Maryland’s gift to the US Justice Department, Thomas Perez, is on the hotseat!
J. Christian Adams at PJ Media has all the juicy news. (Hat tip: Judy). I’m taking a break from writing here regularly, but I couldn’t resist telling you about this story especially since we have an extensive archive (we have 56 previous posts) on Asst. Attorney General Thomas Perez who was heartily endorsed for that position by two prominent Maryland REPUBLICANS (read all about it here)!
For background, see my report in December 2011, when Perez threw out the South Carolina voter ID law here. Gov. Nikki Halley called the Obama administration bullies.
Now here is Adams on the latest news—US Justice Department liable for South Carolina legal fees! (But, of course that $3,500,000 comes out of the hides of the US taxpayer!).
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.
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.
There is more! Read it all!