Posted on 12/31/2011 5:35:43 AM PST by Kaslin
Editor's Note: This column was co-authored by Ken Klukowski
Eric Holder’s Department of Justice (DOJ) has launched an all-out war on voter-ID laws and other measures to safeguard to the electoral process. Although Holder’s actions are purportedly to prevent African-Americans from being disenfranchised, the reality is that they serve the crass political purpose of ensuring that Holder’s boss gets reelected next year.
In the past several years states have increasingly focused on measures to protect the vote. After years of the federal government loosening voting regulations, such as through the Motor Voter Act and HAVA (Help America Vote Act), the pendulum started swinging back at the state level.
The clearest example of this trend is through voter-ID laws. In 2008 the Supreme Court upheld Indiana’s landmark law requiring citizens to show that they are the person they claim to be by showing government-issued ID before casting a ballot. But to ensure that those without driver’s licenses or passports are not disenfranchised, Indiana provides free ID’s to everyone who applies for one. The Court upheld this law, with the primary opinion written by no one less than liberal lion Justice John Paul Stevens.
Such laws combat voter fraud that we see on Election Day, especially in certain parts of the nation. In Washington State, King County suddenly “discovered” enough previously “unnoticed” votes for Democrat Christine Gregoire to edge out Republican Dino Rossi for Washington’s governorship in 2004. There are also examples from Wisconsin, Missouri, and other states.
Yet Holder has blocked South Carolina’s voter-ID law. DOJ argues that this law is different from Indiana’s because South Carolina is subject to additional federal oversight under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. (This is especially important because there are several federal cases challenging the constitutionality of Section 5.)
But the reality is that DOJ’s actions are not focused on protecting voting rights. They are instead intended to make sure that Barack Obama wins reelection.
It’s not cynical to say this. The twelve or so battleground states that will decide the 2012 presidential election suggest Obama’s reelection strategy. These states include Virginia, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Missouri. All these states have large African-American populations.
The African-American community has a staggeringly-high unemployment rate under President Obama. So Black Americans will not vote for this president because of any prosperity he’s brought to that community. Instead, he has to gin up their votes by painting a picture of racial conflict in which he—and the governmental agency dealsing with such things, DOJ—is their champion.
This is also seen in Holder’s incessant playing of the race card. First he says we’re a nation of cowards about race. Now that he’s on the ropes for DOJ’s scandalous Operation Fast and Furious gun-running scandal into Mexico, he has the audacity to say that he and President Obama are being attacked in part because they’re both African-Americans.
Voting is a fundamental right. It is the means by which “We the People” consent to be governed for a fixed period of time by certain individuals, by electing them as stewards of governmental power. They wield this power to secure our rights as set forth in the U.S. Constitution and (for state officials) the constitutions of the fifty states.
But there is another voting right. It is the right not to have your legal vote diluted by fraudulent votes. As we explain in our Yale Law & Policy Review article “The Other Voting Right,” every invalid vote cancels out one valid vote. Each such cancellation undermines our democratic republic and reduces the legitimacy of election results.
Voting is also unique in that it might be the only right that is also a duty. It’s not too much to ask for citizens to exert a minimal amount of effort to fulfill reasonable regulations to protect the integrity of the electoral process.
Every eligible citizen has a duty to vote. But as we explain in our book Resurgent: How Constitutional Conservatism Can Save America, it is a duty to cast an informed vote. Although there are only so many hours in the day, we each need to make an effort to gather enough information to understand the major issues facing our nation, state, and community, and to carefully vote for candidates who offer the best solutions for our long-term safety and prosperity.
Because voting is a duty, and also because every voter has the right to ensure their valid vote is not diluted by fraudulent votes, citizens can be expected to fulfill certain requirements that would not be justified when exercising other rights, such as free speech or the free exercise of religion. Measures such as showing up at the correct place on the correct day to cast a ballot under the watchful eyes of trained precinct personnel are examples of fulfilling our duty, as is showing valid ID to prove that you are the person listed on that precinct’s voter rolls.
These measures are essential to our self-governing republic. As examples the world over show, losing the integrity of the electoral process is a mistake a free people often get to make only once.
They know that if they can’t cheat, they can’t win.
“But there is another voting right. It is the right not to have your legal vote diluted by fraudulent votes.”
Absolutely.
I believe that also. They are trying everything they can to get that guy back in. Obama was obstinate and arrogant two or three years ago. Now he’s trying to appear to be a ‘regular guy’. They are working now to regain that voter base that got them in in 2008. They are even willing to fight the Immigration and Naturalization Service in court to keep the illegals here in hopes that some of them will try to vote.
I’m thinking: If Obozo gets four more years in the White House, regardless of how he does it; by cheating, stealing it, buying it with his $Billion warchest, class warfare or racial warfare by pitting Blacks and Hispanics against Whites.............. I’m thinking; if that happens there just might be an open revolution in this country; for real.
Anybody got a comment?
Where is Holder when it comes to Virginia and their disenfranchisement of half of the republican candidates.
If it is disenfranchisement to require an ID to vote what is it when a State will not allow a Candidate to appear on a ballot and will not accept write-ins.
there just might be an open revolution in this country
______________________________________________________________
And just for the record: I’m down for a revolution.
I’m gonna be disenfrenchfried!!
While I agree with this, those that chose to not fulfill their duty of being informed should refrain from voting.
Although Civics is taught to every student in the nation most graduate ignorant of the process and the ignorant overwhelmingly vote Democrat.
Talk about disenfranchisement, what about all the military votes from Iraq they tried to reject in the 2000 vote.
The African-American community has a staggeringly-high unemployment rate under President Obama
Obama is only half black, otherwise he would be giving black people a bad name.
We weren’t in Iraq during the 2000 election, but you are correct, they tried to reject military votes, and I am sure that wasn’t the first time
You’re right! They were overseas, weren’t they?
Voter-ID is proof the democrats fear an honest election.
JFK winks.
Now look at the remaining 3/4 pie-piece and split it down the middle. That is the significance of feminism and "women's issues". The Pew Sociology Survey (taken at intervals since about 1999) identifies college-educated women as a core constituency of the Democratic Party, one of the most important. Guess why.
Last piece of the puzzle: "Women's issues" were defined by feminists around Betty Friedan. Betty Friedan, in the early 50's and 40's when she was in college and afterward was a bona-fide Communist.
Now do you get the picture? Feminism puts the whole society in play for the Communists. And that has been their strategy for what, 70 years?
The Democrats stole the 1960 election outright (Eisenhower told Nixon to sit down and shut up: the country couldn't stand the scandal [but then Eisenhower disliked Nixon personally, too -- would he have told Cabot Lodge or Nelson Rockefeller that?]), and they tried to steal the 2000 election but failed thanks to the crowd of GOP staffers that Bush, Jim Baker, and the RNC called down to Florida to "poll-watch" the recounts. They stopped Gore's people from stealing the election right out from under them.
Wonder what dirty tricks they will pull in this election with unions and ACORN and who knows what other mobs they have on hand?.
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.