Happyfeet and I both linked this earlier today, but it deserves its own post.

Consider this that. From the WSJ, “Justice and Vote Fraud”:

We’ve all read a lot about the “politicization” of the Justice Department in recent years, and that political pounding is having an ironic effect. The prosecutors who are supposed to guard against voter fraud don’t seem very interested in running the political risk of doing their job.

If voter fraud would ever be ripe for investigation, this would seem to be the year with the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (Acorn) having been caught filing thousands of bogus voter registrations in at least 14 states. Acorn’s history of deceit and the national sweep of today’s scandal demand a federal probe. Safeguarding the integrity of the vote is every bit as important as protecting access to the polls, yet Democrats want Justice to pay attention only to the latter.

House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers recently sent two letters to Attorney General Michael Mukasey deploring a news leak that the FBI is investigating Acorn, and warning Justice to focus instead on “voter suppression.” Barack Obama has also joined in this political intimidation, demanding in two letters that Mr. Mukasey appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Justice staff who he claims are engaged in “unlawful coordination” with John McCain’s campaign to pursue “so-called ‘election fraud.'” There is zero evidence that such coordination exists, but it is remarkable that a Presidential nominee would dismiss election fraud as a myth.

Paging Mr Gore. Mr Al Gore. And anyone who has ever mentioned Diebold unironically…

The lawyers at the Civil Rights Division are already falling into line. Justice recently decided to reverse a policy in place since 2002 to send criminal attorneys and other federal employees to monitor polling places. The decision came two weeks after a September meeting to which the Civil Rights Division invited dozens of left-wing activist groups to discuss voter “access” to the polls.

Justice has also failed to enter the fray in Ohio. As many as 200,000 new voter registrations in that state are suspect, yet Democratic Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner is refusing to follow the 2002 Help America Vote Act that requires her to verify these registrations. The Ohio Republican Party sued Mrs. Brunner, but the Supreme Court said the GOP lacked standing. Justice does have standing — it is charged with upholding that law — but has ignored the fight. The Justice excuse is that it isn’t appropriate to file litigation so close to Election Day.

— Because, you know, that could potentially negate the effects of the fraud — electing Obama — seen by many in Justice as “the Greater Good.”

Yet that hasn’t stopped the Civil Rights Division this month from filing a lawsuit against Waller County, Texas, to correct alleged violations of the Voting Rights Act; a lawsuit against Vermont for failing to report accurately on overseas ballots; and an amicus brief in a case filed by a civil-rights group that is suing to stop the Georgia Secretary of State from complying with voter verification rules. Justice’s election suits always seem to side with liberal priorities.

It doesn’t help Justice’s credibility that attorneys charged with supervising voting issues are avowed Barack Obama supporters. According to Federal Election Commission data, James Walsh, an attorney in the Civil Rights Division, has donated at least $300 to Mr. Obama. His boss, Mark Kappelhoff, has given $2,250 — nearly the maximum. John Russ, also in Civil Rights, gave at least $600 to Mr. Obama.

A Justice Department spokeswoman declined to make these attorneys available to us, though she didn’t deny that the contributions were made. She noted that the Hatch Act does not forbid federal employees from donating to candidates, and that Justice’s internal “standards for recusal” on prosecutions depend on any “given situation.” Apparently so.

Vote fraud is real and can affect elections. In 2001, the Palm Beach Post reported that more than 5,600 people who voted in Florida in the 2000 Presidential election had names and data that perfectly matched a statewide list of suspected felons who were barred from voting. Florida was decided by about 500 votes.

In 2003, the Indiana Supreme Court overturned the result of a mayor’s race because of absentee ballot fraud — a case that led to a stricter Indiana ID law recently upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. A 2005 Tennessee state Senate race was voided after evidence of voting by felons, nonresidents and the deceased. A Washington State Superior Court judge found that the state’s 2004 gubernatorial race, which Democrat Christine Gregoire won by 133 votes, had included at least 1,678 illegal votes.

Voter access does need to be protected, but Democrats are using that principle as a political weapon, suggesting that any serious look at fraud is intended to “disenfranchise” voters. This is a naked attempt to protect their friends at Acorn, who have been registering thousands of phony voters. Congress put the voter fraud statutes on the books, and Justice is obliged to enforce them.

Precisely. As I noted earlier today, this idea that investigating voter fraud is somehow unfair, or a tactic to attempt to disenfranchise voters (though, presumably, it would only “disenfranchise” those ineligible to vote in the first place), is itself a baldly cynical ploy to delay investigations, at least until the “correct” candidate has been installed in office.

In addition to giving cover to the fraudulent activities of groups like ACORN, such a dereliction of their duties, on the part of DOJ, likewise gives passive support to the perhaps primary function of ACORN (from the ideological position of its supporters) — namely, the undermine the electorate’s faith in the democratic process, such that “concerned” politicians will step in and recommend “reforms” that will, gradually, erode our rights.

McCain himself is guilty of falling into this kind of trap with McCain / Feingold (by the way, where is Russ these days to excoriate the Dems for their fundraising efforts and strategems, including failure to properly verify credit card donations?)

One of the justifications for a failure to do their jobs — stated in only the most glancing fashion by DOJ spokespeople — is that investigating fraud so close to the election smacks of politicization of the election process. Whereas election fraud itself is presumably bi-partisan — despite the fact that the evidence points to ACORN acting to register those demographics they believe will go overwhelmingly for Senator Obama.

Which begs the question: has it really become somehow out of bounds to ask if attempting to steal an election through voter fraud is motivated by politics?

Because from where I’m sitting, that’s just crazy talk.