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

When Breitbart — not to mention Fox — breaks a big story, NBC and the Times cover it, too.

urban elitist on December 30, 2011 at 3:42 PM

Fast & Furious, anybody?

Solaratov on December 30, 2011 at 4:53 PM

SC reviews all possible state or federal requirements for photo-IDs; plans to apply DOJ theory across the board.

No longer will photo-ID be required for:

Alcohol sales
Tobacco sales
Firearm sales
Employee IDs
Driver licenses (photo will not included on license…deemed racist re: DOJ)
College IDs
In-bank, teller assisted transactions
Retail transactions
Passport applications originated in SC

etc.

BobMbx on December 30, 2011 at 4:54 PM

But the 8.4% are smart enough and civilized enough to just go out and get it. The 10% aren’t.

After all, that’s what Bill Clinton’s little bagboy for bribe money is saying…right?

MNHawk on December 30, 2011 at 5:01 PM

Why not just make it easy on these folks:

Mandate a photo be embedded in their EBT cards, similar to what many debit/credit cards have. It reduces fraud at the user level and can also serve as a “form” of photo ID.

Problem solved?

Key West Reader on December 30, 2011 at 5:05 PM

It would seem that holder doesn’t have a very high opinion of the intelligence of “his people” – and that they just aren’t smart enough to get a FREE ID card to vote.
Or, perhaps he thinks that “his people” are just too “shiftless and lazy” to go to the license bureau to get an ID.

Holder must really have a low opinion of “his people”. Maybe he’s a bigot.

Solaratov on December 30, 2011 at 5:08 PM

Fast & Furious, anybody?

Solaratov on December 30, 2011 at 4:53 PM

If you go to the New York Times website and search, you turn up 20 (or so) articles in the last 30 days.

No one here has accused Obama of being brilliant.

Midas on December 30, 2011 at 4:30 PM

But you could probably get a lot of votes for cynical and calculating.

Remember — successful politicians of any persuasion and IQ are incredibly smart about 1 thing. Getting elected.

But the 8.4% are smart enough and civilized enough to just go out and get it. The 10% aren’t.

After all, that’s what Bill Clinton’s little bagboy for bribe money is saying…right?

MNHawk on December 30, 2011 at 5:01 PM

The 8.4% will be disproportionally old, young and poor — also less likely to be properly credentialed and more likely to vote Democratic. But they’re nor covered by the Voting Rights Act and can’t be the basis of a suit (I believe).

urban elitist on December 30, 2011 at 5:10 PM

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

 
You really expect us to believe that these folks couldn’t show a photo ID if their lottery ticket hit? Or if they need cigarettes? Really?
 
Hey, that’s an idea. Photo ID required to play the lottery…
 
But here’s the best part:
 

Starting January 1st, California is requiring cough and cold buyers to show ID and prove they’re 18 or older before they get medicine containing DM.
 
- WKYT news

 
Voting = No ID.
Cough syrup = Requires ID.
 
Amazing.

rogerb on December 30, 2011 at 5:14 PM

I’ve seen the project where this occurred, and I’m pretty it’s virtually all black.

urban elitist on December 30, 2011 at 1:59 PM

I love how the little racist reveals himself.

How did you tell, racist boy? Is that because only black people would live in that kind of housing? Is that the magical plantation counting methodology that you used?

Answer me, racist boy. You claim, racist boy, that you knew just by looking at that project that everyone in it was black. Why is that, racist boy?

northdallasthirty on December 30, 2011 at 5:15 PM

So, wait. The guy who threw one of the most famous black ministers in the country under the bus is so racist that he’ll risk a million swing state white votes to cover up for a couple if thugs. Never happen.

urban elitist on December 30, 2011 at 4:26 PM

Yup.

Because Obama is surrounded by idiot ideologues and people like you who he knows will vote for him regardless of what he does or says because of his skin color.

You don’t have the brains or the balls to vote against Obama. You’ve been so brainwashed that you’re sitting here babbling that people caught ON VIDEO making racist slurs and threatening white people are not doing anything wrong because Eric Holder told you so.

northdallasthirty on December 30, 2011 at 5:17 PM

Furthermore, I think it’s time for counter warfare.

Liar and screamer Holder and his idiots like urban elitist say you shouldn’t have to prove identity or citizenship to vote.

In that case, Republicans simply need to turn the tactic around on them.

College Republicans should advocate that all of their members vote twice — once in their home location, and once at college.

All Republicans should, on election day, try to vote at least twice — and then file a lawsuit claiming discrimination if they are required to show an ID, produce proof of citizenship, or fill out a provisional ballot.

The idiot Holder and urban elitist depend on Republicans to follow the rules even when they won’t.

How far do you think the liar Holder and his puppets like urban elitist would get if Republicans retaliated in kind?

northdallasthirty on December 30, 2011 at 5:21 PM

Tennessee passed a similar voter ID law, requiring a government issued photo ID – it can be federal, such as a passport, or military, or state. If a voter doesn’t have one, the DMV provides them at no charge.

I guess Holder will be after our law next, as it goes into effect Sunday…

ladyingray on December 30, 2011 at 5:44 PM

I love how the little racist reveals himself.

How did you tell, racist boy? Is that because only black people would live in that kind of housing? Is that the magical plantation counting methodology that you used?

Answer me, racist boy. You claim, racist boy, that you knew just by looking at that project that everyone in it was black. Why is that, racist boy?

northdallasthirty on December 30, 2011 at 5:15 PM

What, it’s racist to know that certain neighborhoods (that I happened to drive through) in Philly are virtually all black? Here’s another hint: when you drive down the street and everyone you see is black, it’s a black neighborhood. Have you ever been to a city? Large American cities remain, unfortunately, very segregated by race.

It’s also been pointed out in a number of articles about the case, so I just had to know how to read

And, in Philly, as is most cities, housing projects in particular are very segrated, though the influx of Hispanics is throwing things off.

Yup.

Because Obama is surrounded by idiot ideologues and people like you who he knows will vote for him regardless of what he does or says because of his skin color.

You don’t have the brains or the balls to vote against Obama. You’ve been so brainwashed that you’re sitting here babbling that people caught ON VIDEO making racist slurs and threatening white people are not doing anything wrong because Eric Holder told you so.

northdallasthirty on December 30, 2011 at 5:17 PM

What crawled up your bunghole and died today? And speaking of stupid, I’m what you call “the base.” That’s why Obama doesn’t have to worry about my vote — the fear of Rick Santorum is enough to keep me solidly blue. Obama and his team are thinking about “swing voters.” You know, the people who vote D sometimes and R sometimes. The people who decide elections. You seem to lach a basic understanding of politics. Probably a Perry supporter.

And, I didn’t say they weren’t doing anything wrong, though I’m clearly less outraged than you. I said that they did not commit a prosecutable federal crime.

College Republicans should advocate that all of their members vote twice — once in their home location, and once at college.

All Republicans should, on election day, try to vote at least twice — and then file a lawsuit claiming discrimination if they are required to show an ID, produce proof of citizenship, or fill out a provisional ballot.

The idiot Holder and urban elitist depend on Republicans to follow the rules even when they won’t.

How far do you think the liar Holder and his puppets like urban elitist would get if Republicans retaliated in kind?

northdallasthirty on December 30, 2011 at 5:21 PM

Go for it. I don’t recall Holder or anyone advocating felonies, so I think I’d like this debate. It would show how little Republicans like you value Democracy.

I don’t wish to see old black ladies who were born at home, with midwifes, who worked hard all their life and didn’t get to vote for half of it, denied their basic rights. I’m sure that there are many white people in similar situations as well.

urban elitist on December 30, 2011 at 5:47 PM

Too bad so many “true conservatives” are ready to let 0dumbo take over the Supreme Court because they hate GOP candidate x.

mockmook on December 30, 2011 at 5:47 PM

I don’t wish to see old black ladies who were born at home, with midwifes, who worked hard all their life and didn’t get to vote for half of it, denied their basic rights. I’m sure that there are many white people in similar situations as well.

urban elitist on December 30, 2011 at 5:47 PM

Old black ladies, who were born at home, with midwifes, who worked hard all their life still need an ID to do everything else.

You can’t do anything, and that includes receiving any form of entitlement without ID.

darwin on December 30, 2011 at 5:51 PM

* the lower courts are obliged to follow Supreme Court precedent. If the laws are, for all intents and purposes, identical, then this exercise of Section 5 should be struck down … wonder what the timeline is? How likely is it that such an order would come down in the weeks prior to the election, just when it would be most helpful to “rile up the base”?

BD57 on December 30, 2011 at 2:27 PM

If the Supremes decide to hear it during this term, they will have to rule on it by the end of the term, next June. Just in time to give Obama another Race card to throw in the campaign, and a twofer with another SCOTUS decision to whine about skewing the election.

In case you guys can’t see the end game here, if Obama loses this election they are laying the groundwork for claims of election theft, voter suppression, and illegal corporate money helping the GOP because of the Citizens United decision. They are going to go after the Supreme Court hammer and tong. It’s going to make 2000 look like a game of patty-cake.

rockmom on December 30, 2011 at 5:54 PM

I don’t wish to see old black ladies who were born at home, with midwifes, who worked hard all their life and didn’t get to vote for half of it, denied their basic rights. I’m sure that there are many white people in similar situations as well.

urban elitist on December 30, 2011 at 5:47 PM

Old women born at home don’t have ID? They never drove, received state or federal benefits, held a job, got legally married, bought alcohol or tobacco products, finaced a car or home?

Who knew?

Tim_CA on December 30, 2011 at 5:56 PM

I don’t wish to see old black ladies who were born at home, with midwifes, who worked hard all their life and didn’t get to vote for half of it, denied their basic rights. I’m sure that there are many white people in similar situations as well.

urban elitist on December 30, 2011 at 5:47 PM

My mom is 89 years old and she has a photo ID. They require one at the Walmart when she pays with a check.

Can’t all these community organizers that Obama has recruited go out and help those old ladies and make sure they have their IDs?

rockmom on December 30, 2011 at 5:56 PM

Lying jerk! This is nothing more than Chicago-style politics being played out before our eyes. What has our country come to when the man who is supposed to be upholding the law fragrantly breaks it? And gets away with it?

Samantha on December 30, 2011 at 5:57 PM

Old black ladies, who were born at home, with midwifes, who worked hard all their life still need an ID to do everything else.

You can’t do anything, and that includes receiving any form of entitlement without ID.

darwin on December 30, 2011 at 5:51 PM

If you have to do everything with ID, why do so many people not have IDs?

urban elitist on December 30, 2011 at 5:57 PM

I despise Holder because he’s a two-bit political hack, a coward, a racist, and a leftist. But none of that will get him fired, somehow.

What’s going to get him fired is that he is also stupid, unqualified, incompetent, and corrupt. This is an astonishing combination of character flaws for a man who has shrewdly achieved wealth and status through government affirmative action policies, all from posing as a black man.

He is the poster child for the corruption and failure of affirmative action.

Jaibones on December 30, 2011 at 5:59 PM

If you have to do everything with ID, why do so many people not have IDs?

urban elitist on December 30, 2011 at 5:57 PM

ROTFLMAO – You finally got there sparky!!!

Why indeed.

Tim_CA on December 30, 2011 at 6:00 PM

Fast & Furious, anybody?

Solaratov on December 30, 2011 at 4:53 PM

If you go to the New York Times website and search, you turn up 20 (or so) articles in the last 30 days.

urban elitist on December 30, 2011 at 5:10 PM

You seem quite fond of quoting the NYT. Based on your comments here, I am guessing it’s your primary “news source”.

I just did a Google Search on NY Times stories covering Fast and Furious.

December 8th, by Charlie Savage:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/09/us/politics/holder-clashes-with-republicans-on-fast-and-furious.html

This was buried on Page A27, and was incorrectly “reported” at first, as the Correction at the bottom indicates.

December 2, also by Charlie Savage:

Buried on Page A15

October 31, 2011, also by Charlie:

Buried on Page A17

October 7, this one by Edward Wyatt

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/01/us/atfs-operation-wide-receiver-sent-illegal-guns-to-mexico.html

Buried on Page A14

Back in 2008, your NY Times put a false story about Republican John McCain having an affair on Page 1. Was that a more important story that this one?

Don’t worry, I have plenty more where this came from.

Del Dolemonte on December 30, 2011 at 6:01 PM

If you have to do everything with ID, why do so many people not have IDs?

urban elitist on December 30, 2011 at 5:57 PM

I’m not sure they don’t, because they’re either totally dependent on someone else, or live in a box in the woods and eat grubs.

darwin on December 30, 2011 at 6:02 PM

ROTFLMAO – You finally got there sparky!!!

Why indeed.

Tim_CA on December 30, 2011 at 6:00 PM

So I guess the argument that you somehow have to have ID to survive in America is not valid. Apparently you don’t.

So, let’s move onto the next argument for suppressing the vote.

urban elitist on December 30, 2011 at 6:03 PM

If you have to do everything with ID, why do so many people not have IDs?

urban elitist on December 30, 2011 at 5:57 PM

88% of Americans do.

Del Dolemonte on December 30, 2011 at 6:04 PM

Can’t all these community organizers that Obama has recruited go out and help those old ladies and make sure they have their IDs?

rockmom on December 30, 2011 at 5:56 PM

They’ll be too busy handing out the walking-around money to the illegals.

They don’t care about little old ladies—most of whom remember a greater America and know the evils of socialism. Not too many Obama votes there I’m thinking.

IrishEi on December 30, 2011 at 6:05 PM

70% of Americans favor showing photo ID at the voting booth.

This campaign by Obamaholder will only serve to distance themselves even further from the American people as a whole.

Progressives: They grow too soon old, and too late smart.

Key West Reader on December 30, 2011 at 6:06 PM

Fantastic editorial today in the Wall Street Journal on holder’s blatant race-card attack on Voter ID and how his actions are in violation of numerous Supreme Court ruling.

TeaPartyNation on December 30, 2011 at 6:06 PM

So, let’s move onto the next argument for suppressing the vote.

urban elitist on December 30, 2011 at 6:03 PM

You still haven’t provided any credible proof of voter suppression in the past. Remember, we asked you to prove what happened in Florida 2000 was voter suppression, and the best you could do is come up with a 6 year old unsigned Opinion Piece in the NY Times, a “newspaper” that endorsed the losing candidate in 2000.

Del Dolemonte on December 30, 2011 at 6:06 PM

So I guess the argument that you somehow have to have ID to survive in America is not valid. Apparently you don’t.

So, let’s move onto the next argument for suppressing the vote.

urban elitist on December 30, 2011 at 6:03 PM

No.

The ANSWER is ANYONE who needs a valid ID has quick, easy access to one, and that ID is required for normal, everyday living (try cashing your paycheck or collecting public benefits without it).

What reason (aside from obvious voter fraud) would be the argument for NOT requiring ID at the polls since it’s required for almost EVERY OTHER public or private transaction?

Tim_CA on December 30, 2011 at 6:09 PM

This is all the little commies known as “democrats” have left. Scream “racism” everywhere you go and hope it keeps blacks voting for you.

darwin on December 30, 2011 at 6:10 PM

This is all the little commies known as “democrats” have left. Scream “racism” everywhere you go and hope it keeps blacks voting for you.

darwin on December 30, 2011 at 6:10 PM

Don’t forget:

The Dead
Cartoon Characters
Your Neighbors
Illegals

We can’t disenfranchise them certainly.

Tim_CA on December 30, 2011 at 6:14 PM

From Newsbusters, November 10, 2011

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/clay-waters/2011/11/10/nytimes-spikes-fast-furious-hearing-print-omits-eric-holders-admission-

Obama administration Attorney General Eric Holder was grilled by Republicans on Capitol Hill Tuesday about the Justice Department’s botched sting Operation Fast and Furious, which allowed guns to flow untracked into the U.S. and Mexico, putting thousands of illegally purchased firearms on the street, one of which led to the death of Border Patrol agent Brian Terry in the Arizona desert.

Republican questioners even forced Holder to admit his initial statements to Congress about his knowledge of the gun-walking were “inaccurate.” But the New York Times’s print edition completely skipped it.

Reporter Charlie Savage’s story, “Holder Urges Lawmakers to Support Efforts to Stop Gun Trafficking,” apparently never even made it into print. And as that headline shows, the Times was in spin mode for the administration, emphasizing Holder’s wish “to move past the political furor” (though one couldn’t detect much furor in the paper’s previous sparse coverage) and completely omitting Holder’s admission of “inaccuracy.”

-snip-

By contrast, the Washington Post played it on page 2 Wednesday, leading with Holder taking back his previous congressional testimony regarding when he learned of the operation: “Holder amends remarks on gun sting – Attorney general heard of ‘Fast and Furious’ earlier than he first said.”

Del Dolemonte on December 30, 2011 at 6:18 PM

ladyingray on December 30, 2011 at 5:44 PM

you’re not in a swing state apparently, so you should be ok

:)

cmsinaz on December 30, 2011 at 6:20 PM

So, let’s move onto the next argument for suppressing the vote.

urban elitist on December 30, 2011 at 6:03 PM

ACORN is done. Get over it.

Key West Reader on December 30, 2011 at 6:20 PM

What, it’s racist to know that certain neighborhoods (that I happened to drive through) in Philly are virtually all black? Here’s another hint: when you drive down the street and everyone you see is black, it’s a black neighborhood. Have you ever been to a city? Large American cities remain, unfortunately, very segregated by race.

So you just assumed. Like a good racist.

What crawled up your bunghole and died today? And speaking of stupid, I’m what you call “the base.” That’s why Obama doesn’t have to worry about my vote — the fear of Rick Santorum is enough to keep me solidly blue. Obama and his team are thinking about “swing voters.” You know, the people who vote D sometimes and R sometimes. The people who decide elections.

Unfortunately, swing voters overwhelmingly support voter ID. They also don’t like being called racists, which is all that your idiot Holder and Obama know how to do.

But thanks for demonstrating how brainwashed you are.

Go for it. I don’t recall Holder or anyone advocating felonies, so I think I’d like this debate. It would show how little Republicans like you value Democracy.

Correction. Republicans would be doing this in response to the fact that Eric Holder is supporting voter fraud. Once Holder is properly behind bars, laws will be passed to prevent such games.

Your support and endorsement of voter fraud shows how little you value democracy. But we already know that; the stupid screaming child Obama has already whined that he wishes he could be a dictator.

I don’t wish to see old black ladies who were born at home, with midwifes, who worked hard all their life and didn’t get to vote for half of it, denied their basic rights.

urban elitist on December 30, 2011 at 5:47 PM

Again, your racist assumption that none of them have IDs.

You are such a stinking racist. And that’s what makes it funny. You hate black people and think they are all poor, ignorant fools who can’t drive, can’t get a job, can’t cash checks, can’t get on an airplane, and all sorts of things.

Obama Party members like you never change. Slave owners in the 1800s, KKK in the 1900s, and now welfare plantation owners in the 2000s.

northdallasthirty on December 30, 2011 at 6:21 PM

88% of Americans do.

Del Dolemonte on December 30, 2011 at 6:04 PM

So 12% don’t.

No.

The ANSWER is ANYONE who needs a valid ID has quick, easy access to one, and that ID is required for normal, everyday living (try cashing your paycheck or collecting public benefits without it).

What reason (aside from obvious voter fraud) would be the argument for NOT requiring ID at the polls since it’s required for almost EVERY OTHER public or private transaction?

Tim_CA on December 30, 2011 at 6:09 PM

You can’t simultaneously argue that everyone has an ID, and everyone needs one, and then admit that a significant percentage of Americans don’t. The second point contradicts the first.

If there were every any real documented cases of significant voter fraud, you’d have an argument for forcing IDs. But there aren’t. It’s simply that people who vote Democratic tend to be less well documented, demographically, so whenever Republicans can put together a 2-house legislative majority and a governor, they take an opportunity to incrementally improve their chances next round.

Just admit that you’re playing politics and you don’t care who doesn’t vote — you’d at least be honest.

urban elitist on December 30, 2011 at 6:22 PM

Bishop: prosecuting The New Black Panthers would be challenging because investigators could find no instances of intimidation. And why would black guys go to an all-black housing project if their goal was intimidating white voters?
urban elitist on December 30, 2011 at 1:40 PM

Sorry but sanding in front of a polling place with baseball bats is intimidation,
And why would black guys go to an all-black housing project if their goal was to
intimidating white voters?

Who said the goal was to intimidate white voters? Sounds like your making some racist assumption? Are you saying black voters could only vote for Obama cuz he’s black?

Minister King Samir Shabazz and Jerry Jackson, were charged with voter intimidation for their conduct outside a polling station in Philadelphia. The Department of Justice later narrowed the charges against Minister King Shabazz and dismissed the charges against the New Black Panther Party and Jerry Jackson.
The decision to dismiss the charges has led to accusations that the Department of Justice under the Obama administration is unwilling to prosecute minorities for civil rights violations.
Panther Party were accused of voter intimidation took place on Election Day in November 2008, at a polling station in a predominantly African-American, Democratic voting district of Philadelphia. Two members of the New Black Panther party, Minister King Samir Shabazz, and Jerry Jackson, stood in front of the entrance to the polling station in uniforms that have been described as military or paramilitary. Minister King Shabazz carried a billy club, and is reported to have pointed it at voters while both men shouted racial slurs, including phrases such as “white devil” and “you’re about to be ruled by the black man, cracker.

Gee that sounds like they were trying to intimidate voters, and did you notice the polling place was in a predominantly African-American, Democratic voting district, not as you falsely claim “an all-black housing project” kinda sorts destroys your argument don’t it?

The case remained open when the Obama administration took office a few weeks later.
In April 2009 Bartie Bull, a former civil rights lawyer who was serving as a poll watcher at the polling station where the incident occurred, submitted an affidavit at Justice’s request supporting the lawsuit, stating that he considered it to have been the most severe instance of voter intimidation he had ever encountered
When none of the defendants who were charged appeared in court to answer the charges, the career attorneys pursuing the lawsuit assumed that they would win it by default. However the career attorneys’ move to pursue a default judgment against the defendants was overruled by two of their line superiors, Loretta King who was acting Assistant Attorney General and Steve Rosenbaum, Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General.

Gee that kinda blows your “investigators could find no instances of intimidation”.
Lets see, hum a former civil rights lawyer submitting an affidavit.
We have the You Tube video.
And we have none of the defendants who were charged appeared in court.
That’s a 1,2,3 strikes and yur out.
You give us 2 lies, investigators could find no instances of intimidation. And all-black housing project Both blatant lies!

Why do we get the lazy stupid trolls here?

DSchoen on December 30, 2011 at 6:24 PM

So I guess the argument that you somehow have to have ID to survive in America is not valid.

urban elitist on December 30, 2011 at 6:03 PM

Yeah, nobody needs any of the following:

Library cards

Membership cards issued by private clubs (social, athletic, educational, alumni, etc.)

Membership cards (called loyalty cards) issued by private companies (supermarkets, warehouse club stores, etc.)

Membership cards issued by professional organizations

Membership cards issued by private associations

Access documents issued by private or governmental organizations, such as a press pass, or a stage pass

License documents issued by government organizations authorizing privileges other than driving, such as an amateur radio license or concealed firearm permit.

Del Dolemonte on December 30, 2011 at 6:26 PM

So 12% don’t.

urban elitist on December 30, 2011 at 6:22 PM

Then if they’re too lazy to get a free ID or don’t give a shyt either way that’s their problem.

If you’re so concerned find these people and drive them to the DMV.

darwin on December 30, 2011 at 6:26 PM

I can’t wait for the first lawsuit that says showing IDs to buy guns discriminates against people who don’t have ID’s.

darwin on December 30, 2011 at 6:27 PM

So, let’s move onto the next argument for suppressing the vote.

urban elitist on December 30, 2011 at 6:03 PM

Get some new talking points . The new trolls are of such low quality. So sad.

CW on December 30, 2011 at 6:27 PM

If there were every any real documented cases of significant voter fraud, you’d have an argument for forcing IDs. But there aren’t.

urban elitist on December 30, 2011 at 6:22 PM

Actually, there are.

You’ve already shown your racism by your continual screaming that black people are all too stupid, incompetent, and poor to get photo IDs.

Also, racist boy, answer this question: since photo IDs are required to hold a job in this country, will you state that this requirement is racist and meant to discriminate against minorities?

Also, since the lying piece of filth Holder requires you to have photo ID to enter government buildings, will you state that he’s a racist who wants to discriminate against minorities?

And last, this hilarious statement:

Just admit that you’re playing politics and you don’t care who doesn’t vote — you’d at least be honest.

urban elitist on December 30, 2011 at 6:22 PM

Yes. We don’t care that people who are trying to vote fraudulently, including non-citizens and Obama Party operatives, don’t vote.

Now, just admit that you’re playing politics, and that allowing non-citizens to vote and Obama Party operatives to vote multiple times is all you care about doing.

That would at least be honest.

northdallasthirty on December 30, 2011 at 6:28 PM

88% of Americans do.

Del Dolemonte on December 30, 2011 at 6:04 PM

So 12% don’t.

Keep shoveling.

Del Dolemonte on December 30, 2011 at 6:28 PM

What, it’s racist to know that certain neighborhoods (that I happened to drive through) in Philly are virtually all black? Here’s another hint: when you drive down the street and everyone you see is black, it’s a black neighborhood. Have you ever been to a city? Large American cities remain, unfortunately, very segregated by race.

So you just assumed. Like a good racis

t.

Really? You’re too stupid to look around a neighborhood and figure out the racial content? When you’re in Chinatown, do you think you’re in Little Italy? This one I don’t get.

Unfortunately, swing voters overwhelmingly support voter ID. They also don’t like being called racists, which is all that your idiot Holder and Obama know how to do.

But thanks for demonstrating how brainwashed you are.

The swing voters were a reference to “racist” Eric Holder letting off the Philly thugs and whether Obama would risk middle of the road white votes by covering up for two people who mean nothing for him.

I don’t wish to see old black ladies who were born at home, with midwifes, who worked hard all their life and didn’t get to vote for half of it, denied their basic rights.

urban elitist on December 30, 2011 at 5:47 PM

Again, your racist assumption that none of them have IDs.

My assumption is not that old black ladies don’t have ID. It’s that, of the people who do have ID’s, they are probably disproportionately old and minority. Which actually isn’t an assumption, it’s a fact.

urban elitist on December 30, 2011 at 6:28 PM

If there were every any real documented cases of significant voter fraud, you’d have an argument for forcing IDs. But there aren’t. It’s simply that people who vote Democratic tend to be less well documented, demographically, so whenever Republicans can put together a 2-house legislative majority and a governor, they take an opportunity to incrementally improve their chances next round.

Just admit that you’re playing politics and you don’t care who doesn’t vote — you’d at least be honest.

urban elitist on December 30, 2011 at 6:22 PM

um….google “2008 presidential election voter fraud”…..I don’t even know where to start with this.

Tim_CA on December 30, 2011 at 6:29 PM

Del Dolemonte on December 30, 2011 at 6:26 PM

Libraries discriminate against people without ID’s.

Join the protest at your local library this Saturday and join PALTRIDS (People Against Libraries That Require IDs)

darwin on December 30, 2011 at 6:29 PM

urban elitist on December 30, 2011 at 6:28 PM

wow…..cherry-picking the thread and still losing.

crr6 had nothing on you!

Tim_CA on December 30, 2011 at 6:30 PM

If there were every any real documented cases of significant voter fraud, you’d have an argument for forcing IDs. But there aren’t.

urban elitist on December 30, 2011 at 6:22 PM

You’re not old enough to remember 1960?

My assumption is not that old black ladies don’t have ID. It’s that, of the people who do have ID’s, they are probably disproportionately old and minority. Which actually isn’t an assumption, it’s a fact.

urban elitist on December 30, 2011 at 6:28 PM

Citing something as fact requires credible evidence.

Del Dolemonte on December 30, 2011 at 6:31 PM

The photo ID I want to see of Holder is his mug shot as he goes to prison for malfeasance.

profitsbeard on December 30, 2011 at 6:31 PM

If there were every any real documented cases of significant voter fraud, you’d have an argument for forcing IDs. But there aren’t.

urban elitist on December 30, 2011 at 6:22 PM

Talking point elitist. You’re a joke.

CW on December 30, 2011 at 6:31 PM

My assumption is not that old black ladies don’t have ID. It’s that, of the people who do have ID’s, they are probably disproportionately old and minority. Which actually isn’t an assumption, it’s a fact.

urban elitist on December 30, 2011 at 6:28 PM

If they’re old they’re receiving medicare and SS. You need an ID.

I don’t follow the minorities don’t have ID’s thing. I asked the black guys I work with about this and they don’t know anyone 18 and up without ID.

darwin on December 30, 2011 at 6:33 PM

And let’s quote what the babbling idiot urban elitist supports and endorses.

Eric Shawn at FOX News reports that two Troy city officials, the city clerk and a councilman, along with two Democratic political operatives, have pled guilty to forging absentee-ballot signatures and casting fraudulent ballots in the 2009 Working Families Party primary. The WFP is the political party associated with ACORN.

Nothing wrong with that. No voter fraud ever happens. Screaming little idiot urban elitist swore up and down that voter fraud is never real and it’s all a Republican trick.

And why do they do it?

As for the constant liberal claims that voter fraud does not occur, one of the Democratic operatives who pled guilty, Anthony DeFiglio, told New York State police investigators “that faking absentee ballots was a commonplace and accepted practice in political circles, all intended to swing an election.” And whose votes do they steal? DeFiglio was very plain about that: “The people who are targeted live in low-income housing, and there is a sense that they are a lot less likely to ask any questions.”

That is exactly what former Alabama congressman Artur Davis said recently when he admitted that he was wrong to oppose voter-ID requirements. Davis says the “most aggressive” voter suppression “is the wholesale manufacture of ballots, at the polls and absentee, in parts of the Black Belt” of Alabama, which is an area of very poor black communities. These are the very areas where the NAACP claims voter fraud does not happen. The NAACP opposes all reasonable measures to safeguard the voting process for its own constituents, even going to the extent of defending vote stealers, as the NAACP did in Greene County, Ala., in the mid-1990s. Small wonder one of its local officials was recently sentenced to five years in prison for voter fraud in Tunica County, Mississippi.

Urban elitist needs fraud because he and his Obama Party have to make sure those people they consider their slaves all vote right. Urban elitist and his Black Panther friends will make sure that the slaves all stay in line, or they’ll get beaten by their white massas in the Obama Party.

northdallasthirty on December 30, 2011 at 6:33 PM

Join the protest at your local library this Saturday and join PALTRIDS (People Against Libraries That Require IDs)

darwin on December 30, 2011 at 6:29 PM

No Way – they might get my real address and make me return the books.

Tim_CA on December 30, 2011 at 6:33 PM

um….google “2008 presidential election voter fraud”…..I don’t even know where to start with this.

Tim_CA on December 30, 2011 at 6:29 PM

Yeah, those 113 felons out of 2.9 million votes in Minnesota — probably people who had no idea they were committing fraud when they signed up. There is no systemic effort to steal elections in this country by registering voters.

Or was this the article you meant me to see.

urban elitist on December 30, 2011 at 6:34 PM

Dumbasses like urban elitist worrying about a reasonable expectation of the American voter when we have far effing more to worry about:

Just 55.3% of Americans Between 16 & 29 Have Jobs

Yep elitist keep voting blue..sheesh you are as dumb as a box of rocks.

CW on December 30, 2011 at 6:36 PM

Or was this the article you meant me to see.

urban elitist on December 30, 2011 at 6:34 PM

Really from Salon.com ..you don’t say. Now that is an unbiased source.

CW on December 30, 2011 at 6:37 PM

Thankfully those old ladies don’t want a video rental card or the use of a rental car. Really. Pathetic.

CW on December 30, 2011 at 6:39 PM

urban elitist on December 30, 2011 at 6:34 PM

LMAO…keep cherry-picking – and you still lose. The one case you cited was indeed voter fraud – yet according to you….there were none….so far you’re at 113 – how many do you need? I’m sure I can find ‘em for ya (since you’re too lazy)?

2008 was a pretty good year for y’all!

Tim_CA on December 30, 2011 at 6:39 PM

um….google “2008 presidential election voter fraud”…..I don’t even know where to start with this.

Tim_CA on December 30, 2011 at 6:29 PM

And after that you can google “2000 presidential election voter fraud”…

Then google “sore losers who cry fraud when their candidate gets his clock cleaned in the election.”

MelonCollie on December 30, 2011 at 6:41 PM

Just admit that you’re playing politics and you don’t care who doesn’t vote — you’d at least be honest.

urban elitist on December 30, 2011 at 6:22 PM

Project much Hon?

oh and….don’t tell me what I care about dumb@ss

Tim_CA on December 30, 2011 at 6:42 PM

Really from Salon.com ..you don’t say. Now that is an unbiased source.

CW on December 30, 2011 at 6:37 PM

As opposed to the National Review article by Von Spakovsky?

Then google “sore losers who cry fraud when their candidate gets his clock cleaned in the election.”

MelonCollie on December 30, 2011 at 6:41 PM

Really? because I’m thinking about Minnesota, Maryland (Governor’s race, a while back. Maybe ’88) The Washington Governor’s race…

urban elitist on December 30, 2011 at 6:44 PM

And after that you can google “2000 presidential election voter fraud”…

Then google “sore losers who cry fraud when their candidate gets his clock cleaned in the election.”

MelonCollie on December 30, 2011 at 6:41 PM

Um…..no……fraud is fraud actually – but whatever blows yer hair back.

(wtf?)

Tim_CA on December 30, 2011 at 6:45 PM

Or was this the article you meant me to see.

urban elitist on December 30, 2011 at 6:34 PM

Bwahaha, now you have your Spin Machine stuck in Reverse. Giving us Salon as a credible cite won’t help you here.

Now, let’s get back to 1960. As the Washington Post tells us:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A36425-2000Nov16?language=printer

Nixon may have quit, but his campaign manager and the Republican National Committee fought on.

Hall and Morton dispatched teams of GOP operatives to ferret out evidence of election fraud in eight states–Illinois, New Jersey, Texas, Missouri, New Mexico, Nevada, South Carolina and Pennsylvania. Morton himself traveled to Chicago, where he announced the creation of what he called “the National Recount and Fair Elections Committee.”

Morton’s minions failed to uncover much fraud in most states, but they hit pay dirt in Texas and Illinois.

In Texas, Kennedy’s 46,000-vote margin was the closest statewide race there since 1948, when Kennedy’s running mate, Lyndon B. Johnson, won a Senate seat by 87 votes (the origin of the nickname “Landslide Lyndon”). Morton’s operatives, aided by local Republicans, uncovered plenty of political chicanery. For instance: In Fannin County, which had 4,895 registered voters, 6,138 votes were cast, three-quarters of them for Kennedy. In one precinct of Angelia County, 86 people voted and the final tally was 147 for Kennedy, 24 for Nixon.

On and on it went. The Republicans demanded a recount, claiming that it would give them 100,000 votes and victory. John Connally, the state Democratic chairman, said the Republicans were just “haggling for headlines” and predicted that a recount would give Kennedy another 50,000 votes.

But there was no recount. The Texas Election Board, composed entirely of Democrats, had already certified Kennedy as the winner.

In Chicago, where Kennedy won by more than 450,000 votes, local reporters uncovered so many stories of electoral shenanigans–including voting by the dead–that the Chicago Tribune concluded that “the election of November 8 was characterized by such gross and palpable fraud as to justify the conclusion that [Nixon] was deprived of victory.”

A new biography, “American Pharaoh,” quotes Mayor Daley defending his city by claiming that Democratic fraud in Chicago was no worse than Republican fraud in downstate Illinois:

“You look at some of those downstate counties,” he said, “and it’s just as fantastic as some of those precincts they’re pointing at in Chicago.”

Robert Kennedy, his brother’s campaign manager, shrugged off the whole controversy: “A tempest in a teapot.”

A Republican National Committee member filed suit to challenge the Chicago results. The case was assigned to Circuit Court Judge Thomas Kluczynski, a Daley machine loyalist.

On Dec. 13, Kluczynski dismissed the Republican suit. Less than a year later, on Mayor Daley’s recommendation, Kennedy appointed Kluczynski to the federal bench.

Ultimately, a special prosecutor, Morris Wexler, was appointed to investigate the Chicago fraud allegations. Wexler brought charges against 650 election officials but a Democratic judge’s pro-defense rulings crippled Wexler’s case and the charges were dropped.

Finally, in 1962, after an election judge confessed to witnessing vote tampering in Chicago’s 28th ward, three precinct workers pled guilty and served short jail terms.

You know what your problem was in 2000, kid? Your Party didn’t have enough Activist Judges in SCOTUS. But you almost pulled it off anyway.

If Holder and O’bama steal the 2012 election, they will have enough SCOTUS Justices to steal future elections.

As you Leftists are so fond of saying, “Mission Accomplished!”

Del Dolemonte on December 30, 2011 at 6:48 PM

As you Leftists are so fond of saying, “Mission Accomplished!”

Del Dolemonte on December 30, 2011 at 6:48 PM

Hey…haven’t we heard that phrase before?

From a certain president, just a few years back?

MelonCollie on December 30, 2011 at 6:50 PM

Really from Salon.com ..you don’t say. Now that is an unbiased source.

CW on December 30, 2011 at 6:37 PM

Is Salon still run by the Leftist Dweeb who’s the brother of the guy who played Gilbert in “Leave It To Beaver”?

Last time I checked, Salon’s share value was something like 2 cents a share. If not for 1%-ers like Soros, they would have died years ago.

Del Dolemonte on December 30, 2011 at 6:51 PM

How does one get a job without ID?

If one does not have a job, how does one get unemployment or welfare without ID?

How does one apply for school without ID?

darwin on December 30, 2011 at 6:51 PM

As opposed to the National Review article by Von Spakovsky?

urban elitist on December 30, 2011 at 6:44 PM

Yup. The Salon article was written by a proven liar and contained no worthy facts; the National Review article contained multiple links and reference sources.

You just lied and you got caught. Now be honest and admit that you and your leftwing Obama supporters need and are committing voter fraud.

northdallasthirty on December 30, 2011 at 6:52 PM

How does one get a job without ID?

If one does not have a job, how does one get unemployment or welfare without ID?

How does one apply for school without ID?

darwin on December 30, 2011 at 6:51 PM

Some employers will hire a worker without ID and pay in cash under the table, mostly to avoid taxes and paperwork. This is usually done for illegal immigrants, although some managers have just had it with bureaucracy.

By applying for school I assume you mean college? You can pay in cash. I did a few times.

MelonCollie on December 30, 2011 at 6:56 PM

As you Leftists are so fond of saying, “Mission Accomplished!”

Del Dolemonte on December 30, 2011 at 6:48 PM

Hey…haven’t we heard that phrase before?

From a certain president, just a few years back?

MelonCollie on December 30, 2011 at 6:50 PM

Yeah, Chimpy Bush threw his voice to make Chrissy Matthews believe the banner on the ship he was on could speak.

You do remember how Chrissy reacted on-air to that landing, don’t you? It was before he drank the Kool Aid.

As Media Matters whined at the time:

MATTHEWS: What do you make of the actual visual that people will see on TV and probably, as you know, as well as I, will remember a lot longer than words spoken tonight? And that’s the president looking very much like a jet, you know, a high-flying jet star. A guy who is a jet pilot. Has been in the past when he was younger, obviously.

-snip-

MATTHEWS: Do you think this role, and I want to talk politically [...], the president deserves everything he’s doing tonight in terms of his leadership. He won the war. He was an effective commander. Everybody recognizes that, I believe, except a few critics.

-snip-

Here’s a president who’s really nonverbal. He’s like Eisenhower. He looks great in a military uniform. He looks great in that cowboy costume he wears when he goes West.

-snip-

He looks for real. What is it about the commander in chief role, the hat that he does wear, that makes him — I mean, he seems like — he didn’t fight in a war, but he looks like he does.

Del Dolemonte on December 30, 2011 at 6:58 PM

You just lied and you got caught. Now be honest and admit that you and your leftwing Obama supporters need and are committing voter fraud.

northdallasthirty on December 30, 2011 at 6:52 PM

This one doesn’t know it’s lying……the kool-aid is strong…….very strong…….can’t fight…..the…..kool……….aiiiiid….

Tim_CA on December 30, 2011 at 6:58 PM

If illegal aliens were voting for Republicans…

… Holder would not only insist on Photo Id’s to vote, but thumbprints and handwriting analysis to boot.

Oh, and the southern border wouldn’t only be sealed…

… there would be land mines and sniper towers.

/

Seven Percent Solution on December 30, 2011 at 6:59 PM

If illegal aliens were voting for Republicans…

… Holder would not only insist on Photo Id’s to vote, but thumbprints and handwriting analysis to boot.

Oh, and the southern border wouldn’t only be sealed…

… there would be land mines and sniper towers.

/

Seven Percent Solution on December 30, 2011 at 6:59 PM

Ding ding ding!

darwin on December 30, 2011 at 7:01 PM

Seven Percent Solution on December 30, 2011 at 6:59 PM

LMAO…..then you’d see bammies “moat with alligators” by God!

Tim_CA on December 30, 2011 at 7:02 PM

Just a reminder, when Holder spoke earlier month at the LBJ Library about this issue, everyone attending the speech had to produce Photo ID to get in.

Del Dolemonte on December 30, 2011 at 7:04 PM

Just a reminder, when Holder spoke earlier month at the LBJ Library about this issue, everyone attending the speech had to produce Photo ID to get in.

Del Dolemonte on December 30, 2011 at 7:04 PM

Racist.

Tim_CA on December 30, 2011 at 7:05 PM

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.

By this “logic” all prison sentences should be eliminated as proportionately more “African Americans” are in prison and by a lot bigger disparity than 8.4% to 10%. Speaking of prison sentences, why isn’t Eric Holder in prison for mass murder, if not in the U.S., then in Mexico? The whole DOJ under Eric Holder has become a criminal organization.

VorDaj on December 30, 2011 at 7:05 PM

Or was this the article you meant me to see.

urban elitist on December 30, 2011 at 6:34 PM

Lori Minnite, the source for that article is a disciple of Francis Fox Piven – Of Cloward & Piven. She has an axe to grind and like any good aging hippie she uses academia to pimp her agenda. She attempts to redefine the meaning of Voter-Fraud because if you control he language you control the argument. There are videos of her nonsense on youtube.

My assumption is not that old black ladies don’t have ID. It’s that, of the people who do have ID’s, they are probably disproportionately old and minority. Which actually isn’t an assumption, it’s a fact.

urban elitist on December 30, 2011 at 6:28 PM

Some elderly people have let their drivers license expire so they may not have a current ID but that is easily remedied. This has nothing to do with race.

batterup on December 30, 2011 at 7:05 PM

Seven Percent Solution on December 30, 2011 at 6:59 PM

LMAO…..then you’d see bammies “moat with alligators” by God!

Tim_CA on December 30, 2011 at 7:02 PM

Personally I’d prefer moats with piranhas. Alligators and crocs can only get one at a time, and border-burglers often come across in groups.

MelonCollie on December 30, 2011 at 7:05 PM

God bless all you good folks trying to beat some sense into old “urban elitist’s” head, but after reading all the back and forth through the whole thread, I’ve reached the decision that you are wasting your breath and time, and he/she/it is just too stupid to argue with.

silvernana on December 30, 2011 at 7:15 PM

s opposed to the National Review article by Von Spakovsky?

urban elitist on December 30, 2011 at 6:44 PM

When did I post that?

CW on December 30, 2011 at 7:28 PM

Still here?

In case you’re wondering, back in Washington, John Wayne killed a bunch of Comanches and got his niece back.

Now, out to a club where they once stamped my hands so I couldn’t drink, even though I was 50, because my license had expired the week before. Bit of irony there, I suspect.

And this is one bouncer you do not mess with/

Cheers.

urban elitist on December 30, 2011 at 7:38 PM

“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”

I believe you mean 1965 Voting Rights Act.

netster007x on December 30, 2011 at 7:42 PM

Jack Kelly explains it best. http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11352/1197406-373-0.stm

COgirl on December 30, 2011 at 7:49 PM

The administration’s action here is nuts. There is absolutely nothing racially discriminating in requiring voters to show photo ID to vote. We must show photo ID to drive a car, to board a plane… For something as important as a presidential election, it only makes sense to verify that a person is who they say they are. I hope the supreme court invalidates VRA section 5 altogether, it gives far too much power to these buffoons.

netster007x on December 30, 2011 at 7:55 PM

netster007x on December 30, 2011 at 7:55 PM

Good. You are almost as sick of this as I am.

IlikedAUH2O on December 30, 2011 at 7:58 PM

I think we need ballots in Spanish and immunity at the polls for illegals who may want to vote.

IlikedAUH2O on December 30, 2011 at 8:02 PM

Today’s South is a far, far different region than it was 46 years ago. Did you read the articles I referenced about changes to voting ballots in Kinston, NC? DoJ insists that minorities need the cue of a political party designation to vote “correctly.” That is blatant favoritism. That is not necessary nor was it ever “fair.”

ExpressoBold on December 30, 2011 at 1:39 PM

I agree. But that doesn’t change the fact that, 46 years ago, the legislation was needed, and that we Republicans were the strongest force behind it.

It is a given that the Democrats would warp and distort, for their own purposes, this Act.

unclesmrgol on December 30, 2011 at 8:10 PM

I think we need ballots in Spanish and immunity at the polls for illegals who may want to vote.

IlikedAUH2O on December 30, 2011 at 8:02 PM

LMAO – quit tossing grenades!

Tim_CA on December 30, 2011 at 8:10 PM

Now, out to a club where they once stamped my hands so I couldn’t drink, even though I was 50, because my license had expired the week before. Bit of irony there, I suspect.

urban elitist on December 30, 2011 at 7:38 PM

Wow you are a moron. The Alcohol & Beverage Commission in every state can revoke the liquor license if alcohol is served to a minor. In some states or at certain establishments to prevent the employees at establishments from guessing how old anyone is there is simply a requirement is to have a valid ID for EVERYONE.

Everyone having a valid ID prevents fraud in this incident and in the incident of voter fraud. It’s not ironic, it was put in front of you so you would understand.

batterup on December 30, 2011 at 8:10 PM

There is no systemic effort to steal elections in this country by registering voters.

urban elitist on December 30, 2011 at 6:34 PM

See; ACORN

chewmeister on December 30, 2011 at 8:15 PM

Then if they’re too lazy to get a free ID or don’t give a shyt either way that’s their problem.

If you’re so concerned find these people and drive them to the DMV.

darwin on December 30, 2011 at 6:26 PM

I believe that South Carolina even funded free transportation to get the IDs.

In fact, I’m certain, given this paragraph from the mentioned WSJ article:

Civil-rights groups claim this Justice offensive is needed to counteract a voting environment in which little has changed since Jim Crow. But South Carolina’s law, like Indiana’s and Georgia’s, explicitly addresses potential disenfranchisement by offering state-issued IDs free of charge. When civil-rights groups fretted about the ability of minority voters to get to the local Department of Motor Vehicles to pick up a free state-issued ID card, Governor Haley created an 800 number to offer free rides to anyone who couldn’t afford the transportation. About 30 people called.

unclesmrgol on December 30, 2011 at 8:17 PM

Just a reminder, when Holder spoke earlier month at the LBJ Library about this issue, everyone attending the speech had to produce Photo ID to get in.

Del Dolemonte on December 30, 2011 at 7:04 PM

Ow. My sides are hurting.

unclesmrgol on December 30, 2011 at 8:19 PM

Now, out to a club where they once stamped my hands so I couldn’t drink, even though I was 50, because my license had expired the week before. Bit of irony there, I suspect.

urban elitist on December 30, 2011 at 7:38 PM

Wow you are a moron. The Alcohol & Beverage Commission in every state can revoke the liquor license if alcohol is served to a minor. In some states or at certain establishments to prevent the employees at establishments from guessing how old anyone is there is simply a requirement is to have a valid ID for EVERYONE.

Everyone having a valid ID prevents fraud in this incident and in the incident of voter fraud. It’s not ironic, it was put in front of you so you would understand.

batterup on December 30, 2011 at 8:10 PM

Yeah, liquor laws are kind of a hobby of mine. I don’t want my watering holes to lose their licenses and did not complain at the time. And my wife brought me a couple of shots when no one was looking.

Drinking in bars is a much less serious issue than voting, you know, and — lacking an ability to strike a precise balance — erring on the side of letting people vote is the American thing to do.

See; ACORN

chewmeister on December 30, 2011 at 8:15 PM

Whatever ACORN was, it was far from systematic. You do know that pretty much every time ACORN made the news it was because the organization itself alerted authorities.

urban elitist on December 30, 2011 at 8:27 PM

And after that you can google “2000 presidential election voter fraud”…

MelonCollie on December 30, 2011 at 6:41 PM

I just did – and the first intelligible word that popped up (from factcheck.org) was ACORN.

I think factcheck.org needs to re-do their article. Their claim was that ACORN did nothing wrong.

unclesmrgol on December 30, 2011 at 8:28 PM

, out to a club where they once stamped my hands so I couldn’t drink, even though I was 50…

urban elitist on December 30, 2011 at 7:38 PM

Explains so much.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IFwWEBFWZk

We get ya now!

Tim_CA on December 30, 2011 at 8:31 PM

Explains so much.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IFwWEBFWZk

We get ya now!

Tim_CA on December 30, 2011 at 8:31 PM

What am I supposed to do, not go to good shows? Too old to rock and roll but to young to die…;)

Not that young of a crowd at the 9:30, actually. I don’t go to the clubs my son does.

urban elitist on December 30, 2011 at 8:34 PM

Best guesses are that 2012 will be a very close election. The rats depend on voter fraud as a sort of silent partner.
THey will take votes from dead people, voters that are illegal,unqualified, who vote more than once or use multiple names you name it its O.K. if you are a dem. Anything goes.
To have an AG who not only OK’s this sort of behavior but facilitates it is almost bizarre its so weird.
Also this is more of the regimes chaos,diversion, and change of venue which keeps us otherwise “occupied”. They want us to constantly concentrate on other deeds of the regime while they go on slowly destroying what we have built up the last 200 years. Theme and diversion.They are slick no doubt.

rodguy911 on December 30, 2011 at 8:36 PM

I don’t wish to see old black ladies who were born at home, with midwifes, who worked hard all their life and didn’t get to vote for half of it, denied their basic rights. I’m sure that there are many white people in similar situations as well.

urban elitist on December 30, 2011 at 5:47 PM

Now your point here is that these poor ladies have no way at all to ever get an I.D.
I respectfully have to disagree with you.
These ladies you refer to, that you talk so casually about, have most likely more conservative viewpoints than you ever will. They all long for law and order, few if any condone what they see in so many inner city streets,the drug dealing,stealing, crime, etc. and most have engendered so much respect by their friends,neighbors and relatives that most anyone in their neighborhood would not think twice about helping these ladies get an ID were that really a problem. Which both you and I know is not.

rodguy911 on December 30, 2011 at 8:48 PM

This Holder/Obama move is just one of many on their road to making the 2012 the most crooked and fraud riddled election in US history, another “historical” Obama event. 2012 will be a ride like we have never before experienced.

GaltBlvnAtty on December 30, 2011 at 8:58 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4