The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Democrats Against Journalism?

Posted on | May 6, 2012 | 13 Comments

Michael Delaney is a Democrat who is attorney general of New Hampshire. James O’Keefe is a journalist who exposed the fact that it was possible for dead people to vote in New Hampshire.

In reaction to O’Keefe’s blockbuster investigative report, the New Hampshire legislature enacted a voter ID law.

Michael Delaney tried to serve a subpoena on O’Keefe.

We support James O’Keefe.

Republicans in New Hampshire demanded Delaney’s resignation last month. They now have a new reason to repeat their demands.

LIVE FREE OR DIE!

A Memeorandum thread with more commentary from Legal Insurrection and Power Line

Category: Corruption, Democrats, Journalism, New Hampshire

Comments

13 Responses to “Democrats Against Journalism?”

  1. Mike G.
    May 6th, 2012 @ 9:42 pm

    But won’t Eric Holder and the Obama DOJ come in and say the new law is Raaaaacist?

  2. Democrats really hate that whole freedom of the press thing don’t they? « The Daley Gator
    May 6th, 2012 @ 9:45 pm

    […] they seem to jealously defend voter fraud…. Michael Delaney is a Democrat who is attorney general of New Hampshire. James O’Keefe is a […]

  3. Stan Brewer
    May 6th, 2012 @ 10:33 pm

    The only Journalism the DemocRATs like is what being practiced by PMSNBC, Communist News Network, All Barack Channel, Communist Broadcasting Corruption, New Barack Channel, the New York Slimes, et al.

  4. McGehee
    May 6th, 2012 @ 10:46 pm

    I emailed Delaney back when his threat was first reported, bu apparently I forgot to use the <sarc> tag.

  5. Adjoran
    May 6th, 2012 @ 11:21 pm

     They don’t have the same authority in states not fully covered by the Voting Rights Act, which gives DOJ the right of “pre-clearance” of any changes in laws in covered jurisdictions.  Only a few townships in New Hampshire are still covered.

    Of course, there hasn’t been any real attempts to squelch minority voting in any of the covered places in a very long time, and the pre-clearance is used to maximize Democratic results.

  6. Adobe_Walls
    May 7th, 2012 @ 12:38 am

    Being “fully covered by the Voting Rights Act” was that meant to be a life without parole sentence?

  7. ThePaganTemple
    May 7th, 2012 @ 1:37 am

    A lot of leftists would like to silence O’Keefe by any means necessary. On the other hand, they turn around and look at somebody like Julian Assange and his work with Wikileaks as a heroic figure who should be championed and protected.

    And yes, I know there are quite a few Democrats who have disparaged and criticized Assange and called for his prosecution as well. Those are the ones he has uncovered crap about, by the way, so they don’t really count.

  8. Saul
    May 7th, 2012 @ 7:17 am

    the New Hampshire legislature enacted a voter ID law.

    Um, no. It didn’t — as the story you link to makes clear. You can check the current status of SB289 online:

    http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/default.aspx 

    The Senate passed a voter ID bill, but it’s still in a subcommittee in the House. And if the House and Senate were to eventually agree on a version, it would then go to the governor — who vetoed a similar bill last year.

    So, not a law yet.

    Take it away, Schoolhouse Rock:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyeJ55o3El0&feature=related 

  9. Saul
    May 7th, 2012 @ 8:01 am

    New Hampshire is indeed required to get preclearance for any election law changes passed by the state legislature. The state has finally conceded this after thumbing its nose at the VRA for decades, and is now engaged in filing for retroactive preclearance of hundreds of election law changes passed since the 1970 revision of the VRA brought the state under regulation.
    http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/319836/us-voting-rights-act-regulates-nh?SESS74084f19d09f7b1d5368adc3c805663e=google&page=full New Hampshire is under VRA regulation for two reasons: 1) in 1968, the state still employed a literacy test for voting, and 2) in 1968, voter turnout in a handful of towns was less than 50 percent. The irony here is that New Hampshire was over 99 percent white in those days, so there were virtually no minorities among the non-voters the feds were stepping in to protect in those 10 towns. Still, New Hampshire did have the same kind of literacy test as Alabama.Bonus trivia: it was the Bush DOJ that rejected New Hampshire’s 2004 bid to get out from under the VRA. 

  10. Saul
    May 7th, 2012 @ 8:03 am

    No. There’s a provision to get out by demonstrating compliance with the law. Lots of jurisdictions have done it. New Hampshire is working on it now.

    http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/319836/us-voting-rights-act-regulates-nh?SESS74084f19d09f7b1d5368adc3c805663e=google&page=full 

  11. Saul
    May 7th, 2012 @ 8:23 am

    So how do you stay informed enough to safeguard your freedoms? Fox can’t fill the gap. Example: Fox is soft-pedaling the biggest public-integrity scandal in recent U.K. history to protect Rupert Murdoch. Democracy subverted by bribing  and blackmailing public officials? Fox doesn’t want you to know about that.

  12. SDN
    May 7th, 2012 @ 9:30 am

     That concession wouldn’t happen to have come from a Democratic AG, would it?

  13. Saul
    May 7th, 2012 @ 7:51 pm

    No. U.S. Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) — who’s currently being talked up as Mitt Romney’s running mate — was the New Hampshire AG who started the retro-active preclearances. Here’s her letter to the Bush DOJ:

    http://doj.nh.gov/election-law/documents/2005-rsa-652-11.pdf

    Delaney, Ayotte’s successor, continued the work she started.