AAG Tom Perez
Posted on 01/05/2013 11:41:41 AM PST by jazusamo
A federal court has ruled that South Carolina was the prevailing party in the unnecessary Voter ID litigation, and therefore the Justice Department is liable for paying the state’s costs. South Carolina spent $3,500,000 to obtain federal court approval of the state’s Voter ID law as non-discriminatory under the Voting Rights Act. The lawsuit was made necessary only because of the political and ideological radicalism of Assistant Attorney General Tom Perez and his deputy Matthew Colangelo.
PJ Media had this exclusive report detailing that career Voting Section employees, including Voting Section Chief Chris Herren, recommended that the Voter ID law be approved in the first place by DOJ after a careful written analysis inside the Voting Section. Documents prepared by the career staff urged Perez and Colangelo to grant administrative approval to the South Carolina Voter ID law — but they refused. Their refusal was, in part, designed to energize a moribund political base heading into the 2012 election. The cost to the American taxpayers for their stunt will be significant.
South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson’s office was quick to respond to the court’s ruling late yesterday:
“The state Attorney General’s Office blamed the U.S. Department of Justice for the high cost of the case. They accused the federal government of delaying the case by 120 days by filing numerous frivolous motions, including challenging the 12-point font size on a document the state filed.
“The Department of Justice in Washington, D.C., bears responsibility for the litigation costs,” said Mark Powell, Wilson’s spokesman. “The decision was so emphatic, even the Department of Justice and Interveners did not appeal it. South Carolina was forced to pay a hefty price because a handful of Washington insiders refused to do the right thing.”
Whether Congress will hold Perez and Colangelo accountable remains to be seen. Members of Congress, including Senator Lindsey Graham, have already demanded that Perez turn over the documents about which PJ Media first reported on September 11, 2012. So far, sources tell me that Graham has not received what he has asked for, though he may already possess the documents from other sources.
Tellingly, DOJ has not denied that such internal approval memos exist. They can’t.
All of this raises the question — will Perez and Colangelo be held accountable for what amounted to an expensive use of the Justice Department to energize President Obama’s political base? As we now know, there was no merit to the objection. A federal court approved the law. The many career staff who looked at it said the South Carolina law did not discriminate.
Congress might get answers if they haul DOJ Voting Section Chief Christopher Herren before the House Judiciary Committee for answers. The Democrats could hardly object — after all, they dragged Bush-era Voting Section Chief John Tanner before the Democrat-run House Judiciary Committee to answer questions about Georgia Voter ID. There is precedent. Democrats could hardly object when the Voting Section Chief during the Bush administration was made to dance the dance before the Committee.
Of course, had the president’s base remained asleep, Perez and Colangelo would be looking for work, with the former earning a slippery reputation over the last four years.
But Perez and Colangelo don’t worry about the butcher’s bill. They use the power of their DOJ office in an ideological crusade. Unless their own pocketbooks or reputations suffer, they will continue to behave the same way.
So now the federal government is forced to reimburse a state for Perez’s overzealous use of the Voting Rights Act. None of Holder’s usual defenders in the media seem to care. Wasting taxpayer money doesn’t matter to them if it goes to a cause they believe in. Given Perez’s politicized plan helped Obama win reelection, you won’t read a single article outside of the conservative media about DOJ’s expensive South Carolina Voter ID folly. Come to think of it, even conservative media isn’t widely reporting that the Voting Section and career lawyers at Justice recommended that this South Carolina mess never happen.
That’s too bad, because it makes it more likely that Perez and Colangelo will continue to misbehave and abuse their power on your dime.
Tom Perez looks like a bad guy from the old Buck Rogers TV series.
Matt Colangelo looks like the guy everyone knew in school who got his head stuck in the toilet, by himself unassisted, and couldn’t get it out.
Sad but true. And that sucks.
Doesn’t matter much now; the election has already been stolen.
The author, J. Christian Adams, of all people, nows the answer to his own rhetorical question.
They should take it out of the salary and pensions of AAG Tom Perez and his deputy Matthew Colangelo. Otherwise, we taxpayers get fleeced for their corruption. We know how this will turn out.
Yes, just like 2008. And adding insult to injury, the FEC just slapped a paltry fine on the Obama campaign for their corruption in the 2008 election campaign! For details, see link at Post #10.
“No, it’s us, the US taxpayers, who are forced to pay SC “
I don’t have a problem with that, hold it out of the DOJ budgement, South Carolkina gets their money back and it’s that much money the DOJ doesn’t have to harass the rest of us, possibly without the DOJ having that money we’ll be able to get Mississippi’s voter ID approved.
Its the democrat way.
In 2008 the democrat congressman I was stuck with for 2 years paid the largest fine ever for campaign finance violations in Michigan. Basically the guy was fundraising for others and they were then funneling the money back into his campaign.
Only in politics can you get caught breaking the rules to get a job and still get to keep the job.
A perfect example where “tar and feathers” would be appropriate to deter further bureaucratic folly.
How about stocks lining Pennsylvania Avenue for everyone in Congress and this Administration?
There is no DOJ — there’s a gang of thieves, thugs, and criminals trying to abuse people in the courts. Thanks jazusamo.
LOL! Yep, I thought that was one of or your original, I ripped it off many moons ago. :-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.