Keep your powder dry, folks. This one might get messy.
Posted on 06/29/2011 2:12:04 PM PDT by mdittmar
Restrictive Voter ID Laws Could Disenfranchise Thousands of Eligible Voters
Washington, DC – U.S. Senator Michael Bennet (D-CO) today requested that the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) carefully review highly restrictive photo identification voter requirements that are under consideration or recently signed into law in several states that could potentially disenfranchise thousands of eligible voters.
In a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder, Bennet—along with Majority Leader Harry Reid (NV) and U.S. Sens. Dick Durbin (IL), Chuck Schumer (NY), Kirsten Gillibrand (NY), Sherrod Brown (OH), Jeanne Shaheen (NH), Jeff Merkley (OR), Mark Begich (AK), Ben Cardin (MD), Mary Landrieu (LA), Patty Murray (WA), Ron Wyden (OR), Tom Harkin (IA), Herb Kohl (WI) and Tom Udall (NM)—expressed serious concerns about voter identification laws, which could disenfranchise American voters.
“These measures have the potential to block millions of eligible American voters without addressing any problem commensurate with this kind of restriction on voting rights. Voting is the foundation of our democracy, and we urge you to protect the voting rights of Americans by using the full power of the Department of Justice to review these voter identification laws and scrutinize their implementation,” the Senators wrote in the letter.
Under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, DOJ is granted significant authority to review laws before they are implemented in covered jurisdictions. Covered jurisdictions have the burden of proof to establish that changes in their laws will not have a discriminatory impact on minority voters. In states not covered by Section 5, DOJ can exercise vigilance in overseeing whether these laws are implemented in a way that discriminates against protected classes in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. DOJ also has authority under the Voting Rights Act to require that all individual’s qualified to vote in a jurisdiction be held to the same standards, practices and procedures.
Since January, voter ID laws have been passed in Wisconsin, South Carolina, Alabama, Texas, Kansas and Tennessee; Ohio, Pennsylvania and New Hampshire are also considering proposals.
These laws have the potential to disenfranchise thousands of eligible voters and disproportionately affect particular populations. Studies have shown that as high as 11 percent of eligible voters nationwide do not have a government-issued ID. This percentage is higher among seniors, racial minorities, low-income voters and students.
Research has turned up few cases of the kind of voter fraud photo ID laws would prevent, and voter impersonation already is punishable by up to five years in prison and $10,000 in fines under federal law.
Full text of the letter is included below.
Dear Attorney General Holder:
We are writing to express our concerns about highly restrictive photo identification requirements under consideration or already signed into law in several states. These measures have the potential to block millions of eligible American voters without addressing any problem commensurate with this kind of restriction on voting rights. Studies have shown that as high as 11% of eligible voters nationwide do not have a government-issued ID. This percentage is higher for seniors, racial minorities, low-income voters and students. Voting is the foundation of our democracy, and we urge you to protect the voting rights of Americans by using the full power of the Department of Justice to review these voter identification laws and scrutinize their implementation.
Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act vests significant authority in the Department to review laws before they are implemented in covered jurisdictions. As you know, the burden of proof in this preclearance process is on those covered jurisdictions, which must be able to show that legal changes will not have a discriminatory impact on minority voters. New photo identification laws, for instance, must be subjected to the highest scrutiny as states justify these new barriers to participation. In Section 5 jurisdictions, whenever photo identification legislation is considered, the Department should closely monitor the legislative process to track any unlawful intent evinced by the proceedings.
Restrictive photo identification requirements are also being considered or have passed in states and jurisdictions that are not covered by Section 5. The Department should exercise vigilance in overseeing whether these laws are implemented in a way that discriminates against protected classes in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Additionally, federal civil rights law – 42 U.S.C. 1971(a)(2)- prohibits different standards, practices or procedures from being applied to individuals within a jurisdiction. We believe the Department should ensure that these photo identification laws do not violate this statute or other federal voting rights statutes.
Highly restrictive photo identification requirements at the polls can make it more difficult for well-intentioned voters to cast their ballots, and as far as America’s civil rights trajectory is concerned, that sort of effect takes America in the wrong direction. We urge you to exercise your authority to examine these laws so that voting rights are not jeopardized. We also request that you brief us on the efforts the Department is undertaking to ensure these new laws are implemented in accordance with the Voting Rights Act.
Thank you for your work protecting the civil rights of all Americans.
Hmmm?
So having to show photo id is voter intimidation. But a big black man holding a blunt force object in his hand is not. Yep, that makes sense but what I want to know is how I got to Bizzaro World?
This is disgusting. If we can not ensure our voting process is without thuggery and corruption, then we are lost as a country.
I call BS.
The Supreme Court upheld Indiana’s Voter ID law. So the concept of voter ID has been upheld by the Supreme Court. And that could well be why a number of states have enacted such laws just this year.
If voter ID has been upheld by the Supreme Court, how can the Justice Department launch investigations and file lawsuits????? What am I missing??????
Higly restrictive only in the sense that you have to actually be the person you claim to be, be able to prove it with ID, and be legally eligible to vote as that person.
This could help eliminate multiple voting, voting under a bogus name, voting under a stolen name and voting for dead people.
So it is easy to see why a democrat would feel these requirements are highly restrictive.
How did some states get under an order (consent decree that voting policy changes cannot have “disparate impact”? What if more people from a certain class (for the sake of argument, Amish) tend to register at vacant lots and nonexistent addresses than do others?
Probably nothing, but it is an effort to get any injunction they can to any place they can prevent such laws from being enacted. They may find themselves short a few legislative seats if voters are required to be legitimate. It is almost like redistricting, where the lines are redrawn to omit graveyards. Notice that they also try to sue when redistricting doesn't go their way. If only Republicans had such temerity.
You seem to be missing the fact that we live in a police state in which the negroid nazi party desides who has civil rights and who does not.
It looks like the propaganda media is still doing it’s job.
Boo freakin hoo! So go to the DMV and pay a small fee to get one. Looked up the ID fee for my state. It's a whopping $12. And those over 65 or on SSI can get the fee waived. Oh, the horror! The expense! What a horrible burden it is to get a photo ID card!
“It could disenfranchise tens or hundreds of thousands of dead, criminal, insane, incompetent, imaginary, and illegal alien ineligible Democrat voters! These people (and their pets), deserve the right to vote for the Democrat candidate of their choosing at the ballot box!”
Too seldom do we hear the riposte to the absurd disenfranchisement claim, to wit: Every illegal voter disenfranchises a legal voter. Make this case!
Ping!
Who doesn’t have - or can’t get a photo ID? Everyone who drives has one. My mother never drove, but she had an Illinois state ID card. The current cost of a 5-year ID is $20. People over 65, the disabled, and the homeless can get an Illinois ID card for free. The one requirement for getting an ID is documented proof of the person’s legal name, date of birth, social security number, and signature. The state requires a person to prove his identity to get the ID in the first pladce, so why shouldn’t there be a similar requirement to vote?
One way or the other, any Illinoisan ought to be able to have and present a photo ID to prove they are who they say they are, and ought to offer it gladly to exercise a primary right of citizenship — just as they do when they get on an airliner, cash a check, or buy beer or (some) cold medicines.
The argument that voter ID laws will disenfranchise some citizens is bogus, so I can only assume that a challenge to them is based on the desire to make sure our elections are not free, fair, and open. Here, in the U.S.A.
Yep. If enough states pass the voter ID law (and it looks like they will) what better way to stall/challenge a Presidential election?
THat is, of course, unless Holder is impeached on the Mexican gunrunning operation.
Staying tuned.
Yes if photo ID is required 1,000’s of dead and/or illegal Democrat voters will be disenfranchised.
“Restrictive Voter ID Laws Could Disenfranchise Thousands of Eligible Voters ...” and looser laws disenfranchise legitimate American citizen votes. Isn’t that what they said we were fighting for...? Or more BS. If as I suspect it is BS, pull the troops home from all three wars and use Nukes sparingly later, as needed. They are no longer fighting for a fair right to vote.
Keeping it clean for Gene eh Michell Bennett.Of course the party of deception and destruction doe not want voter ID the communist Party USA couldn’t steal elections as easily if we had laws that protected we the people.
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.