Some of the deficit could still be made up on Election Day.
But if it isn't, it could cost Hillary Clinton and Democratic Senate candidate Deborah Ross in a pivotal state where minority voters are crucial to Democratic hopes.
This was a tiny incident in a single polling place about which there was not proof of a single intimidated voter.
(2) Jonathan thought the decision to narrow the injunction after obtaining the default judgment did not make sense, but the OPR gives plausible reasons for why DOJ leadership did so—reasons about the scope of injunctions and First amendment rights which seem very strong to me as a teacher of Remedies.
(4) The decision of how to handle the controversy does provide a window into the shift between the Bush and Obama administrations over how to handle claims of voting rights violations against non-minority voters.
The DOJ has limited resources and needs to prioritize. He joined the staff of OTB in May, 2010 and also writes at Below The Beltway.
And so we know about that checkered past," she said. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) lit into Bill O’Reilly and other “right-wing talking heads” that she said were trying to intimidate black women and others.
The incident was investigated by the Department of Justice and, before Barack Obama became President, the decision was made not to pursue criminal charges in the matter. The controversy mostly died out when the Summer of 2010 ended and people began focusing on the election, but Rick Hasen at Election Law Blog notes that there was a final report issued by the DOJ back in March and it turns out that the whole story really was much ado about nothing: (1) the original NBPP controversy really was small potatoes, as Abby Thernstrom and Jonathan Adler concluded.The suits come in the wake of controversy generated by the Republican presidential candidate when Donald Trump claimed that the election was “rigged” and encouraged his supporters to “watch” for voter fraud on election day.It seems that many of his supporters are taking his words to heart.A federal court found in August that Republicans in North Carolina intentionally sought to make voting more difficult for African-Americans.Now, with early voting wrapped up, a decline in black turnout suggests that they succeeded.Beyond the work of the organized GOP, there's concern that intimidating on-the-ground tactics from Trump supporters may also be keeping minorities from the polls.Related: Election 2016: Tracking Reports of Voting Problems Across the United States African-American turnout in the Tar Heel state through Saturday declined this year compared to 2012 by 8.7 percent, or around 66,000 votes — going from just under 754,000 votes to just over 688,000.That's according to numbers released by Michael Mc Donald, a political science professor at the University of Florida and a leading expert on voting rates."Something went very wrong for African-Americans' voting in North Carolina," tweeted Mc Donald Sunday.They were more successful in achieving their political goals than they were with their social goals during the Reconstruction era.Klan was an alliterative version of "clan," thus Ku Klux Klan suggested a circle, or band, of brothers.The federal lawsuit claims that the actions of this group and other Trump supporters violates the Voting Rights Act of 1965 as well as the Klux Klan Act of 1871, which outlawed the intimidation of black voters in particular.Additionally, the RNC would be in violation of a consent decree from 1982 that prohibited Republicans from participating in such poll watching activities should they be found to be involved, according to the DNC.Could the decline simply be the result of lower enthusiasm among black voters this year compared to 2012, when President Obama was on the ballot?