The other day the PJ Tattler reported that a source within the Republican National Committee said that the RNC is actively working to help return states like Texas back to being under the thumb of Eric Holder and the Justice Department on voter ID laws. Last night the RNC’s deputy press secretary Raffi Williams sent out an email unequivocally denying this allegation.
“A anonymous post in PJ media that is based entirely on anonymous sources makes the false allegation that the RNC and its redistricting consultant Dr Tom Hofeller are spending RNC donations to develop “race- based criteria” to “grab Texas and other states and place then back under federal receivership”. The story fails to note that a contributor of PJ Media, J. Christian Adams, was on the losing side of the effort to renew the Voting Rights Act in 2006.
Here are the facts:
1. There is no RNC effort what so ever to influence litigation or legislation dealing with the effects of the Shelby County decision.
2. There is no RNC efforts to create any new criteria to replace section 4 which was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
3. No RNC staff or funding have used to for this purpose.
4. There is no RNC effort nor has there been any involvement in devising criteria that amends “the Voting Rights Act to grab states and force them to obtain Washington, D.C. approval.”
5. There is no RNC effort nor has there been any attempts to use Hofeller’s “RNC-generated ideas to accomplish this goal.”
6. On this matter there are NO “RNC generated ideas” – period!
7. Of the so -called Republicans in Congress that are “cool to this idea” PJ Media cannot name one (see number 6 – there is no plan to be cool to).
The RNC demands a full retraction and apology. Legal action against the source will be pursued.”
Republicans are known to do things that leave us scratching our heads, or throwing things, but I really can’t see any upside for the RNC to be in collusion with Eric Holder and voting laws. It makes no sense. So then, how to explain the PJ Media report? John Hawkins is wondering the same thing.
Well, to begin with, it’s hard to understand why the RNC would be trying to undermine this decision in the first place since the only meaningful impact of the Voting Rights Act is to allow Democrats in D.C. to harass Republican states that want to redistrict or put voter ID laws in place. Additionally, the chances of getting Republicans in the House to snatch defeat from the jaws of a victory handed to them by the Supreme Court would have to be pretty close to zero.
So, this is an unlikely story that should have produced a high level of skepticism at PJM. Of course, it’s possible that it did. PJM claims to have multiple sources at the RNC and PJM implies members of Congress have been contacted by the RNC as well. On the other hand, the RNC is responding to this story on the record, not anonymously, it’s issuing a flat denial and it’s challenging PJM to name a Republican in Congress who has been approached. That seems to not only be a fair request, but also one that the RNC would be unlikely to make unless it’s sure there is “no there, there.” In other words, the ball is in PJM’s court at this point and if this is a legit story, PJM needs to offer up more proof — like for example, a congressman who was approached. On the other hand, if PJM was intentionally burned by an anonymous source, which seems entirely possible at this point, I’d love to see them publicly reveal that person’s name. Journalists have no ethical obligations to sources who intentionally deceive them (and this certainly couldn’t be some kind of innocent misunderstanding). (Read More)
I wouldn’t put it past the Democrats to recruit people to work inside the RNC who can then become “sources” that will burn the Republicans. I’d be surprised if they aren’t doing that.