ICYMI: Federal Judge in Alabama Dismisses Lawsuit Contesting Voter ID Law

Last Wednesday, January 10th, U.S. District Judge L. Scott Coogler of the Northern District of Alabama dismissed a lawsuit brought against the Alabama Secretary of State in an attempt to block a recently passed voter ID law.

Plaintiffs argue the law violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution and the new requirement caused an "undue burden" on minorities in part because the state had curtailed driver's license operations. Meanwhile, Defendants contested that the new voter ID law did not and, in fact, a variety of documents were acceptable forms of identification and the state offered to provide free ID cards to those unable to afford them.

On Wednesday, NPR reported:

[Judge] Coogler agreed with the state's argument that it had important "regulatory interests" in passing the law, and that it was not intended to disenfranchise black voters. . . . The state said the law was part of national trend to combat voter fraud, increase voter confidence and modernize elections. [Alabama Secretary of State John] Merrill maintained the case should be thrown out, arguing the law provided for a wide range of acceptable IDs and procedures for voters to obtain a valid photo voter identification card, including waiving fees for nondriver IDs. Additionally, the state has a mobile ID unit that provides free voter ID cards for people who lack transportation to other state offices to obtain one.

[Judge] Coogler found that "even though Black and Latino registered voters are almost twice as likely as white voters to lack an acceptable photo ID, no one is prevented from voting." He says the state has made it easy to get an ID for voting purposes. [] "The issue is not who has or does not have a photo ID at present," Coogler wrote. "The issue is whether the Photo ID Law denies members of a minority group the opportunity to reasonably get one, assuming they want one." [Judge Coogler] found that "minorities do not have less opportunity to vote under Alabama Photo ID law because everyone has the same opportunity to obtain an ID."

NPR reports that Judge Coogler concludes in the opinion:

"The plaintiffs have simply failed to provide evidence that members of the protected class have less of an opportunity than others to participate in the political process," Coogler wrote. He cited rulings from the U.S. Supreme Court and the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that upheld similar voter ID laws in Indiana and Georgia.

Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall issued the following statement shortly after news of the dismissal was announced:

Today’s decision to dismiss the lawsuit is without a doubt the right decision. . . . Alabama’s voter identification law is one of the broadest in the nation with procedures in place to allow anyone who does not have a photo ID to obtain one. The court order makes this point exceedingly clear: ‘…a person who does not have a photo ID today is not prevented from voting if he or she can easily get one, and it is so easy to get a photo ID in Alabama, no one is prevented from voting.’

This court applied the proper analysis under Crawford v. Marion Co. (the Supreme Court's 2008 Indiana voter ID decision) to respect the will of the people of Alabama and determine that Alabama's voter ID law does not infringe upon the right to vote.  We will keep an eye on this case and will report on any appeals.

Sessions' "Racist" Vote Fraud Prosecution Was to Protect Black Voters' Voting Rights

Liberals, particularly the NAACP, in the past few weeks have repeated the claim that Sen. Jeff Sessions is a racist based on his 1985 prosecution of civil rights activists for absentee ballot vote fraud.  

What are the facts and legal history of that case?  Then-U.S. Attorney Sessions was acting pursuant to a complaint brought by African-American candidates who believed that their African-American supporters' votes were being stolen or altered to steal the election away from them.  He prosecuted after a grand jury indictment, with the assistance and oversight of the Department of Justice, and evidence of the stealing of African-Americans' votes was presented at trial. He was upholding his duty as a federal prosecutor to prosecute violations of the law for which there is sufficient evidence to believe a conviction may be achieved; it was not a malicious prosecution on racist grounds:

“No federal prosecutor faced with the evidence seen by the grand jury would have failed to take the case and go forward with the prosecution,” [former head of the Election Crimes Unit inside the Department of Justice’s Public Integrity Section Craig] Donsanto told me. “The evidence in the case was overwhelming. I was there with the other assistant U.S. attorneys and not one dissented — everyone thought it was a solid case. I told Jeff Sessions to go forward with the case.” . . . 

Donsanto is highly offended by any claims that the prosecution was racist. The federal prosecutors were “trying to protect black voters who were having their votes stolen,” he notes. Moreover, the investigation was initiated only after local black voters and candidates complained to the Justice Department. When asked about the fact that a jury found the defendants not guilty, Donsanto says that as a former federal prosecutor, he respects the jury system. . . .  

In Perry County, Jeff Sessions and the other Justice Department lawyers were trying to protect black voters from having their right to vote stolen — a precious right that those voters had fought very hard to obtain during the civil rights battles of the 1950s and 1960s. Unfortunately, a jury let the defendants off despite the evidence in the case, including testimony from black residents of the county about how their ballots had been altered and changed without their permission. And that is the real tragedy of this case. 

As Craig Donsanto says, this was a prosecution intended to preserve and protect the right to vote, something to which he dedicated his entire professional career. Anyone who claims this was a racist prosecution by Jeff Sessions is, according to Donsanto, “a liar and a political opportunist of the worst kind.”

Similarly, the Public Interest Legal Foundation pointed out five important ways in which former Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick had distorted the facts and history of the case in his opposition letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee:

Mr. Patrick misleads readers to believe the ‘Perry County Three’ in Alabama were prosecuted by Mr. Sessions for ‘assisting’ voters. They weren’t. 

Prosecuting voter fraud is not itself an act of voter intimidation. 

Mr. Sessions was not a rogue prosecutor – he acted with oversight from multiple DOJ offices. 

If Sessions’ advancement of the case was as faulty as Patrick alludes, why did the Court refuse to acquit the defendants from the outset? 

Patrick fails to remind Congress that the defendants offered to enter guilty pleas for the misdemeanor election crimes.

Unfortunately, the facts of the case will not prevent liberals from using it as a basis to call Sen. Sessions a racist, despite all evidence to the contrary.  We can only hope that the American people will see through this name-calling and learn about the actual history of the Perry County absentee ballot fraud prosecution. 

Senator Sessions Offered Attorney General Role in Trump Administration

The RNLA congratulates U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Alabama) on being offered the position of Attorney General for the incoming Trump Administration. Senator Sessions will need to be confirmed by the U.S. Senate before he can be sworn in as the next Attorney General.

In a statement, [President-Elect] Trump called Sessions one of his most trusted campaign advisers and cited his “world-class legal mind.”…“Jeff is greatly admired by legal scholars and virtually everyone who knows him,” Trump said.

Sessions served as a U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Alabama and as Alabama’s attorney general. In a statement, he said there was “no greater honor” than to lead the Justice Department.

“I will give all my strength to advance the Department’s highest ideals,” [Senator Sessions] said. “I enthusiastically embrace President-elect Trump’s vision for ‘one America,’ and his commitment to equal justice under law. I look forward to fulfilling my duties with an unwavering dedication to fairness and impartiality.”

Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) called Sessions a respected member who “has worked across the aisle on major legislation. He knows the Justice Department as a former U.S. attorney, which would serve him very well in this position. With this background, I’m confident he would be reported favorably out of the committee.” 

Senator Sessions is an excellent leadership choice by President-Elect Trump. Senator Sessions was the 2010 recipient of the RNLA’s Ed Meese Award. The Ed Meese Award, named after the 75th United States Attorney General, is given to those that have upheld the rule of law in the face of adverse political challenges. For more about Senator Sessions and his background, please see his biography on the Trump Presidential Transition website.

Voter ID on Super Tuesday - Record Turnouts Despite Voter ID Laws

The opponents of voter ID are eerily silent after record-setting turnouts occurred yesterday in states with voter ID laws. It’s now exceptionally clear that the alleged claims of mass voter disenfranchisement are overstated fiction. The five Super Tuesday states with voter ID laws -- Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia -- experienced record-breaking turnouts.

Alabama anticipated high turnout, and it was high:

"We expect [turnout] to be as high as 750,000 people in the Republican primary and 350,000 in the Democratic primary," [Secretary of State John] Merrill said. Turnout could be "higher than every election that we've seen since 2000, with exception of the 2008 race, where it was a very competitive Republican primary" and then-presidential candidate Barack Obama boosted turnout in the Democratic primary, he added.

Georgia, Tennessee, and Texas also experienced much higher than average primary turnout.  Virginia had 30% of eligible voters cast a ballot in the primary:

Elections officials say turnout in Virginia's Republican presidential primary was substantially higher than it was in 2008, the last primary in which no incumbents were running.

The Virginia Department of Elections said approximate figures late Tuesday show that about 800,000 Virginians cast votes in the Republican presidential primary. About 575,000 people voted in the Democratic primary.    

In 2008, roughly 489,000 people voted in the Republican primary, while about 986,000 people cast votes in the Democratic race.

The left's claims of confusion and mass disenfranchisement if voter ID laws are passed should now fall on deaf ears. On Super Tuesday, voters turned out, disenfranchisement was non-existent, and electoral integrity took a huge step forward. The left will likely continue to assert absurd claims of voters being disenfranchised but, on the heels of many record-setting primaries in states utilizing voter ID, everyone should know better.