Politicized DOJ Plays Race Card Nixes S.C. Voter ID Law

The same highly political DOJ that stopped a slam dunk prosecution for voter intimidation of voters by members of the New Black Panthers has put a stop to South Carolina requiring ID to vote, and plays the race card

(Washington Post) The Obama administration entered the fierce national debate over voting rights, rejecting South Carolina’s new law requiring photo identification at the polls and saying it discriminated against minority voters.

At least the WP correctly identified that this comes from the Obama administration, highlighting the political nature of the decision.

Friday’s decision by the Justice Department could heighten political tensions over eight state voter ID statutes passed this year, which critics say could hurt turnout among minorities and others who helped elect President Obama in 2008. Conservatives and other supporters say the tighter laws are needed to combat voter fraud.

Justice Department lawyers, facing intense pressure from civil rights groups to act against the new laws, are still reviewing Texas’s statute.

In its first decision on the laws, Justice’s Civil Rights Division said South Carolina’s statute is discriminatory because its registered minority voters are nearly 20 percent more likely than whites to lack a state-issued photo ID. Under the 1965 Voting Rights Act, South Carolina is one of a number of states that are required to receive federal “pre-clearance” on voting changes to ensure that they don’t hurt minorities’ political power.

That seems rather racist/bigoted, doesn’t it? The Obama/Holder politicized DOJ is essentially saying that Blacks are 20% more likely than Caucasians to be too incompetent to get a state ID. Do you know how much a S.C. identification card costs? Five whole dollars. Is the Justice Department saying that Blacks have such poor work habits that they cannot earn $5? That is racist/bigoted.

The Lonely Conservative: If it’s discriminatory to require people to show ID to vote, why is it not discriminatory to require identification when flying, driving a vehicle, purchasing alcohol or cigarettes, entering a state or federal building or cashing a check? (WT – or entering an Obama campaign event?)

Scared Monkeys: South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley is correct in calling the actions of the DOJ outrageous.Presently, the SC voter ID law requires and individual to show one of five forms of photo identification.

DaleyGator: Obama’s Justice Department acting in a politically partisan fashion? Imagine that

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

RSS feed

You can login to comment with:

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

3 Comments

2011-12-24 12:33:29

I tried to get into some federal buildings only showing my voter identification card and refusing to show my drivers license, and they wouldn’t let me in. I even shouted racism and discrimination at them, and that didn’t help at all. Why are the standards higher for getting in buildings than voting? Odd.

 
Comment by gitarcarver
2011-12-24 14:36:09

You and I covered the same issue today, Teach.

The Supreme Court has already ruled in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board that requiring voter ID’s are legal. The ruling states:

The relevant burdens here are those imposed on eligible voters who lack photo identification cards that comply with SEA 483. Because Indiana’s cards are free, the inconvenience of going to the Bureau of Motor Vehicles, gathering required documents, and posing for a photograph does not qualify as a substantial burden on most voters’ right to vote, or represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting. The severity of the somewhat heavier burden that may be placed on a limited number of persons—e.g., elderly persons born out-of-state, who may have difficulty obtaining a birth certificate—is mitigated by the fact that eligible voters without photo identification may cast provisional ballots that will be counted if they execute the required affidavit at the circuit court clerk’s office. Even assuming that the burden may not be justified as to a few voters, that conclusion is by no means sufficient to establish petitioners’ right to the relief they seek

But what is happening in SC is the DOJ is using the Voter’s Rights Bill to bypass the Supreme Court. The Voter’s Rights bill allows the DOJ to invalidate any voting law or regulation it feels will have a disparate impact on minorities.

In SC, you have a the DOJ saying requiring ID’s to vote will affect minorities more than non-minorities, and therefore they can invalidate the law.

That is a laughable slap in the face of state sovereignty. South Carolina should appeal which will set up an interesting court battle on whether the Appeals Court will site with the Supreme Court, or stick with the law that violates the 10th Amendment.

It should also be noted the provision to block the law being used against South Carolina can only be used in a state that has a “history” of not allowing people to vote.

That means a different standard not only for the people within the state, but a different Federal standard imposed on different state.

 
Comment by Mike Subscribed to comments via email
2011-12-24 18:29:18

Hmmm…before this new statute was passed, I still had to show my photo I.D. to vote in South Carolina. Striking down the new law doesn’t invalidate the old law which still requires some form of photo I.D. to vote.

Or it could be that if you are of the Caucasian persuasion, you must show I.D., but if you have brown or black skin, no I.D. is needed to vote?

 

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Bad Behavior has blocked 9028 access attempts in the last 7 days.

Performance Optimization WordPress Plugins by W3 EDGE