DOJ, liberal groups that oppose voter ID require photo ID to enter their buildings

posted at 1:50 pm on April 5, 2012 by Rob Bluey

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder is currently blocking implementation of voter ID laws in South Carolina and Texas, claiming such measures are “unnecessary,” discriminatory and would make it harder for minorities to vote.

But if you’re planning to visit Holder’s office in Washington, D.C., you better bring a photo ID. The Department of Justice has two armed guards stationed outside its headquarters to check IDs of anyone who wants to enter — employees and visitors.

Holder’s politically motivated crusade against voter ID laws has the support of liberal advocacy organizations ranging from the Center for American Progress and Media Matters to the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law and the Advancement Project.

Each of these organizations has criticized photo identification for voting, yet they require it to enter their Washington, D.C., offices as well. There’s even a sign in the building of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law: “ALL VISITORS MUST SHOW ID.”

PJTV has the scoop:

Holder is able to block laws in South Carolina on Texas because they are subject to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, a civil rights-era law that gives the Department of Justice authority over voting changes. It remains unclear if those states will be able to enforce their laws for this November’s election.

“The Obama-Holder Department of Justice has launched an all-out war on voter ID and other measures,” former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell said upon launching a new initiative called Protect Your Vote. “Although Holder’s actions are purported to prevent African-Americans from being disenfranchised, in reality they serve as a crass political attempt to ensure his boss gets re-elected this year.”

Liberals have long trotted out false arguments about voter ID laws, claiming they suppress the vote among those individuals who do not have photo identification. But a 2008 U.S. Supreme Court case upholding Indiana’s voter ID law revealed there was no such hardship. Opponents of the law were unable to produce a single plaintiff who could plausibly claim inability to get a photo ID. In addition, states with longstanding voter ID laws, such as Georgia and Indiana, have actually experienced an increase in turnout of minority voters.

Rob Bluey directs the Center for Media and Public Policy, an investigative journalism operation at The Heritage Foundation. Follow him on Twitter: @RobertBluey


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

If they want to use something free like a fingerprint, I am fine with that.

damian1967 on April 5, 2012 at 6:02 PM

In my state, it is free!!

ladyingray on April 5, 2012 at 6:10 PM

There is a BIG difference, the constitution does not REQUIRE people to have an ID or to get one.

damian1967 on April 5, 2012 at 3:43 PM

The Constitution doesn’t say anything about disenfranchising felons, but we do and it is constitutional. As I indicated above, there is no constitutional right, per se, to vote.” San Antonio Independent School Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1, 35 (1973).

With regard to felons being prohibited from voting,the procedural issue is resolved for the most part by the Constitution itself, in Article I, section 2, which says that electors for the House of Representatives — and, by extension, for all federal elections — “shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.” Thus, it gives authority for determining elector qualifications to the states. The exception is, of course, where the Constitution itself forbids the exclusion of voters on specific grounds, such as race (the 15th Amendment), sex (the 19th Amendment), failure to pay a poll tax or other tax (24th Amendment), or age for those 18 years old or older (26th Amendment).

Nothing in there about voter identification.

Resist We Much on April 5, 2012 at 6:12 PM

An ID does not get rid of removing people illegally from voter rolls, and them not being able to vote when they should be legally allowed to.

Thats a bigger issue than ID’s, why isnt that at the top of the priority?

damian1967 on April 5, 2012 at 5:52 PM

Seriously, how do you remedy the removal of people from voter rolls illegally without using some form of ID to substantiate a claim of being removed from voter rolls illegally? Otherwise, anyone can say: “Hey, I was removed from the roll illegally! What’s my name? It doesn’t matter. Count my vote.” — and then do the same in the next precinct, and the next…

Or are you saying that you must prove who you are to get on the rolls, but not to vote?

hillbillyjim on April 5, 2012 at 6:14 PM

There is a BIG difference, the constitution does not REQUIRE people to have an ID or to get one.

damian1967 on April 5, 2012 at 3:43 PM

If you are talking about photo ids, how would the Founding Fathers have performed that trick?

The Constitution doesn’t say anything about abortion, sodomy, growing marijuana or wheat, credit default swaps, etc., either.

Resist We Much on April 5, 2012 at 6:16 PM

amian1967 on April 5, 2012 at 4:48 PM

Are you effing kidding me? I was scrambling the day before my son was scheduled for the bus ride to join the military, trying to prove that bogus juvy charge was dismissed by the judge, because the charge had no merit. And the charge was dismissed, and I still couldn’t receive the proof; the recruiter had to receive it.

I bet you approve of convicted felons voting.

ladyingray on April 5, 2012 at 6:16 PM

It’s been fun, but I’ve gotta run…

I’ll check back later.

hillbillyjim on April 5, 2012 at 6:17 PM

The Constitution doesn’t say anything about abortion, sodomy, growing marijuana or wheat, credit default swaps, etc., either.

Resist We Much on April 5, 2012 at 6:16 PM

Don’t Bogart the Mary Jane, man…!

BlaxPac on April 5, 2012 at 6:18 PM

If they want to use something free like a fingerprint, I am fine with that.

damian1967 on April 5, 2012 at 6:02 PM

Ahhh – ok – so it’s all about getting something for free then.
You do know that most, if not all states with voter ID laws also allow you to get a free photo ID that can be used for voting?

dentarthurdent on April 5, 2012 at 6:18 PM

When you sign up for selective service, you do not need a picture ID only a birth certificate.

damian1967 on April 5, 2012 at 4:59 PM

Noooo, more is required. It’s been a while, hasn’t it?

ladyingray on April 5, 2012 at 6:18 PM

The more I follow politics and current events, the more it is proven that LiberalHypocrite is one word.

MR. ARIZONA on April 5, 2012 at 6:19 PM

ladyingray on April 5, 2012 at 6:18 PM

Only a Birth Certificate is required.

damian1967 on April 5, 2012 at 6:21 PM

MR. ARIZONA on April 5, 2012 at 6:19 PM

Dont label me, I am not a liberal or conservative. I am both.

damian1967 on April 5, 2012 at 6:22 PM

None of that is true. I’m sure republicans engage in voter fraud as well. they aren’t the only ones indicted for it, there have been many recent convictions of dem activivists engaged in fraud. And the “you don’t need to vote today” is nonsense.

It is not ok when anyone engages in voter fraud. If you and others on the left truly believed that republicans were routinely engaged in voter fraud, you’d be fine with photo ID’s. So drop the nonsense argument.

Monkeytoe on April 5, 2012 at 5:21 PM

Of course, and if Mexican illegal aliens voted for Republicans, our Southern border would be buttoned up tighter than the Korean DMZ.

slickwillie2001 on April 5, 2012 at 6:23 PM

So what is the reason for puching this as hard as the right is?

There can only be one reason, because they know it will help them.

damian1967 on April 5, 2012 at 4:48 PM

Geeze, you really are kinda stupid, aren’t you?

Voter ID can only help the GOP if, in fact, the Dems are committing voter fraud that helps them.

Otherwise, why do the ‘rats oppose it?

ladyingray on April 5, 2012 at 6:24 PM

Noooo, more is required. It’s been a while, hasn’t it?

ladyingray on April 5, 2012 at 6:18 PM

If he ever did.
Since I’m prior military and working as a defense contractor, the government has my fingerprints, retina scan, my entire life history, and several photo IDS. I have to show a photo ID or swipe an ID card in a reader and punch in a PIN 5 times on the way to my office.
A few years back, one of those locations included getting into a locking booth, swiping a card and punching in a PIN while standing on a scale, and then getting a retina scan before being let through.
I’m ok with showing ID to vote.

dentarthurdent on April 5, 2012 at 6:26 PM

By the way, even the New York Times long ago debunked the myth that Gore won Florida. Too bad for you that ManBearPig couldn’t win his home state.

Resist We Much on April 5, 2012 at 4:50 PM

As an aside, you’re welcome!! :D If Tennessee had gone for Gore, Floriduah would not have mattered.

ladyingray on April 5, 2012 at 6:27 PM

Only a Birth Certificate is required.

damian1967 on April 5, 2012 at 6:21 PM

Actually, it’s done online now. So, no birth certificate is required at all…just a lot of personal questions, in addition to the birth certificate information.

ladyingray on April 5, 2012 at 6:31 PM

I’m ok with showing ID to vote.

dentarthurdent on April 5, 2012 at 6:26 PM

Thank you for your service.

ladyingray on April 5, 2012 at 6:33 PM

As an aside, you’re welcome!! :D If Tennessee had gone for Gore, Floriduah would not have mattered.

ladyingray on April 5, 2012 at 6:27 PM

Thank you! Although I wasn’t a citizen at the time, after the 2000 election, I knew for a fact that Tennessee was one of my favourite states in the Union.

:-)

Resist We Much on April 5, 2012 at 6:36 PM

Don’t Bogart the Mary Jane, man…!

BlaxPac on April 5, 2012 at 6:18 PM

Dude, pass the Gonzales v. Raich! :-)

BTW: I’m a ggggggggggguuuuuuurrrrrrrrrrrllllllllllllll!

~~wink, wink~~

Resist We Much on April 5, 2012 at 6:39 PM

damian1967 on April 5, 2012 at 6:02 PM

Here is the only problem with your argument. It is the “poor” that the argument says can’t afford photo ID so would be disenfranchised from voting. Yet to get any government aid, which they get, they will need to show a valid photo ID and a certified birth certificate or naturalization papers. Hence, they already have the ID that everyone is whining about.

chemman on April 5, 2012 at 8:51 PM

Bottom line, short and sweet. The Justice department via Holder, the Obama administration, and other democrats oppose voter ID laws because it makes it harder to vote fraudulently. Period dot. No other reason, no other purpose.

If there were any other reason, they would oppose the many other reasons people are required to show photo ID and would not have been instrumental in implementing the laws that require said ID for those activities.

The democrats want to cheat and this makes it harder.

AZfederalist on April 5, 2012 at 9:17 PM

Out of curiosity, how many more years will the Republican South pay for the sins of the Democrats (who controlled the South when the acts which led up to the Voting Rights Act occurred)? This is insane. Some states are subject to certain laws and not others? How is this equality? The Voting Rights Act needs to be repealed or struck down as soon as possible.

Theophile on April 6, 2012 at 2:29 AM

It’s clear that they are being discriminatory and make it harder for minorities to enter their buildings.

Dollayo on April 6, 2012 at 3:06 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3