.” An election isn’t only at stake, Obama added in arguing “it’s our democracy itself” that’s at risk.

As far as talking points go, pointing out Republicans’ unwillingness to act at all on the issue of campaign finance disclosure is a winning issue for Democrats. For years, Republicans who opposed limits on campaign spending pointed to full disclosure and transparency as the sensible middle ground. Now that outside groups and individuals are free to spend unlimited amounts of money on campaigns, however, the GOP is pushing the goal lines back and talking up the undue burden of disclosure requirements.

When it comes to passing the bill, however, Dems have no choice but to court the vote of at least one Republican — and it’s not quite clear how hard they’re working to do so. Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y), who is in charge of pushing the bill in the Senate, keeps imploring wavering Republicans to talk to him about their concerns, but there’s little indication that this is actually happening. Aside from canned statements, both his office and that of Maine Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins (the Republicans most likely to agree to a deal) are staying mum.

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), the lead sponsor of the bill, is expressing a willingness to negotiate on the bill but has stopped short of saying he’s decided to strip away everything but straight disclosure.

“We of course are open to adjusting the bill to address any legitimate concerns raised by Senate Republicans, but we do plan to bring it back up,” he said Monday in a statement. “The threat to our democracy is too great.”

One issue still up in the air is whether the carve-out for large nonprofits like the National Rifle Association is on the table as well. Yanking that out would force another squabble if and when it would return to the House to be voted upon again.

In either case, Democrats’ efforts to find the one elusive Republican vote needed for cloture don’t look like they’ll find a receptive ear with Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.), whose spokesman indicated on Monday that Brown hasn’t changed his mind and thinks Congress should be focused on jobs. Republican Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine, however, have thus far been more guarded with their opinions, meaning the efforts of disclosure advocates will likely focus entirely on them.

In a bill that was supposed to be about disclosure, there was no need to prohibit independent expenditures by some government contractors, or recipients of Troubled Asset Relief Program funds, or oil drillers. The House inserted an especially distasteful provision that exempted the National Rifle Association from disclosure requirements.

There may very well be good reasons why some government contractors or recipients of TARP funds should be prohibited from making independent political expenditures — recipients of government money might be encouraged to spend it in political ways to influence the continuation of that gravy train. (When it comes to exempting large organizations like the NRA from disclosure, I can’t think of any good reasons.)

The Times is right, however, in pointing out that these measures gave Republicans additional excuses to vote against cloture. It will be interesting to see whether Sens. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) take the Times’ advice and introduce a paired down version of the bill in September, or whether they introduce the same measure and dare Republicans to keep opposing it.

The AFL-CIO supports reasonable disclosure and disclaimer requirements related to political and advocacy activities. We have long argued that there is too much special interest money in politics and that much of it remains hidden behind a smokescreen of third-party organizations established for the purpose of obscuring the real source of funding.

However, the Senate bill imposes extraordinary new, costly, and impractical record-keeping and reporting obligations on thousands of labor (and other non-profit) organizations with regard to routine inter-affiliate payments that bear little or not connection with public communications about federal elections.

Previously, labor unions had voiced displeasure at Sen. Charles Schumer’s (D-N.Y.) revisions to the House version of the bill but had stopped short of opposing it. Official union push-back might actually help promote passage of the bill in the Senate by convincing some Republicans that the bill does not, in fact, favor unions over corporations. But Sam Stein at Huffington Post notes that union opposition will not prove so helpful in convincing House Democrats sympathetic to labor to approve the revised bill — if it makes its way back to the House for a vote.

The DISCLOSE Act is a political sham.  It seeks to impose new campaign laws right before an election, a rare occurrence in American politics.  At the end of the day, it’s really all about partisan advantage.

I think it’s also a bit odd that President Obama would lecture the Congress on this issue.  In 2008, he broke his promise to accept public financing in the presidential race and then proceeded to raise $750 million.  For him to now express concern about money in politics is a little late.

Earlier in the legislative session, many Democrats saw Graham as a fill-in for his friend Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) — as a Maverick-type figure who might be willing to work with Democrats on pressing issues like a climate bill or immigration reform. But that was before Graham withdrew from negotiations with Democrats over a climate bill, citing Reid’s apparent willingness to give priority to a debate on immigration, and later announced that immigration reform should wait until 2012.

His willingness to negotiate on these hot-button issues provoked outrage among many conservatives — members of his own South Carolina state GOP officially censured him not once, but twice — and it appears the pressure from his base is having an effect.