Skip to comments.Holder position on voter ID exposes racial discrimination against gun ownership
Posted on 01/18/2012 5:18:49 AM PST by marktwain
Attorney General Eric Holder used Martin Luther King Jr.s legacy on the anniversary of the civil rights leaders birthday Monday to emphasize the Obama administrations dedication to protecting the American people from discriminatory voting practices, Politico reports.
The remarks followed a December move by Holder's agents at the Department of Justice to block South Carolina's new voter ID law from taking effect, claiming that the measure will put an unfair burden on minority voters, according to an earlier Politico piece.
Naturally, the move is endorsed by Ben Jealous and the NAAPoC (I mean really, CP in this day and age?) because well, maybe Mississippi can shed some light on motive. If only we could have NAACP-requested UN poll watchers
Still, in fairness, let us examine the rationale Holders DoJ relies on in his decision to have the federal government block a law duly-enacted by a sovereign state. From Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Thomas Perez:
Blahblahblahracistracistracist Section 5 of Act R54 blahblahracistblah [ah, here we go] [M]inority registered voters were nearly 20% more likely to lack DMV-issued ID than white registered voters, and thus to be effectively disenfranchised by Act R54s new requirements.
So a voter drive to ensure that everyone has proper ID is out of the question and too much of a burden on the electorate? And racist to boot? And the solution is, in order to ensure minority voter rights are effectively enfranchised, that no positive identification of eligibility is required?
Heres the thing: Lets take the DOJs rationale for overturning the will of South Carolinians as enacted by their lawful representatives at face value, instead of the politically-motivated fraud designed to disenfranchise Republicans they know it is. If Perez is correct, that lack of state-issued photo ID is 20% more likely to disenfranchise minorities from their right to vote,
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
A powerful argument. I will be using it!
” (I mean really, CP in this day and age?)”
Pretty funny term, let’s see what happens if you go up to a large menacing black guy and call him a “colored person”!!!
The only voting discriminatory practices being employed are those by the democrats. Once again, this is the guilty, accusing everyone else of the crime they’re committing.
The ONLY reason to oppose Voter ID is to SUPPORT VOTE FRAUD!
Yep, that’s a pretty awesome exposure, but...
leftists are VERY comfortable in what we would view as hypocrisy.
That’s because, to them, it really ISN’T hypocritical, because they are LYING about their concerns about Issue X, whatever that issue is.
Their primary concern is advancing communism,
and restrictions on gun rights and promotion of voter fraud (”democracy”) both advance that goal. No “hypocrisy” at this level at all.
If that's the case, it is only because the "minority registered voters" are too damn lazy to go get their FREE Voter ID.
I live in SC and here's the deal. We are subject to scrutiny due to the provisions of the voting rights act.
Gov Haley could have gone straight to court over the new Voter ID law but chose instead to submit it to the DOJ for approval. Of course, Holder had a fit, claiming that thousands of South Carolinians would be disenfranchised by this cruel and unfair law.
IMHO, he doesn't have much to stand on. By law the Voter IDs are free. Just go the DMV and get one. Gov Haley even set up a toll free number people could call to get a ride to the DMV in case they had no transportation. Last I heard they had gotten 30 calls.
SC has bent over backwards to make getting a Voter ID as painless as possible.
Gov. Haley and the State AG have filed suit against the DOJ. SC's law is virtually identical to the laws from Georgia and Indiana. From the Miami Herald:
I always plunk down my driver’s license when I go in to vote. Most times it is ignored. Sometimes I am told, “We don’t need that.” To which I respond, “And why IS that?”.
Yes, but election-day volunteers are not the people who make policy.
True. But it's fun to see the blank stares.
Besides, what have the people who make policy done for us lately on this issue? Nothing.
Voter ID is now required in a number of states, the latest being Wisconsin.
I would call that something, and I think Governor Walker of Wisconsin would qualify as someone who makes policy.
For the life of me, I can’t understand why at least 50 of the 57 states don’t require it. There is NO downside to honest voters.
Beg to disagree, Democrats lose honest elections, they have made a cottage industry out of "manufacturing" just enough fraudulent votes to win tight races.
Why is there nothing in the summary that indicates any relationsip to gun ownership that you have indicated in this title?
And why, when linking back to the source, is there no direct in-your-face hookup to the text in your paragraph?
To find it, one has to page through subtitles to find anything there about Holder; and even then, only a most tenuous hypothesis of the writer of the thinnest kind.
Not that I like anything about any part of Holder -- but this isn't much of a quotable lead with the folks at coffee-break -- Give me more!
Oh, I've made a mistake! I thought that meant "National Association for the Advancement of the Communist Party"! Forgive me!
I have been an Inspector for several General Elections, with a team of four clerks and two voting machine attendants who call out each voter's name. Tables were provided for the watchers from each party, who observed the conduct and the qualification of each voter.
Tell me that our presence was needed only to make sure that the same person didn't register several times with different names that had no ID? That the Inspectors and entire team had to be balanced evenly between the two parties with an Independent filling the odd count? What is going on here that dead persons are voting? Which party is to blame?
Come ON! Who is getting extra pay over and above that for just seeing that the running of the poll premises is just and fair? Anybody?
Obviously, the only way to SUBVERT this oversight is to RESCIND THE OLD RULES THAT REQUIRED PRE-REGISTRATION, A BIRTH CERTIFICATE, AND A SINGLE LEGITIMATE DOMICILE with a driver's license-type ID only secondary! Anybody supporting the taking away of the one adult human/one vote policy precautions is a prima facie criminal, by attempting to devise a scheme that negates the oversight of the Poll place officers (who, by the way, are well-paid for their time)!
Is that what Eric Holder and his whole gang is attempting? We see how he dealt with to the Inspector General who proved a case of blatant abuse of the poll precints!
“Democrats lose honest elections”
What are you disagreeing with? I don’t see a downside to that statement.
A great article, exposing 0bama’s “Stedman” for what he is!