Holder to push against voter-ID laws
posted at 11:05 am on December 13, 2011 by Ed Morrissey
To no one’s great shock, Attorney General will take time away from trying to
cover up figure out why his own department sent thousands of weapons across the US-Mexico border to go after a real problem in our country. I refer, of course, to the plague of people trying to prevent voter fraud and ensure the credibility of our elections. Dare we say that Holder will get on this issue fast and furiously?
The Obama administration on Tuesday will wade into the increasingly divisive national debate over new voting laws in several states that could depress turnout among minorities and others who helped elect the president in 2008. …
With the presidential campaign heating up,Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. will deliver a speech Tuesday expressing concerns about the voter-identification laws, along with a Texas redistricting plan before the Supreme Court that fails to take into account the state’s burgeoning Hispanic population, he said in an interview Monday.
Holder will speak at the Lyndon Baines Johnson Presidential Libary and Museum in Austin, Tex., which honors the president who shepherded the 1965 Voting Rights Act into law. …
When it comes to voting fraud, some conservatives have long argued that it is a serious problem, although others say the number of such cases is relatively low. Studies of the issue have reached different conclusions on the extent of the problem.
“You constantly hear about voter fraud . . . but you don’t see huge amounts of vote fraud out there,’’ Holder said.
You know what else you don’t see? Huge amounts of gun-sale fraud that sends massive numbers of military-style weapons across the border. In order to see that, one has to keep an eye on the ATF … but mostly watch the State Department. That hasn’t kept Holder and this administration from pushing guns across the border in a threadbare attempt to make it look as though gun retailers were the real problem, an effort that has so far resulted in the death of one Border Patrol agent in the US and perhaps hundreds of others in Mexico.
This, of course, follows the efforts of the White House to force Boeing into a concessionary agreement with its machinist union through the threat of NLRB legal action. That ended this week, as the machinists voted to approve their new contract with Boeing, and the NLRB withdrew its lawsuit. However, if the administration is really interested in voter access, perhaps Holder should be investigating the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers:
You’re not seeing things.
The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) has given 99% of its campaign money to Democrats (according to ElectionLawCenter.com, citing OpenSecrets.org). Democrats, including Obama administration Attorney General Eric Holder, who will be in Austin, Texas tomorrow supporting the rejection of voter-ID laws and, according to the Texas GOP, “NAACP plans to involve the United Nations on (sic) US elections,” abhor the idea of making voters bring some form of photo identification to the polls.
Yet the IAM in the instance photographed required a photo ID of all who wished to vote in a contract ratification election. From the looks of the professionally made sign, the photo-ID requirement in the union’s elections would appear to be far from an isolated instance. Gosh, I wonder why?
Doug Ross’s reaction: “Needle on Hypocrisy-Meter Breaks Off.”
Well, that happens a lot in this administration.
So why isn’t Holder acting to void the results of the balloting for the IAM? After all, workers have the right to vote in union elections, just as eligible citizens (and only eligible citizens) have the right to vote in public elections. The IAM demanded voter ID in order to ensure that ineligible outsiders didn’t cast ballots and distort the election results, diluting the voting power of legitimately eligible workers. That’s exactly why voter-ID advocates want states to use the same standard as the IAM.
I expect Holder and the Obama administration to get on this immediately, as they are such staunch defenders of ensuring open-ballot access. Right?