This Atlanta Journal-Constitution report, following up on a Washington Post report that I covered yesterday, begins: “The chief sponsor of Georgia’s voter identification law told the Justice Department that if black people in her district ‘are not paid to vote, they don’t go to the polls,’ and that if fewer blacks vote as a result of the new law, it is only because it would end such voting fraud.” See also this reaction from Dan Tokaji.
UPDATE: Today’s Washington Post features a follow up article, Justice Plays Down Memo Critical of Ga. Voter ID Plan. A snippet:

Justice spokesman Eric Holland said in a statement that the 51-page memo “was an early draft that did not include data and analysis from other voting section career attorneys who recognized the absence of a retrogressive effect.” He said the document contained “analytical flaws” and “factual errors.”
“The early draft . . . does not represent the quality of factual and legal analysis that the Justice Department expects in a final product,” Holland said.

I cannot find Holland’s statement on the DOJ website. It is interesting to call an Aug. 25 draft an “early draft” when DOJ announced the decision on August 26. It would also be nice to know more about questions regarding the “quality of factual and legal analysis” in the draft. I have always considered the work of the career attorneys in DOJ’s voting rights division to be quite good, and I want to know what is lacking here. Ed Still also points out that it is interesting to consider the Aug. 25 draft in light of this October 7, 2005 DOJ letter defending the decision to preclear the Georgia i.d. rule.