Gerry Hebert has this must read post on the CLC Blog about the Justice Department’s explanation (that I blogged about yesterday) for its “unwritten exception” to bringing certain voter fraud prosecutions close to an election. A taste from Gerry:

An “unwritten exception for voter registration fraud”? This doesn’t even pass the straight face test. The Department goes to great pains to put its policies in writing. Rules about lawyer conduct at DOJ and procedures that we federal prosecutors had to follow go through dozens of rounds of drafting and re-drafting. They are then explained to Departmental lawyers in meetings and questions are asked and answered. If any exceptions to a rule are carved out, they are always put in writing. That is what always made working at the Department one of the best jobs in the world, because you worked in a place where the rule of law mattered, and you had colleagues and supervisors who genuinely cared about the rules themselves and their consistent enforcement.
The ridiculousness of the explanation from the Department for the unwritten exception almost exceeds the spuriousness of the exception itself. Remember the court jester? The DOJ spokesperson said the exception existed “because investigators need not interview voters for such cases.” Now think about it. You have an allegation that someone has sent in registration forms for people either who do not exist or who live at a fictitious address. Wouldn’t it make sense to send FBI agents to the purported addresses listed on the allegedly fraudulent voter registration forms to see who answers the door ? Of course, you would start by reviewing the documents at the elections office itself, looking at the voter registration applications, the list of registered voters, the handwriting on the documents–and meeting with local election officials about the matter. But, if the allegation is that “voter X” doesn’t live at “address X,” wouldn’t it be helpful to have testimony from an agent who to went to “address X” and confirmed that “voter X” doesn’t live there ? Consider also that such an agent visit might resolve a fraud claim where, indeed, “voter X” doesn’t live at “address X,” but the actual resident of “address X” informs the agent that “voter x” lives a half-block away, leading to the discovery that that the voter fraud allegation was the result of a typo, illegible handwriting, or some other innocent explanation.

UPDATE: Bob Bauer comments, as does Garrett Epps at Salon. The Seattle Times offers Fired prosecutors McKay, Iglesias expect charges. See also this LA Times report. Meanwhile, it appears that DOJ has taken down from its website the announcement of the Missouri indictments.