Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Justice Dept. rejects South Carolina voter ID law, calling it discriminatory
The Washington Post ^ | 12/23/11 | Jerry Markon

Posted on 12/23/2011 1:43:16 PM PST by ruralvoter

The Justice Department on Friday entered the divisive national debate over new state voting laws, rejecting South Carolina’s measure requiring photo-identification at the polls as discriminatory against minority voters.

The decision by Justice’s Civil Rights Division could heighten political tensions over the new laws, which critics say could depress turnout among minorities and others who helped elect President Obama in 2008. A dozen states this year passed laws requiring voters to present state-issued photo identification, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: South Carolina
KEYWORDS: aliens; doj; election; fraud; vote; voting
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-40 last
To: ruralvoter

HOW??? EVERYONE needs one regardless of race, color, or creed if one is an American Citizen and ALLOWED to LEGALLY VOTE!?! I’M WHITE, and I have to have one to pay taxes, to cash a paycheck, to have a bank account, to have a Driver’s License, to purchase alcohol, to get a job, and to abide by a locale’s non-vagrancy rules.

How is it racist to require the same of ALL PEOPLE regardless of race, color, or creed? How is it discriminatory towards minorities? As for funds - well Photo ID (here in Wisconsin) is FREE. So, there is honestly no excuse. If one doesn’t have a birth certificate there are always ways to acquire a copy of one - even without a bank account, or a credit card, or a telephone, etc...

You’re either being irresponsible and not taking care of your business, or you are behaving in a wantonly criminal manner for whatever reason, if you don’t have a valid ID in these days and times (or you are not in the process currently of resolving any pending problems preventing you from obtaining one). There should be no questions even asked about needing to have an ID for voting.

Who wouldn’t have one if they wanted to vote as a US Citizen and an honest participant in the democratic process anyway? It’s not like they are preventing people from voting on the basis of gender, or race - we just want you to prove that you have the right to cast a ballot before we let you participate. And, checks and balances are essential in this day and age. RATIONAL people realize the impetus to commit voter fraud revolves around the HUGE receipt of power and privilege that come with being elected, or controlling a seat as a representative of a party. Therefore, we must do all we can to combat the use of fraud to obtain those positions. It’s definitely NOT too much to ask.


21 posted on 12/23/2011 2:09:23 PM PST by LibertyRocks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ruralvoter

It seems to me the US Constitution is pretty clear about leaving the electoral process up to the states.

I do hope the states that want to implement voter-ID laws fight this until the “Justice Department” looks like the proverbial hamburger.


22 posted on 12/23/2011 2:14:38 PM PST by Ghost of Philip Marlowe (Prepare for survival. (Karl Denninger has jumped the shark. Do not visit his blog.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ruralvoter
I can't think of a better way to unite conservative voters than to tell them that because we require a photo ID to vote, just like you need to cash your check or buy Colt 45 or Kools or get on an airplane etc. that we are racists.

If they think that this is going to help them, holder and his racist band of lawyers is way off base.

23 posted on 12/23/2011 2:23:30 PM PST by USS Alaska (Merry Christmas-Nuke The Terrorist Savages)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ruralvoter

The WaComPost’s discussion forum is loaded with lefty morons lying about the reasons for their objections to voter ID. I stated that since it applies to everyone it is not discriminatory.

I’ll check beck to see how many names I get called...


24 posted on 12/23/2011 2:28:40 PM PST by JimRed (Excising a cancer before it kills us waters the Tree of Liberty! TERM LIMITS, NOW AND FOREVER!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ruralvoter
The DOJ has no authority to overrule SCOTUS, who have already ruled that requiring ID to vote is Constitutional.
25 posted on 12/23/2011 2:32:29 PM PST by sourcery (If true=false, then there would be no constraints on what is possible. Hence, the world exists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ruralvoter; Allegra; big'ol_freeper; Lil'freeper; TrueKnightGalahad; blackie; Cincinatus' Wife; ...
You cannot do just about anything nowadays without a photo ID... but you can get welfare and vote without one!

Hey, you wouldn't understand... it's a Black thing!

That's telling him... Darth!

If red X above go to http://morrisonworldnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Us-Attorney-General-Eric-Holder-Photo-AP-500x375.jpg

26 posted on 12/23/2011 2:34:09 PM PST by Bender2 ("I've got a twisted sense of humor, and everything amuses me." RAH Beyond this Horizon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ruralvoter
are Justice Department rulings equivalent to law?? If so, why??
27 posted on 12/23/2011 2:40:15 PM PST by elpadre (AfganistaMr Obama said the goal was to "disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-Qaeda" and its allies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ruralvoter

So, when Obamacare kicks in and gives free health care to everyone and his pet dog and cat, will it be discrimination to make them show photo ID?


28 posted on 12/23/2011 2:48:39 PM PST by Right Wing Assault (Dick Obama is more inexperienced now than he was before he was elected.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LachlanMinnesota

Perfectly said.


29 posted on 12/23/2011 2:53:53 PM PST by SueRae (I can see November 2012 from my HOUSE!!!!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: LachlanMinnesota

Perfectly said.


30 posted on 12/23/2011 2:54:01 PM PST by SueRae (I can see November 2012 from my HOUSE!!!!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: LachlanMinnesota

Perfectly said.


31 posted on 12/23/2011 2:54:14 PM PST by SueRae (I can see November 2012 from my HOUSE!!!!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Ghost of Philip Marlowe
Article I Section 4 of the current Constitution of the United States continues to contain the following language:

"Section 4 - Elections, Meetings The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Place of Chusing Senators.

Did you catch that second part? That says Congress can change the rules!!!! That's for Senators and Representatives.

32 posted on 12/23/2011 3:25:40 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: LachlanMinnesota

Amen. Why does the GOP persist in failing to frame this debate?


33 posted on 12/23/2011 3:30:19 PM PST by Mach9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Ghost of Philip Marlowe
The Founders left all of it up to the states EXCEPT for the election of Senators and Representatives. Congress has the explicit authority to change the rules.

As you recall from Gore v. PEOPLE OF FLORIDA, the Supreme Court had jurisdiction. Apparently the Democrats hadn't checked on that part ~ but Congress had acted several times regarding election laws involving Presidents so there you have it (there's a similar clause for Presidential elections).

What Leander Perez racist cousin is doing here is, of course, mindless, but so is he. The Supreme Court said it was constitutional to require a photo ID. BTW, you show up in their court you'd better have one on you too. Same for getting on an airplane.

34 posted on 12/23/2011 3:30:54 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: vetvetdoug

And the DOJ.


35 posted on 12/23/2011 3:31:24 PM PST by Mach9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

And as we all know the Justice Department is a branch of the Congress.


36 posted on 12/23/2011 4:38:54 PM PST by Ghost of Philip Marlowe (Prepare for survival. (Karl Denninger has jumped the shark. Do not visit his blog.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: ruralvoter

Photo I.D. AND sticking a thumb into a pot of purple indelible ink would be a great idea. I wouldn’t mind that - ‘course, I’ve never wanted to vote twice before the last election. Now, it might be a counter-move some places!


37 posted on 12/23/2011 5:31:07 PM PST by momf (Gun control is not about guns; it's about control..(replace the word Gun with any change they want.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ruralvoter; HiJinx; All

Thanks for the ping; post; and GREAT thread. FUEH, FUBO.


38 posted on 12/23/2011 7:49:49 PM PST by PGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ruralvoter

When other states have the same law how can SC be singles out and called discriminatory. They need to remove Holder and Obama.


39 posted on 12/24/2011 5:20:08 AM PST by Carry me back
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ruralvoter

Holder and the Justice Dept. are running amok. They, along with the open borders, the hordes of illegal aliens, and activist judges, pose the greatest danger to this country.


40 posted on 12/27/2011 10:23:49 AM PST by Dante3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-40 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson