Holder bets Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act on opposition to photo-ID voting requirements

posted at 12:00 pm on December 30, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

For a man who supposedly doesn’t have the faintest clue what his own ATF is doing while bodies pile up in the hundreds in Mexico, thanks to Operation Fast and Furious, Eric Holder is rather busy sticking his nose into the business of states — and perhaps spelling the end of disparate treatment by the Department of Justice of southern states entirely.  The DoJ, through its Civil Rights division, announced that it would block a new South Carolina law that required voters to show a photo ID when casting a vote, claiming that it had a disproportionate impact on minority voters.  The Wall Street Journal scoffs at the claim, and points out that Holder has put the DoJ on a fast track to losing Section 5 in the 1965 Civil Rights Act as a result:

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.

One of the forms of acceptable photo ID is the South Carolina identification card issued by the state … for free.  Applicants have to show proof of residency in the state and a birth certificate or passport that shows US citizenship.  If they lack a birth certificate, the state will provide a certified copy for $12, either in person, by mail, or by phone for an additional fee of $12.95.  Note that the federal government requires states to check photo-IDs to get gun permits, another right explicitly guaranteed by the Constitution, for which all of these same fees would apply in South Carolina.

Interestingly, this is almost identical to Indiana, which has a provision for free state IDs but only for the purpose of voting.  They require the same documents to get the state ID, and charge between $5 to $12, depending on which county the birth record resides.  Why is Indiana important?  Because the Supreme Court approved an identical photo-ID voting requirement in Indiana in 2008, not to mention one in Georgia, also covered by Section 5, in 2005:

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.

In a later case, this one involving Holder, the Court declined to make a decision about Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, although they did note the “substantial federalism costs” of interfering in the law-making ability of a subset of states decades after the voting-rights issues have been settled.  But that’s not all they said on the matter to Holder:

A second case offers a further glimpse into the High Court’s perspective on the modern use of Section 5. In 2009′sNorthwest Austin Municipal Utility District v. Holder, the Court declined to decide the question of the constitutionality of Section 5, writing that while it imposes “substantial federalism costs,” the “importance of the question does not justify our rushing to decide it.” But the Justices didn’t stop there.

They also cast real doubt on the long-term viability of the law, noting in an 8-1 decision by Chief Justice John Roberts that it “imposes current burdens and must be justified by current needs.” That such strong criticism was signed by even the Court’s liberals should concern Mr. Holder, who may eventually have to defend his South Carolina smackdown in court.

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.

In the 2008 case, Section 5 wasn’t an issue, since Indiana wasn’t a covered state under its terms.  It will be a big part of the case when Haley pushes it to the Supreme Court, not just on the thin 1.6% difference that the DoJ cited, but because the Court will have to take into account the 2008 case when it decides on South Carolina’s law.  They can’t uphold the DoJ’s interpretation without relying on Section 5, but overruling the DoJ on this would all but eviscerate that section — and return the states under its aegis to the same voting-rights standards as every other state in the union, even if the Supreme Court doesn’t explicitly end Section 5, which the 2009 case showed they seriously considered doing at the time.

That wouldn’t be a bad outcome for anyone except Holder, Obama, and the radical activists on their staff at the DoJ’s Civil Rights division.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

but does it delay the law for the 2012 race?

rob verdi on December 30, 2011 at 12:04 PM

There’s ony one reason why liberals want to block photo ID for voters: They won’t be able to cheat….. well, at least it would be more difficult.

afotia on December 30, 2011 at 12:05 PM

block a new South Carolina law that required voters to show a photo ID when casting a vote, claiming that it had a disproportionate impact on minority illegal alien voters.

FIFY, Eric.

The Rogue Tomato on December 30, 2011 at 12:05 PM

THIS GUY HAS TO GO PERIOD! Ultimately, whoever the “R” candidate is, the most important reason to remove BHO is to get rid of this guy and Big Sis and the other folks RUINING our country through RACIST policies such as this…….

SDarchitect on December 30, 2011 at 12:05 PM

It just boggles the mind the dems mentality on this issue….

You need an ID for EVERYTHING else

cmsinaz on December 30, 2011 at 12:08 PM

but does it delay the law for the 2012 race?

rob verdi on December 30, 2011 at 12:04 PM

It shouldn’t matter. If South Carolina’s in play, it means the Republicans are totally screwed. (Probably means the Republicans nominated Ron Paul….)

notropis on December 30, 2011 at 12:08 PM

You need ID to cash a check, rent a video or buy a gun.

But ID to vote, that’s racist dude.

angryed on December 30, 2011 at 12:09 PM

What sweet irony.

In attempting to use his racist billy-club once too often, Holder may have the SC remove it from him once and for all.

rwenger43 on December 30, 2011 at 12:09 PM

I think they are worried that if a couple of crucial swing states enacted a voter ID law it would be game set match for Obaka.

celtic warrior on December 30, 2011 at 12:10 PM

Note that the federal government requires states to check photo-IDs to get gun permits, another right explicitly guaranteed by the Constitution, for which all of these same fees would apply in South Carolina

Holder “knows” that only knucle-dragging right wingers are inconvenienced by this, whereas a larger percentage of Dem voters are inconvenienced by having to provide identificationin order to vote.

VibrioCocci on December 30, 2011 at 12:10 PM

Overall, he noted, 8.4% of the state’s registered white voters lack photo ID, compared to 10% of nonwhite voters.

Please define nonwhite voter. Is Obama a non-white voter? Is someone of Spanish descent a nonwhite voter? Can we please stop this now?

Fallon on December 30, 2011 at 12:11 PM

It’s too bad most people don’t have as much interest in voting at all as liberals have at cheating at it. Things might be very different…

MelonCollie on December 30, 2011 at 12:11 PM

Eric Holder the most racist AG in United States history? Discuss.

NotCoach on December 30, 2011 at 12:11 PM

block a new South Carolina law that required voters to show a photo ID when casting a vote, claiming that it had a disproportionate impact on minority dead voters.

FIFY

VidOmnia on December 30, 2011 at 12:12 PM

It just boggles the mind the dems mentality on this issue….

You need an ID for EVERYTHING else

cmsinaz on December 30, 2011 at 12:08 PM

The dem mentality is their fear of losing the “dogs and dead people” vote. A readily available, verifiable voter ID would bring this about….and is therefore (in their eyes) E-ville and to be greatly avoided.

tgharris on December 30, 2011 at 12:13 PM

Overall, he noted, 8.4% of the state’s registered white voters lack photo ID, compared to 10% of nonwhite voters.

Huh. Define “nonwhite”. (other than monolithic dem bloc voters)

Harbingeing on December 30, 2011 at 12:13 PM

So – having to show an ID to vote disenfranchises minority voters – who also can’t get their welfare checks, social security checks, medicare/medicaid benefits, etc WITHOUT an ID. However, if you don’t have to show an ID, then someone else can show up and vote in my name – which disenfranchises me (or any other registered voter for that matter). Lib logic at its finest… s/

dentarthurdent on December 30, 2011 at 12:15 PM

Holder’s not in it to win it. This is a tactic designed to stall so the 2012 election can come and go without this law on SC’s books. The main goal is to get Obama reelected. If that happens, then SC will probably be able to do what it wants. This has nothing to do with rights.

joejm65 on December 30, 2011 at 12:16 PM

Note that the federal government requires states to check photo-IDs to get gun permits, another right explicitly guaranteed by the Constitution

Just so. And if it’s good enough for bullets it’s good enough for ballots.

de rigueur on December 30, 2011 at 12:16 PM

A Minister of one of the poorest areas of town scoffs at the ‘burden’ of getting a photo ID. “You need a photo ID to cash your welfare checks!”

michaelo on December 30, 2011 at 12:17 PM

I asked a black girl at work why there was so much oposition to the voter ID law. She is a fairly die hard Obama supporter but out of courtesy to her most political discussion is fairly muted when in her presence.

Her response made no sense. She claimed the biggest problem she saw was the restriction on voting on Sundays. According to her blacks overwhelmingly support voting on Sunday. I don’t recall ever being allowed to vote on Sunday. I’m pretty sure the new law in Texas does not even mention voting on Sundays. I pressed her on the ID aspect itself and she did not want to talk about that. At all.

Has anybody else tried getting a straight answer from a black acquintence on the issue?

DanMan on December 30, 2011 at 12:17 PM

Chanting OWSers get thrown out of Iowa coffee shop.
http://themorningspew.com/2011/12/30/chanting-owsers-kicked-out-of-iowa-coffee-shop/

bloggless on December 30, 2011 at 12:18 PM

He must think all minorites are as dumb and incapable as he is.

Lily on December 30, 2011 at 12:19 PM

In a normal world, Holder would not put forth such silly BS. And Obama would not be president. I think the democrats cheat.

birdwatcher on December 30, 2011 at 12:20 PM

If Holder was the least bit ethical, he’d arrest himself.

RBMN on December 30, 2011 at 12:21 PM

They also cast real doubt on the long-term viability of the law, noting in an 8-1 decision by Chief Justice John Roberts that it “imposes current burdens and must be justified by current needs.” That such strong criticism was signed by even the Court’s liberals should concern Mr. Holder, who may eventually have to defend his South Carolina smackdown in court.

This alone would make one think this ruling has zero chance of being upheld by the SCOTUS. But it does not necessarily eviscerate Section 5, it actually gives DOJ a good guideline to follow in invoking it regarding voter ID laws. Secton 5 can still be used to review and reject redistricting plans and other election-related laws.

rockmom on December 30, 2011 at 12:21 PM

So if you have picture ID, does that mean you are a racist?

bloggless on December 30, 2011 at 12:21 PM

But forcing people to buy health insurance is not a burden to them?

John Deaux on December 30, 2011 at 12:23 PM

I truly believe God has a very special place in Hell designated for democrats (liberal demonuts). I just hope I can watch them enter it; crying and begging for mercy, and no mercy shall come!!

Tbone McGraw on December 30, 2011 at 12:25 PM

Please define nonwhite voter. Is Obama a non-white voter? Is someone of Spanish descent a nonwhite voter? Can we please stop this now?

Fallon on December 30, 2011 at 12:11 PM

Good point.
A little off topic, but under government contracting regulations, anyone of “hispanic” descent can get disadvantaged / minority owned business status and get government contracting preferences. “Hispanic” is wide open to anyone from Mexico, Puerto Rico, Cuba, Central or South America, and even Spain – which last I checked was part of Europe. I know of wealthy people whose parents came from Spain who were able to get “minority/disadvantaged” preferences to build companies on government set-aside contracts that mere “white” people couldn’t compete for.

dentarthurdent on December 30, 2011 at 12:25 PM

The dem mentality is their fear of losing the “dogs and dead people” vote. A readily available, verifiable voter ID would bring this about….and is therefore (in their eyes) E-ville and to be greatly avoided.

tgharris on December 30, 2011 at 12:13 PM

That’s part of it, for sure, but the bigger part is continuing to agitate black and Latino voters about the “racism” of the Republican Party. This is why media reports continue to include dog-whistle terms like poll taxes to describe these laws. If Obama can’t get the gigantic minority turnout he got in 2008 it is going to be very hard for him to win this election. He has not delivered anything positive to these voters who voted for him in droves, but he sure can scare them about “the return of Jim Crow,” because it works.

rockmom on December 30, 2011 at 12:25 PM

Wonder when holder will take TX to court because we have voter ID approved this year? When will holder do the same to other states who have voter ID? I can not begin to say how I detest bho, holder, and the whole blooming bho team! I am sick to death of this ‘race’ thing! I bet it is only going to worse before Nov. 2012?
L

letget on December 30, 2011 at 12:27 PM

Section 5 exists only to force liberal will on conservative voters. It is ridiculous, and should be ended immediately.

Vera on December 30, 2011 at 12:27 PM

And BTW, don’t think this is just the doing of Eric Holder. Tom Perez is a committed socialist and a legendary race-baiter in his own right. He doesn’t need Holder to tell him anything on this stuff, he is probably more leftwing and more racist than Holder is. Getting him out of that job is one of the greatest reasosn we need to win this election.

rockmom on December 30, 2011 at 12:28 PM

you need one to vote in union elections (thread here a few weeks ago).

Dingbat63 on December 30, 2011 at 12:28 PM

Has anybody else tried getting a straight answer from a black acquintence on the issue?

DanMan on December 30, 2011 at 12:17 PM

Yes, from one of my best friends, in fact. He, however, has a substantially different view of the voter I.D. laws. His position is that only people with concealed handgun licenses should be allowed to vote and they should have to provide their CHL card in order to do so. And, he’s dead serious about it.

TXUS on December 30, 2011 at 12:28 PM

Has anybody else tried getting a straight answer from a black acquintence on the issue?

DanMan on December 30, 2011 at 12:17 PM

Got a straight answer from a straight-speaking old lady. But she said it within hearing range of other blacks, and her answer wasn’t very popular.They turned some UGLY looks her way, to the point where I offered to escort her to the bus.

MelonCollie on December 30, 2011 at 12:29 PM

It’s so weird that people still see the South in reconstruction terms.

Cindy Munford on December 30, 2011 at 12:30 PM

Still waiting for the DOJ to begin prosecuting those two thugs swinging batons outside the polling place in that southern racist state of…Pennsylvania.

This would be a good time for Urban Elitist to explain why such prosecution would be racist.

Bishop on December 30, 2011 at 12:30 PM

Aha tgh

cmsinaz on December 30, 2011 at 12:31 PM

In WI, we have to have an ID to buy COLD medicine! And what about flying? I guess we truly are R-A-C-I-S-T, just like Eric thinks we are! Huh!

Sasha List on December 30, 2011 at 12:31 PM

Heavy-handed Federal Thuggery – nothing new from Holder here.

This effete douche needs to be jailed ASAP for the F&F murders – and needs to keep his highly partisan, inept, corrupt nose out of State’s business.

Tim_CA on December 30, 2011 at 12:32 PM

Voter ID affects three of the Democrat’s most reliable voting blocks. Illegal aliens, felons and dead people.

kurtzz3 on December 30, 2011 at 12:32 PM

I had to show a photo id the other day just for returning a cheap pair of headphones to Fry’s, but it’s asking too much for people to show photo id when they’re determining who runs this country? Please.

clearbluesky on December 30, 2011 at 12:32 PM

But forcing people to buy health insurance is not a burden to them?

John Deaux on December 30, 2011 at 12:23 PM

Those same people won’t be buying their insurance – you will. Actually, you will continue to buy it. Just at far higher prices under bammycare.

Holder (and BHO) do not care about winning a Supreme Court decision. Even a dolt lawyer like EH can figure out how that will go. It won’t be heard before the election, and that is all they care about.

Hueydriver on December 30, 2011 at 12:33 PM

If Romney wins, Chris ‘Trenton Thunder’ Christie cleaning up Eric Holder’s mess, and he will do a damn fine job.

swamp_yankee on December 30, 2011 at 12:33 PM

Yepper dingbat, good catch

cmsinaz on December 30, 2011 at 12:34 PM

Note that the federal government requires states to check photo-IDs to get gun permits…

Holder “knows” that only knucle-dragging right wingers are inconvenienced by this, whereas a larger percentage of Dem voters are inconvenienced by having to provide identificationin order to vote.

VibrioCocci on December 30, 2011 at 12:10 PM

Well, this knuckle-dragging independent, who will be buying his 1st gun in 2012, is not inconvenienced by this. When compared to the inconvenience of being assaulted by the typical Democrat voter in Detroit who gets his or her gun illegally, I’ll happily show my legitimate ID to have something on hand to defend myself with a legally purchased handgun.

Danny on December 30, 2011 at 12:34 PM

TXUS on December 30, 2011 at 12:28 PM

In California, that would mean only LEO and political cronies of county sheriffs would vote.

peski on December 30, 2011 at 12:34 PM

His position is that only people with concealed handgun licenses should be allowed to vote and they should have to provide their CHL card in order to do so. And, he’s dead serious about it.

TXUS on December 30, 2011 at 12:28 PM

oh hell and heck yes!

DanMan on December 30, 2011 at 12:35 PM

Hueydriver on December 30, 2011 at 12:33 PM

The Husband was a crew chief on a Charlie model Huey in Pleiku in 68/69.

Cindy Munford on December 30, 2011 at 12:36 PM

I guess the question to ask from all this is, “does Mssrs. Perez and Holder really believe they can win this on appeal all the way up to the Supreme Court?” They are brazenly stupid if they think they can!

I say GOOD! Section 5 of the VRA is a nuisance and an anachronism nowadays. It has to be periodically upheld by Congressional statute and, if the R’s had controlled Congress at the time of it’s last approval, it would have gone down the memory hole with as much whining and caterwauling as the liberals could have mustered. If this case does make it to the Supreme Court and, IF the court chooses to look at the broader question of Section 5 (they may, for political purposes, stick to the narrow question of the South Carolina law only), then down it goes…

Paging Justice Kennedy…we found your spine, please come and get it at the HotGas Lost & Found…

powerpickle on December 30, 2011 at 12:36 PM

But forcing people to buy health insurance is not a burden to them?

John Deaux on December 30, 2011 at 12:23 PM

..THIS!

The War Planner on December 30, 2011 at 12:36 PM

His position is that only people with concealed handgun licenses should be allowed to vote and they should have to provide their CHL card in order to do so. And, he’s dead serious about it.

TXUS on December 30, 2011 at 12:28 PM

So this gun nut wants to disenfranchise everyone without a CHL. How lovely.

MelonCollie on December 30, 2011 at 12:38 PM

Well, this knuckle-dragging independent, who will be buying his 1st gun in 2012, is not inconvenienced by this.
Danny on December 30, 2011 at 12:34 PM

..why wait ’til next year?

The War Planner on December 30, 2011 at 12:38 PM

It would be ironic if the legacy of the Obama/Holder Administration is the defenestration of the VRA, due to their pandering over Voter ID.

Another Drew on December 30, 2011 at 12:38 PM

Voter ID affects three of the Democrat’s most reliable voting blocks. Illegal aliens, felons and dead people.

kurtzz3 on December 30, 2011 at 12:32 PM

Abso-friggin’-lutely. And they fool no-one but racialists with this nonsense, while making themselves look like clowns.

Tim_CA on December 30, 2011 at 12:38 PM

TXUS on December 30, 2011 at 12:28 PM

In California, that would mean only LEO and political cronies of county sheriffs would vote.

peski on December 30, 2011 at 12:34 PM

That’s a good thing, speaking very generally. The pinko (actually blue) states tend to be more restrictive in their issuance of CC permits (think NY, CA, etc.). So the red states may possibly see things swing “their” way…but this is all theoretical – bridge too far. We should perhaps take a look at land/home owners, those with jobs, who pay taxes, etc…

Hueydriver on December 30, 2011 at 12:39 PM

On the off chance that urban elitist shows up here, a summary comment from the headlines:

Wait — you’re saying that blacks are too stupid and subservient to look at reality? Racist much?

urban elitist on December 30, 2011 at 11:20 AM

No, elitist, I am not saying blacks are stupid or subservient. I’m saying that leftist elitists like you want to keep them subservient, and that you think they’re too stupid to figure out how to get an ID card that proves they have the right to vote (once per election).

No, if you support laws that are specifically designed to reduce minority turnout, you’re racist.
urban elitist on December 30, 2011 at 12:02 PM

Once again, you assume that minorities are too stupid to get an ID card.

What you really mean is this:

You don’t want people to vote twice: You’re a racist

You don’t want dead people to vote: You’re a racist

You don’t want illegal aliens to vote: You’re a racist

You don’t want voters intimidated at the polls: You’re a racist

Got it.

Knott Buyinit on December 30, 2011 at 11:59 AM

Look in the mirror, elitist. That’s where the racism is lurking.

peski on December 30, 2011 at 12:22 PM

peski on December 30, 2011 at 12:39 PM

DanMan
I have several black friends. They all think voter ID is a great idea. A couple voted for the resident idiot-n-chief, but have since had a change of heart.
Maybe I just live in a protected area, lol.

txdonboy on December 30, 2011 at 12:40 PM

How about a compromise; to vote you must present proof that you have health insurance.

Sound good, Holder?

lorien1973 on December 30, 2011 at 12:41 PM

How about a compromise; to vote you must present proof that you have health insurance.

Sound good, Holder?

lorien1973 on December 30, 2011 at 12:41 PM

^^ Perfect.

The idiot just twists himself in knots.

Tim_CA on December 30, 2011 at 12:43 PM

lorien1973 on December 30, 2011 at 12:41 PM

But that’s different. Somehow!

Cindy Munford on December 30, 2011 at 12:44 PM

So this gun nut wants to disenfranchise everyone without a CHL. How lovely.

MelonCollie on December 30, 2011 at 12:38 PM

If its your opinion that people who have CHLs are, by definition, “gun nuts”, you are beyond help.

TXUS on December 30, 2011 at 12:45 PM

You all have also missed the fact that the federal government requires people to show ID to buy alcohol or tobacco products. Seems like that would affect minorities as well. Where is the outrage over that?

/I guess non-existent and dead people don’t buy cigarettes whereas they do vote.

AZfederalist on December 30, 2011 at 12:45 PM

That wouldn’t be a bad outcome for anyone except Holder, Obama, and the radical activists on their staff at the DoJ’s Civil Rights division.

Well…. it would also be bad for dead voters:)

Iron Butterfly on December 30, 2011 at 12:46 PM

Heh. The dissenter in 2009′s 8-1 Northwest Austin decision was Justice Thomas. He wanted to go ahead and find Section 5 unconstitutional instead of waitng for another case to come along.

ex Dem from Miami on December 30, 2011 at 12:46 PM

That’s part of it, for sure, but the bigger part is continuing to agitate black and Latino voters about the “racism” of the Republican Party. This is why media reports continue to include dog-whistle terms like poll taxes to describe these laws. If Obama can’t get the gigantic minority turnout he got in 2008 it is going to be very hard for him to win this election. He has not delivered anything positive to these voters who voted for him in droves, but he sure can scare them about “the return of Jim Crow,” because it works.

rockmom on December 30, 2011 at 12:25 PM

Excellent point, as usual.

batterup on December 30, 2011 at 12:48 PM

The DoJ, through its Civil Rights division, announced that it would block a new South Carolina law that required voters to show a photo ID when casting a vote

Just sitting on my couch, but is that the proper chain of events when a state passes a law ? That is, a law is properly passed by a state legislature, signed by the Governor, and then, eh, the DOJ says “sorry, no can do.”

williampeck1958 on December 30, 2011 at 12:49 PM

If its your opinion that people who have CHLs are, by definition, “gun nuts”, you are beyond help.

TXUS on December 30, 2011 at 12:45 PM

It isn’t, but thanks for ass-uming that.

MelonCollie on December 30, 2011 at 12:49 PM

AZfederalist on December 30, 2011 at 12:45 PM

Exactly.

Try to Legally buy a handgun. It’s absolutely amazing how much personal information they DEMAND….the least of which is valid ID.

The hypocrisy is just stunning.

Tim_CA on December 30, 2011 at 12:50 PM

It is all a dog and pony show to get our attention on the voters coming to the polls on election day.

The use of Absentee Ballots is the prize the Dems really want to protect.

An abundance of absentee ballots showing up whenever needed is the Dem’s vote fraud method.

jimw on December 30, 2011 at 12:51 PM

Not to worry. If the courts rule in favor of photo IDs, Holder can always fall back on “his people” to ensure that no “disenfranchisement” takes place. I’m sure the New Black Panthers are available for “security” in South Carolina, or anywhere else “crackers” might show up to vote.

tpitman on December 30, 2011 at 12:52 PM

I guess our “nation of cowards” includes the DOJ and the White House…Dear Leader must be re elected at all cost.

d1carter on December 30, 2011 at 12:53 PM

Congressman Issa Sir, “WE THE PEOPLE” want to know
when the LYING RACIST IN THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE is going to be ARRESTED and put on TRIAL
for PERJURY and TREASON?

ARIZONAVETERAN on December 30, 2011 at 12:54 PM

But, but these are his people!!!

The rest of us not so much.

In the last three years we have become a nation of men and not of laws. The first step toward totalitarianism.

jukin3 on December 30, 2011 at 12:55 PM

MelonCollie on December 30, 2011 at 12:49 PM

ROFL

You got yourself bagged.

Bishop on December 30, 2011 at 12:57 PM

Reportedly DOJ is eyeing a suit against Florida as well, for cutting back on the number of days allowed for early voting. How they are gouing to prove this discriminates against minorities should be fun to watch. But they’ll come up with something, and blame it again on those Racist Republicans.

rockmom on December 30, 2011 at 12:57 PM

In 2007 I served as an election clerk in East Chicago, Indiana, a town in which the Democrat primary is, for all intents and purposes, the general election. It was a special municipal election because the previous election had been overturned by the courts due to massive voter fraud by one group of Democrats against a competing faction. (I live in another part of the county, so presumably the state correctly concluded that I didn’t have a dog in the Pabey vs. Copeland fight and could therefore be impartial)

My precinct was in a dirt poor housing project. About 97% of the population was African-American, and a sizable majority of the residents were unemployed and/or on food stamps.

Every. Single. Person. (Over 500 voters turned out)Had the necessary and free state ID to vote. I never had to turn anyone away, and everything checked out fine for every single voter.

Holder’s insistence that non-whites are too poor/stupid/ignorant/low-information to get a free state ID to vote is just pure idiocy. He’s trying to intimidate fence-sitters with the race card so he and his ilk can continue to keep vote fraud as valid option in close elections.

JimLennon on December 30, 2011 at 12:59 PM

If anyone, in their right mind, doesn’t believe this is one of the reasons Obama is going to lose badly in November, they like being called racist. One thing that every voter knows, if they don’t vote for Obama, in November, and he loses, they won’t be called a racist again, once the new president is inaugurated.

FOr those who voted for Obama, thinking it would end the racial division in this country, I hope you learned a valuable lesson about where the prejudice really lies, and it ain’t with White Republicans.

bflat879 on December 30, 2011 at 1:00 PM

In Florida they slide our license through a scanner to read the magnetic strip before we vote. I don’t know what would happen if you don’t have i.d..

Cindy Munford on December 30, 2011 at 1:01 PM

williampeck1958 on December 30, 2011 at 12:49 PM

It is since the FEDS passed an unconstitutional law, which attempted to “right” past wrongs.

I shouldn’t have to, but I will state that racism in all forms is abhorrent.

However, a law which overrides state laws – or in this case the ability to pass a law 45-some odd years LATER – is blatantly wrong. Tack onto THAT the simple fact that the law ONLY applies to certain states, which have a “history” of racism, and you have a recipe for disaster. Enter disaster (x2) – EH and BHO. They “know it when they see it…”

Hueydriver on December 30, 2011 at 1:01 PM

The obvious conclusion is that Holder does indeed know that Section 5 is dead — for the Supreme Court has already given it the death knell.

Hence, making a Section 5 claim does not hurt Holder, but does have the effect, in this election year, of charging up the liberals with claims of racial discrimination.

We conservatives have a slightly different take on things — that, absent voter ID, it’s impossible to know how many of the 8.4% of white voters who have no ID and the 10% of minority voters who have no ID are fraudulent — dead or nonexistent.

Could it be that the Democrats have used racial discrimination laws in these states to hide a few hole cards in the form of dead/nonexistent/multiple voters?

Could it be?

unclesmrgol on December 30, 2011 at 1:03 PM

Corrupt, incompetent and racist is a bad combination. Holder is putting all three of these attributes on full display, and repeatedly.

One of the basic premises of appellate practice is to choose your battles and battlegrounds carefully. You don’t challenge law that is advantageous, and you don’t give opponents the opportunity to challenge law advantageous to you where the facts are on their side.

The corrupt Holder is determined to protect Democrat vote fraud operations. The racist Holder is convinced that Evil Whitey (R) is forever trying to oppress “his” people (and that isn’t all of his fellow Americans, despite his oaths). The incompetent Holder is incapable of recognizing the vulnerability of his position legally. He just can’t help himself.

Evil, racist and incompetent. The trifecta of stupid.

novaculus on December 30, 2011 at 1:03 PM

Obama and Holder will do more to destroy racial relations than anyone in history.

In 2012 he’ll be whiter than snow-white, because he needs those VA hillbillies, cousin-humping, bible-thumping, truck-driving, gun-toting fools back.

Good luck, you oaf! You’ve never known who you really are, nor will you ever. It’s all a farce. May you be mocked into oblivion, from where you came, based on absolutely nada. Holder is an inept, perfect for Obama’s top ‘legal’ dog.

Schadenfreude on December 30, 2011 at 1:04 PM

“he’ll be whiter than snow-white…” – Obama will be.

Schadenfreude on December 30, 2011 at 1:05 PM

Evil, racist and incompetent. The trifecta of stupid.

novaculus on December 30, 2011 at 1:03 PM

He’s perfect for Obama.

The land deserves them all, as she foolishly elected a narcissistic fool. Suffer into oblivion, all who voted for him, or enabled this to be reality. No less c/b justified, for generations to come.

Schadenfreude on December 30, 2011 at 1:07 PM

Schadenfreude on December 30, 2011 at 1:04 PM

It’s already started in the MSM. On Yahoo News there is an article about how the gulf oil industry is thriving thanks to Obama’s policies. And of course he is the tax cutter in chief ($40/month for 2 months).

By election day Obama will be the most conservative president ever and descended from the Mayflower.

angryed on December 30, 2011 at 1:08 PM

I have had to show my ID to vote in the last three POTUS elections, and all other elections in between. I had to do that just to get in the door, before I got anywhere near actual voting.

It’s a small Southern town so they have gotten away with it. Also, because people, don’t have a problem with it. It’s a good idea.

Moesart on December 30, 2011 at 1:09 PM

Another great post by Capt. Ed!

Hard times for Meerkats.

petefrt on December 30, 2011 at 1:10 PM

Holder is one of the main reasons that Obama must go in 2012.

Bis Sis, Geitner and the SCOTUS appointments should also be on everyone’s mind when they vote in November.

We might not field your ideal candidate but look at the alternative!

JetBlast on December 30, 2011 at 1:10 PM

Wow. Holder is standing up for the little guys.

Brian Terry hardest hit.

platypus on December 30, 2011 at 1:11 PM

By election day Obama will be the most conservative president ever and descended from the Mayflower.

angryed on December 30, 2011 at 1:08 PM

…and he has his madam too, like in The Mayflower Madam.

Schadenfreude on December 30, 2011 at 1:11 PM

bama and Holder will do HAVE DONE more to destroy racial relations than anyone in history.

FIFY. Already bad, and will get worse. Sad thing, it will get worse if he gets reelected. It will also get worse if he doesn’t.

Hueydriver on December 30, 2011 at 1:12 PM

Btw, angryed, keep fighting and don’t let the turkeys get you down. They’ll always fly low. That’s all they’re capable of.

Schadenfreude on December 30, 2011 at 1:12 PM

Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181 (2008)

Justice David Souter, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, filed a dissenting opinion, which would have declared the voter ID laws unconstitutional. Souter argued that Indiana had the burden of producing actual evidence of the existence of fraud, as opposed to relying on abstract harms, before imposing “an unreasonable and irrelevant burden on voters who are poor and old.”

J_Crater on December 30, 2011 at 1:12 PM

How about a compromise; to vote you must present proof that you have health insurance.

Sound good, Holder?

lorien1973 on December 30, 2011 at 12:41 PM

How about proof that you paid federal income taxes?

derft on December 30, 2011 at 1:14 PM

This beyond face in palm. This is head in butt.

banzaibob on December 30, 2011 at 1:17 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4