Posted on 08/28/2013 6:32:19 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Hillary Clinton is not alone. This week former secretary of state Colin Powell and ABC’s Cokie Roberts chimed in to agree that asking people to prove they are who they say they are when they show up to vote is completely beyond the pale. Then the Department of Justice joined in, launching a lawsuit against Texas over its voter-ID law last Thursday.
Colin Powell is not known for his expertise in this area. But that didn’t stop him from saying that requirements like voter ID “are being put in place to slow the process down and make it likely that fewer Hispanics and African Americans might vote.” Of course, turnout numbers from voter-ID states such as Georgia and Indiana show that requiring voter ID does not keep Hispanics, blacks, or anyone else out of the polls.
Literally years of local, state, and federal elections demonstrate that the “sky is falling” claims about voter suppression are complete nonsense. Contrary to General Powell’s assertion that voter ID will “slow the process down,” election officials have told me that voter-ID requirements speed up the process at polling locations because it makes it much easier to find the voter’s name on the voter-registration list.
As a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and a former secretary of state, General Powell must be aware that individuals wishing to enter the Pentagon must present two forms of government-issued ID (including one with a photo), and individuals wishing to enter the State Department must also present a government-issued photo ID. It must not slow down the entry process too badly, as he never changed that policy.
General Powell claims that there is no voter fraud. But John Fund and I documented cases of fraud from all over the country in last year’s Who’s Counting? How Fraudsters and Bureaucrats Put Your Vote at Risk. Christian Adams, my former Justice Department colleague, also provides a handy reference list of more than two dozen recent cases of election fraud.
Cokie Roberts claimed on ABC’s This Week that what is going on with voting rights “is downright evil because it is something that really needs to keep going forward not backward.” What is downright evil is the way opponents of voter ID (which is supported by a majority of Americans of all races and nationalities) mischaracterize election-integrity reforms as the return of Jim Crow. This is playing the race card for political advantage at its worst. In 50 years we have gone from the great Martin Luther King Jr. calling for equal rights on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial to race hustler Al Sharpton, from the same place and commemorating King’s speech, haranguing the crowd about “tea baggers.” What more needs to be said about that?
Roberts criticized the Supreme Court’s decision in the Shelby County case, which struck down part of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, saying it went backward, not forward. Just the opposite is the case: The Court threw out an “emergency provision” that Congress had renewed in 2006, relying on 40-year-old statistics. It is Congress, and opponents of the Shelby decision, who have refused to acknowledge current conditions and how much the South has changed.
But history does stand still in the Holder Justice Department. On Thursday its Civil Rights Division filed a lawsuit in federal court in Corpus Christi claiming that the Texas voter-ID law discriminates against black and Hispanic voters, thereby violating Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The Division wants the court to issue an injunction against the law and require Texas to submit all future voting changes for preclearance under Section 3(c), which allows a court to place a jurisdiction under federal supervision due to repeated violations of the voting guarantees of the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendment.
In reading the Division’s complaint, I was reminded of the opening con in the 1973 movie The Sting, because the complaint is filled with the same type of misdirection intended to distract the audience. For example, it outlines the different percentages of black, Hispanic, and white populations in Texas. But it first uses total population, which includes lots of people who aren’t eligible to vote. It then lists voting-age population percentages, which is also a largely useless figure because of the significant number of Hispanics who are not citizens and African Americans who are convicted felons, and, therefore, not eligible to vote. It finally gives the percentages by voting-age members of the franchise, after having confused this issue with information not relevant to the number of individuals affected by a voter-ID law. (This is compounded by its use of surname-analysis to identify Hispanics, a notoriously inaccurate analysis tool.)
The complaint lists the poverty levels, income data, and car-ownership rates of blacks and Hispanics in comparison with whites. It makes a big deal out of the claim that Hispanics and blacks experience poverty at higher rates than whites, but this is completely irrelevant to the voting discrimination claim in the complaint. Being poor is not a protected class under the Voting Rights Act, and the total number of poor whites in the state is actually larger than the total number of poor Hispanics and blacks. Justice is trying to claim that if a voting law somehow affects poor people more than others (and it has no evidence that is true), because of racially disparate poverty rates, it is voting discrimination and therefore violates Section 2. Holder is trying to bootstrap an unprotected class of voters onto a class of voters protected under the law.
The complaint’s “history of official racial discrimination” that would justify placing the entire state of Texas under preclearance again is a joke: It lists cases from 1927, 1944, 1953, 1996, and 2006. The 2006 case, LULAC v. Perry, was a Supreme Court decision that found one congressional district with a majority Hispanic population had been redrawn in a way that did not take into account the differences between two different Hispanic communities, an unprecedented interpretation of Section 2. The list hardly proves that official discrimination is so pervasive across Texas that the state government and every single county need to be put under federal supervision again.
The complaint claims there was “anti-immigrant rhetoric” during the enactment of the voter-ID law. The administration is typically conflating discussion of illegal immigration with legal immigration. The bill is in part intended to prevent voting by illegal aliens, and has nothing to do with naturalized legal immigrants. It is this administration that thwarted states’ efforts in this regard: State voting officials’ requests for access to Homeland Security records to check voter-registration lists for noncitizens are consistently tied up in red tape.
Texas needs to fight this case the same way South Carolina fought Justice over its voter-ID law — and won. And the Texas lawyers should keep one thing in mind: If they come to Washington to meet with the Voting Section lawyers listed on the complaint, they better bring a government-issued photo ID. Without one, they won’t be allowed to enter Justice Department offices. How discriminatory!
— Hans von Spakovsky is a senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation, a former Justice Department official, and the co-author of Who’s Counting? How Fraudsters and Bureaucrats Put Your Vote at Risk (Encounter Books 2012).
If, by "the process", he means the rush to enroll millions of fraudulent 'voters' so as to totally disenfranchise Texas' legitimate voters, then, yes, it is designed to slow that process.
Maybe he could address the issue of disenfranchised military absentee (including battlefield deployed) voters. Likely republican voters whose ballots disappear yearly since at least the 2000 gen election
Hello RNC. Get off the golf course, put the
Cocktail down. If you are not countering this easily winnable and worthy argument what ARE you doing ?
I think ole Eric needs to go down to Texas and explain his ideas to those there, starting with Gov Perry. By the end of the day, ole Eric would be sharing a cell with some low life for sure.
I think it’s time to ask these “Einsteins” — very directly — why they think dead people should be allowed to “vote”.
We should hear some amusing answers...
I think it’s time to ask these “Einsteins” — very directly — why they think dead people should be allowed to “vote”.
We should hear some amusing answers...
Oh, bullcrap! It's to prevent people like the Cincinnati poll worker who voted for Obozo six times in the last election and still maintains she had the right to do it. It's to prevent people in Lake County, Indiana, from voting multiple times...many of whom are dead! The Dems are afraid of fair elections, so they encourage this kind of crap, the immigration fiasco, and a host of other policies designed to maintain their power base. Holder needs to be thrown out on his ear and then sent to jail for dereliction of duty.
Really...Texas should have seceded long ago.
The Democrats are slobbering at the thought of signing up millions of Mexicans to vote Democrat, knowing that if CA, TX and NY vote Democrat, they will win every presidential election from that time forward. There will be no freedom for other states when the Democrats dream of taking TX is realized.
Now he vows to do it again. Priebus Seems to agree with him.
The first thing we have to do is take the monkey wrench that the court threw in it, out of the Voting Rights Act, and then use that monkey wrench to be able to fix it so that it is alive, well, constitutional and impervious to another challenge that will be filed by the usual suspects,” Sensenbrenner said.
GOP Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner pledges to fix Voting Rights Act in 2013 ( By Aaron Blake, August 26, 2013 WP)
This is like giving illegals the vote to get Hispanics votes.
I find it amusing the DIMS are so high on a national ID card, so the Borg, er, government can keep track of everyone. Yet, if someone is asked to show said card before voting, the DIMS have a coronary.
Man, it must be confusing to be a liberal. Probably sucks, too.
I watched the Texas Attorney General give a good rebuttal to this lawsuit the other day. Among other things he said that Holder was selectively prosecuting Texas, when there were other states with similar laws, in particular Rhode Island. His contention was that this lawsuit was politically motivated, and in light of everything this administration has been doing, it seems valid.
The myths perpetrated by the race grievance industry about voter ID laws are as egregious and unfounded as those surrounding the death of Trayvon Martin.
This week former secretary of state Colin Powell and ABC’s Cokie Roberts chimed in to agree that asking people to prove they are who they say they are when they show up to vote is completely beyond the pale>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Of course its beyond the pale, because democrats generally knee jerk vote without preparation, and they vote as many times as they can get away with in any given election.
Having a voter ID law would mean that the DEMS would be loosing those 50/50 squeaker elections.
EFF THEM!
A thought....if Obama can pick and choose what laws he will obey, why can’t the state governments do exactly the same? Surely, he is not the only one in the country who can be above the law. That is not American.
On a different thread there was the suggestion of making the EBT cards into Photo-id cards as well since the LIV and ‘poor’ minorities don’t seem to have a hard time getting those.
Texas should sue the federal govt since its many agencies require id. I’m sure Holder & co will claim id is necessary then!
Look at the history.
The 9/11 Commission said the US needed better IDs.
Following that, many republicans, in regard to immigration reform, were advocating larger guest worker programs and amnesty to guest worker(rather than amnesty onto the path) For both of those groups, these guest workers would need a better tamper proof ID to differentiate them from illegals.
So if you are going to do that, you also need to give the citizens a better tamper proof ID to differentiate them from guest workers and illegals.
Of course the citizens are strongly opposed to a national ID so the GOP conceived of Real ID. And Real IDs would be state drivers licenses that were compliant with Real ID. In 2005 republican Sensenbrenner attached his Real ID act to the defense spending bill which both the House and Senate had to pass, for the republican war in Iraq.
Some states were opposed to Real ID for civil liberty reasons and some states were opposed because of the cost.
Some states didn't object and went ahead with them.
If you look at election 2012, those states that did try to impose ID requirements to vote were those states that had implemented Real ID.
As for Texas, they were opposed to Real ID but they had already begun making their drivers license tougher. Texas has always had tough requirements for drivers licenses. They were one of the first to require a thumb print.
Well, folks. It’s really simple. You gotta have more Democrat voters to supplement the votes of voters and Democrat poll watchers and Democrat precinct workers who vote two or three or more times a day.
” This is like giving illegals the vote to get Hispanics votes. “
Exactly!
Like.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.