Holder's Racial Politics: The AG's attack on voter ID laws may backfire legally and politically.

The Wall Street Journal ^ | December 30, 2011 | The Wall Street Journal

[Comrade Brother Abu Bubba]

Holder's Racial Politics

Eric Holder must be amazed that President Obama was elected and he could become Attorney General. That's a fair inference after the Attorney General last Friday blocked South Carolina's voter ID law on grounds that it would hurt minorities. What a political abuse of law.

In a letter to South Carolina's government, Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Thomas Perez called the state law—which would require voters to present one of five forms of photo ID at the polls—a violation of Section 5 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Overall, he noted, 8.4% of the state's registered white voters lack photo ID, compared to 10% of nonwhite voters.

This is the yawning chasm the Justice Department is now using to justify the unprecedented federal intrusion into state election law, and the first denial of a "pre-clearance" Voting Rights request since 1994.

The 1965 Voting Rights Act was created to combat the systematic disenfranchisement of minorities, especially in Southern states with a history of discrimination. But the Justice position is a lead zeppelin, contradicting both the Supreme Court and the Department's own precedent. In 2005, Justice approved a Georgia law with the same provisions and protections of the one Mr. Holder nixed for South Carolina. In 2008, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board that an Indiana law requiring photo ID did not present an undue burden on voters.

As African-American men at the most exalted reaches of government, Messrs. Obama and Holder are a testament to how much racial progress the country has made. It's a shame to see them pretending little has changed so they can scare up some votes

[Comrade Brother Abu Bubba]

A study by the University of Missouri on turnout in Indiana showed that turnout actually increased by about 2 percentage points overall in Indiana in 2006 in the first election after the voter ID law went into effect.[17] There was no evidence that counties with higher percentages of minority, poor, elderly, or less-educated populations suffered any reduction in voter turnout. In fact, “the only consistent and statistically significant impact of photo ID in Indiana is to increase voter turnout in counties with a greater percentage of Democrats relative to other counties.”[18] In September 2007, The Heritage Foundation released a study analyzing the 2004 election turnout data for all states. This study found that voter ID laws do not reduce the turnout of voters, including African–Americans and Hispanics. Such voters were just as likely to vote in states with ID as in states where just their names were asked at the polling place.[19] A study by the University of Delaware and the University of Nebraska–Lincoln examined data from the 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2006 elections. At both the aggregate and individual levels, the study found that voter ID laws do not affect turnout, including across racial/ethnic/socioeconomic lines. The study concludes that “concerns about voter identification laws affecting turnout are much ado about nothing.”[20] A survey by American University of registered voters in Maryland, Indiana, and Mississippi to see whether registered voters had photo IDs concluded that “showing a photo ID as a requirement of voting does not appear to be a serious problem in any of the states” because “[a]lmost all registered voters have an acceptable form of photo ID.”[21] Less than 0.5 percent of respondents had neither a photo ID nor citizenship documentation. A 2008 election survey of 12,000 registered voters in all 50 states found that fewer than nine people were unable to vote because of voter ID requirements.[22] In 2010, a Rasmussen poll of likely voters in the United States showed overwhelming support (82 percent) for requiring photo ID in order to vote in elections. This support runs across ethnic and racial lines; Rasmussen reports that “[t]his is a sentiment that spans demographics, as majorities in every demographic agree.”[23] A similar study by John Lott in 2006 also found no effect on voter turnout and, in fact, found an indication that reducing voter fraud (through means such as voter ID) may have a positive impact on voter turnout.[24]

[firebrand]

In 1965 a former roommate of mine went to register to vote and the man in charge took a gun out of a desk drawer and put it on the desk. She turned right around and filed a suit under the brand-new Voting Rights Act, won, and became the first registered black voter in her county.

That’s the power of the Voting Rights Act.

Now, unfortunately, it is being perverted in an attempt to facilitate fraud.

Nothing could intimidate my roommate, and nothing will or can intimidate those who LAWFULLY intend to vote.

[ElectronVolt]

At what point is a state going to exercise its right of nullification and tell the federal government it has no authority over state matters? I realize the hell which would descend on the state, but at some point a group of states needs to stand up to the bully. Texas tried and failed, but a large enough group could scare the government.

[Publius6961]

Bookmark

[sickoflibs]

RE :"South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley tells us she "will absolutely sue" Justice over its denial of her state's law and that challenge will go directly to federal district court in Washington, D.C. From there it may be appealed directly to the Supreme Court, which would have to consider whether South Carolina can be blocked from implementing a law identical to the one the High Court approved for Indiana, simply because South Carolina is a "covered" jurisdiction under the Voting Rights Act."

I saw a rare case where a MSNBC show actually had a guest on that commented realistically during their daily complain segment about Holder's lawsuit against the SC voter ID law. (It was one of the evening shows.) She actually admitted that Holder's action could backfire politically in the election by making it look like Obama/Democrats are encouraging voter fraud.

A bit of history, the renewal/passage of the 1965 Voting Rights Act used against SC here was one of the last acts of the Republican majority in congress fall 2006 and signed by GWB.

[Arm_Bears]

Well, a bunch of us tried just that back in 1861—Didn’t work out too well.

[HiTech RedNeck]

She did not go on to be a bitter liberal, that’s good. (She’s smart, she sees bitter liberals would do just what this guy did the moment she became a trifle inconvenient.)

[HiTech RedNeck]

Racial parity was a Republican ideal. Democrats gave Jim Crow to America. The irony.

[cripplecreek]

Holder's action could backfire politically in the election by making it look like Obama/Democrats are encouraging voter fraud.

Its a little hard to defend it as anything else.

For that matter we could look at where they're trying to stop it and where they aren't. Our Michigan voter ID law was coming into force they year that Obama was elected but they aren't suing over it here. They are trying to prevent purging our voter rolls though.

[takenoprisoner]

Every federal mandate has a monetary value. States will adhere to the federal mandate, or forfeit money. Same ole BS. Follow the money.

[shanover]

It's all a red herring.Holder just needs to build up street cred and use his race card to run a diversion for Obama.Republicans should not put up with this crap.Who does not have i.d. in today's society.Especially if your mooching off the government.

[basil]

Ping!

Ole holder is messing with your state!

[Anti-Bubba182]

The real reason Democrats don’t want photo IDs required is so that it is easier to cheat. Holder and the rest know it.

[Mariner]

"In 1965 a former roommate of mine went to register to vote and the man in charge took a gun out of a desk drawer and put it on the desk. She turned right around and filed a suit under the brand-new Voting Rights Act, won, and became the first registered black voter in her county."

That's beautiful.

[A_Former_Democrat]

It’s not “racial progress” when bigots like Obama and Holder are in office.

In fact, it’s a testament to just the opposite

[CIDKauf]

Gotta show ID to get food stamps!

[bimboeruption]

We have to show an id when we vote in Ohio...but in South Carolina this is considered a violation of Voting Rights Act?

I don’t get it.

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks Comrade Brother Abu Bubba.

[Bullish]

Anyone who isn’t responsible enough to carry ID isn’t responsible enough to vote. I mean how much of a moron do you have to be to be an adult with no ID?

[sourcery]

Many states perform no checks at all to see whether a person who submits a registration to vote is or is not a legal resident, let alone a citizen. So, if the world’s Nazis wanted to, they could all send in voter registration requests by mail, falsely claiming to be US citizens...and then vote by absentee ballot. How would you like that, Mr. Holder? How would that affect the civil rights of minorities?