Holder: Sure, “we’re not opposed to photo identification in a vacuum” — just when it comes to voting, really

posted at 4:51 pm on January 24, 2014 by Erika Johnsen

Last summer, the Supreme Court struck down the longstanding pre-clearance formula in the Voting Rights Act wherein certain states with decades-old histories of discrimination had to obtain permission from the federal Justice Department before changing any part of their election laws. The Obama administration didn’t like that at all, and they’re oh-so-concerned that a new legislative proposal for a revised pre-clearance formula doesn’t go far enough in designating only voter ID violations found by a court (rather than violations handed down by the DOJ) as counts toward triggering the top-down supervision of local voting rules. That, of course, doesn’t seem to offer nearly enough uncontested, centralized control for Attorney General Eric Holder, because as we all so very clearly know, the “reality is that all the studies show that this whole question of ballot integrity, in-person voter fraud simply does not exist to the extent that would warrant these kinds of measures.” Uh huh.

If we can show that that photo ID efforts are done inappropriately and for improper reasons, that ought to be the basis for federal intervention, and so I’m a little concerned that that appears, at least for now, to not be a part of the scheme. … People have to understand that we are not opposed to photo identification in a vacuum, but when it is used in certain ways to disenfranchise certain groups of people… that from my perspective is problematic. … The reality is that all the studies show that this whole question of ballot integrity, in-person voter fraud simply does not exist to the extent that would warrant these kinds of measures. … I think it’s a remedy in search of a problem, and it is being used, in too many instances to depress the vote of particular groups of people who are not supportive of the party that is advancing these photo ID measures.


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

Corrupt, mendacious, racist, rat-faced little weasel.

novaculus on January 24, 2014 at 4:56 PM

F u

MoreLiberty on January 24, 2014 at 4:57 PM

Suuuuuuuuure.

Free Indeed on January 24, 2014 at 4:57 PM

Who exactly is being repressed by having to show valid ID?
And how about driving or getting into a federal building?

Free Indeed on January 24, 2014 at 4:59 PM

People have to understand that we are not opposed to photo identification in a vacuum…

…because in space, nobody can hear you scream.

ElectricPhase on January 24, 2014 at 4:59 PM

Corrupt, mendacious, racist, rat-faced little weasel.

novaculus on January 24, 2014 at 4:56 PM

.
You are being far too kind to this POS, my friend.

If the House of Representatives wants to earn some public trust … impeach Holder for high crimes and misdemeanors.

PolAgnostic on January 24, 2014 at 5:02 PM

holder….talk about a coward on race…

dmacleo on January 24, 2014 at 5:08 PM

novaculus on January 24, 2014 at 4:56 PM

Good afternoon, Nova! I’m delighted to see you. :)

thatsafactjack on January 24, 2014 at 5:10 PM

The reality is that all the studies show that this whole question of ballot integrity, in-person voter fraud simply does not exist to the extent that would warrant these kinds of measures. …

And the reality is…no study shows that the requirement to present a photo id to vote actually disenfranchises a single voter. But hey, we sure do spend a lot of time worrying about that vacuum don’t we.

HumpBot Salvation on January 24, 2014 at 5:11 PM

Didn’t one place have a 102%? of population vote – all for one side?

OldEnglish on January 24, 2014 at 5:13 PM

Democrats’ utter fear of honest elections confirmed.

Del Dolemonte on January 24, 2014 at 5:14 PM

Eric Holder: United States still a nation of cowards.

Hard to believe that this man is allowed to retain his position as a public servant.

Holder is completely hateful and bigoted and has allowed his own innate racism to not only color everything he sees in others, but to poison his view of his fellow Americans.

thatsafactjack on January 24, 2014 at 5:14 PM

Because voter fraud is imperative to their mission of advancing tyranny.

antipc on January 24, 2014 at 5:15 PM

NC passed a voter I.D. law, which of course the Holder criminals are contesting. As part of the law, as of January 1, 2014, state identification cards are offered at every DMV office – FOR FREE. If someone can make it to the polls, surely they can make it to the DMV to get their free I.D.

TarheelBen on January 24, 2014 at 5:18 PM

We don’t want to ID “your people”, we want to ID everyone.

wolly4321 on January 24, 2014 at 5:18 PM

Much better in Holder’s view to promote ballot integrity by having the Black Panthers depress the vote of particular groups of people, and having precincts register more votes than registered voters.

MrKleenexMuscles on January 24, 2014 at 5:18 PM

Here is my wish.

If, and that’s a big if, the conservatives eventually take control of the house, senate and presidency, I don’t want to ever hear them say “We’re not like the Democrats, let’s set an example and show them we can cooperate and compromise with the opposing party, and work together for Americans”.

NO! NO! NO!

It’s payback time, and time to lay it on thick to the party of liars and scoundrels who have done nothing but attack, criticize and subpoena anyone with an R after their name.

Go for the jugular with a vengeance.

fogw on January 24, 2014 at 5:23 PM

Everyone knows the core reason republicans are pushing voter ID is to disenfranchise those who tend to vote democrat. Trying to act like that isn’t the main reason just makes them look stupid.

There is a why proponents are mainly republicans and opponents are mainly democrats.

loveofcountry on January 24, 2014 at 5:23 PM

Everyone knows the core reason republicans are pushing voter ID is to disenfranchise those who tend to vote democrat – more than once per election. Trying to act like that isn’t the main reason just makes them look stupid.

There is a why proponents are mainly republicans and opponents are mainly democrats.

loveofcountry on January 24, 2014 at 5:23 PM

Edited for accuracy.

OldEnglish on January 24, 2014 at 5:30 PM

This is the typical liberal response to a difficult issue. The bald-faced lie. You can cite specific examples and THEY call YOU a liar, and the lame stream media reports it as such.

MikeinPRCA on January 24, 2014 at 5:32 PM

Everyone knows the core reason republicans are pushing voter ID is to disenfranchise those who tend to vote democrat.

loveofcountry on January 24, 2014 at 5:23 PM</blockquote

"Everyone knows" you're an idiot. When the public is polled on this issue about 80 percent approve. How does it disenfranchise anyone if you can get a state I.D. for free? How does it disenfranchise anyone if you can cast a provisional ballot, even if you should show up without I.D.? Are you saying that democrat voters are too stupid to get a picture I.D. so they can vote? Sure sounds like it. This just shows how radical left YOU and the Obama Administration are.

TarheelBen on January 24, 2014 at 5:32 PM

Everyone knows the core reason republicans are pushing voter ID is to disenfranchise those who tend to vote democrat.

Showing ID doesn’t doesn’t disenfranchise folks from getting EBT cards, welfare, unemployment or any other freebies.

antipc on January 24, 2014 at 5:33 PM

Everyone knows the core reason republicans are pushing voter ID is to disenfranchise those who tend to vote democrat.

loveofcountry on January 24, 2014 at 5:23 PM

“Everyone knows” you’re an idiot. When the public is polled on this issue about 80 percent approve. How does it disenfranchise anyone if you can get a state I.D. for free? How does it disenfranchise anyone if you can cast a provisional ballot, even if you should show up without I.D.? Are you saying that democrat voters are too stupid to get a picture I.D. so they can vote? Sure sounds like it. This just shows how radical left YOU and the Obama Administration are.

TarheelBen on January 24, 2014 at 5:36 PM

Hypothetical: Would Holder hold the same view if the potentially disenfranchised were white?

OldEnglish on January 24, 2014 at 5:39 PM

Everyone knows the core reason republicans are pushing voter ID is to disenfranchise those who tend to vote democrat. Trying to act like that isn’t the main reason just makes them look stupid.

There is a why proponents are mainly republicans and opponents are mainly democrats.

loveofcountry on January 24, 2014 at 5:23 PM

Yes, because unlike you Democrats, Republicans believe in honest elections. Why are you so afraid of them?

As for the word “stupid”, all you need to know is that your Democrat Party lost the college graduate vote in 2012. They can only keep winning by relying on idiots like yourself.

Backwards!

Del Dolemonte on January 24, 2014 at 5:43 PM

Repeat after me, there is no voter fraud. Photo ids are a solution to a nonexistent problem.

Ever wonder why Republicans want voter ID   Wonder why NC now requires voter ID?  

 In 59 voting districts in the Philadelphia region, Obama received 100% of the votes with not even a single vote recorded for Romney. (A mathematical and statistical impossibility). 

In 21 districts in Wood County Ohio, Obama received 100% of the votes where GOP inspectors were illegally removed from their polling locations – and not one single vote was recorded for Romney. (Another statistical impossibility).

 In Wood County Ohio, 106,258 voted in a county with only 98,213 eligible voters.  

 In St. Lucie County, FL, there were 175,574 registered eligible voters but 247,713 votes were cast.   

The National SEAL Museum, a polling location in St. Lucie County, FL had a 158% voter turnout. 

  Palm Beach County, FL had a 141% voter turnout.  

In one Ohio County, Obama won by 108% of the total number of eligible voters. 

  NOTE: Obama won in every state that did not require a Photo ID and lost in every state that did require a Photo ID in order to vote. Imagine that! 

iamsaved on January 24, 2014 at 5:50 PM

the “reality is that all the studies show that this whole question of ballot integrity, in-person voter fraud simply does not exist to the extent that would warrant these kinds of measures.”

 
$5 says it’s more common than rape-related abortions.

rogerb on January 24, 2014 at 5:53 PM

iamsaved on January 24, 2014 at 5:50 PM

You forgot this one!

C-BS News:

Ohio Poll Worker Convicted On Multiple Counts Of Obama-Biased Voter Fraud

An Ohio woman has been convicted of numerous counts of voter fraud and ballot-box tampering.

Longtime Election Day poll worker Melowese Richardson has “pleaded no contest to four counts of illegal voting … in exchange for prosecutors dropping four other illegal voting charges,” the Cincinnati Enquirer reports.

One example of voter fraud that the illegal vote generator from Cincinnati admits to includes “voting three times for a relative who has been in a coma since 2003,” reports the Enquirer. Richardson admitted to casting illegal ballots in 2008, 2011 and 2012 elections and she also admitted her motivation to commit the brazen vote tampering by voting for President Barack Obama twice.

“Absolutely, I’ll fight it for Mr. Obama and for Mr. Obama’s right to sit as President of the United States,” Richardson told WCPO-TV in an interview this past February.

Richardson was caught in the ongoing scam when Hamilton County investigators “noticed a bunch of absentee ballots coming from the same place with the same handwriting.”

Del Dolemonte on January 24, 2014 at 5:55 PM

Just as an experiment, couldn’t some state institute a ‘purple finger’ law? I’d love to see the Democratic reaction to that.

PersonFromPorlock on January 24, 2014 at 6:09 PM

loveofcountry on January 24, 2014 at 5:23 PM

speak from the hole your dog f* you in last.

dmacleo on January 24, 2014 at 6:13 PM

loveofcountry on January 24, 2014 at 5:23 PM

You serve your master well, and you shall be rewarded.

Babsy on January 24, 2014 at 6:15 PM

When the public is polled on this issue about 80 percent approve.

TarheelBen on January 24, 2014 at 5:36 PM

July 26, 2013:

A McClatchy poll released Thursday shows that 83% of those polled believe laws requiring voters to “show identification in order to vote” is a “good thing.” Only 13% see it as a “bad thing.”

Moreover, a full 72% of Democrats see voter ID as a “good thing.”

In fact, 65% of those who see themselves as “very liberal” favor voter ID laws.

Del Dolemonte on January 24, 2014 at 6:19 PM

Democrats think minorities are too stupid to get an ID. Democrats worry that their minority constituents might be in trouble with the law, and having to show up with ID exposes them to possible arrest.

It’s the soft bigotry of low expectations. Only it’s not very soft, is it?

Conservatives, on the other hand, have no problem expecting anyone, regardless of color or background, to conduct themselves with an equal measure of responsibility.

CurtZHP on January 24, 2014 at 6:25 PM

Corrupt, mendacious, racist, rat-faced little weasel.

novaculus on January 24, 2014 at 4:56 PM

.
You are being far too kind to this POS, my friend.

If the House of Representatives wants to earn some public trust … impeach Holder for high crimes and misdemeanors.

PolAgnostic on January 24, 2014 at 5:02 PM

Those are his better qualities.

Good afternoon, Nova! I’m delighted to see you. :)

thatsafactjack on January 24, 2014 at 5:10 PM

Good afternoon, ma’am. Good to “see” you too!

novaculus on January 24, 2014 at 6:25 PM

The Obama administration didn’t like that at all, and they’re oh-so-concerned that a new legislative proposal for a revised pre-clearance formula doesn’t go far enough in designating only voter ID violations found by a court (rather than violations handed down by the DOJ) as counts toward triggering the top-down supervision of local voting rules.

Sensenbrenner is an idiot for giving this legislation the “bipartisan” label of approval. The idea that states have to get pre-clearance from the Department of Justice before changing any voter laws violates the U.S. Constitution, and frankly was wrong even when there was active discrimination in certain states. To extend the requirement long after it ceased to be of value is insanity.

Frankly, I’m not sure that SCOTUS wouldn’t reject the law on Constitutional grounds, anyway.

So we have the left basically accusing red states of being closet racists, and we get Republicans who should know better not only affirming it to be true, but signing their name to legislation to put state governments back under the thumb of the DOJ.

The legislation itself is is a fix to a non-existent problem.

But note that even that is not good enough for the Obama administration.

The Democrats have every intention of using their power to promote voter fraud, suppress conservative fundraising, and ensure their grip on power survives all elections. The 2012 election was almost certainly stolen by these measures, and by using the IRS to go after conservative groups. All signs point to them trying it again in 2014.

If they get away with it again, we will see the Democrats get control of the House and keep control of the Senate, and probably never see a Republican president again.

There Goes the Neighborhood on January 24, 2014 at 6:26 PM

Holder & his boss are a “remedy in search of a problem”.

KS Rex on January 24, 2014 at 6:27 PM

There is a why proponents are mainly republicans and opponents are mainly democrats.

loveofcountry on January 24, 2014 at 5:23 PM

People committing fraud are usually not fond of anti-fraud measures.

And that’s why Democrats hate voter-id laws.

There Goes the Neighborhood on January 24, 2014 at 6:30 PM

and you shall be rewarded.

Babsy on January 24, 2014 at 6:15 PM

No she won’t. She’ll be lucky if they tell her the money’s on the dresser as they walk out.

CurtZHP on January 24, 2014 at 6:33 PM

“reality is that all the studies show that this whole question of gun ownership ballot integrity, in-person voter fraud simply does not exist to the extent that would warrant these kinds of measures.”

That explains all the hoops you have to jump through in Chicago or New York in order to purchase a firearm.

GarandFan on January 24, 2014 at 6:41 PM

Voting should require filling out a 4473 and a NICS check. Maybe two forms of ID as well

Spade on January 24, 2014 at 6:42 PM

Voting should require filling out a 4473 and a NICS check. Maybe two forms of ID as well

Spade on January 24, 2014 at 6:42 PM

That’s what Bill Clinton apparently thought.

CurtZHP on January 24, 2014 at 6:44 PM

Last time Holder spoke on this subject, those who attended the event had to produce photo ID to get in.

Del Dolemonte on January 24, 2014 at 6:58 PM

Holder may be on to something here. I’m sure that at least some of the people who drive cars, get food stamps, buy liquor, etc. vote democrap, so why do we want to disenfranchise them in those activities? Come to think of it, it’s a bit ‘disenfranchising’ to have to get that Social Security number and pay taxes, too.

ghostwalker1 on January 24, 2014 at 7:15 PM

holder….talk about a coward on race…

dmacleo on January 24, 2014 at 5:08 PM

The phrase really sticks in my head.
When he said that in front of the American people, and there was silence and he was never called out on it, I remember thinking that something had dramatically changed about us as a people. No one said a word. I think that was their first testing of the waters as to what they could get away with. Fast forward 5 years and Americans can get murdered in Benghazi and in this country with the death of Brian Terry..Americans intimidated into silence using the IRS and the NSA..the president just balls out saying he intends to be a dictator with a pen and a phone.

Still nothing from the GOP, to if they don’t have the guts to stop him thru procedures, at least bring it to the attention of the American people, loudly and repeatedly.

Either they have officially joined them or are weak willed Vichy.
Either way..we’re screwed if thing don’t change.

Mimzey on January 24, 2014 at 7:31 PM

These voter ID laws don’t go nearly far enough:

1) 2 forms of photo ID (one can be school ID, but one must be government issued).
2) No same day registration
3) Must re-register every 8 years (keeps the dead from voting).
4) No early voting (except for Military).

Fraud would become non-existent.

Fake IDs are easy to get.

nazo311 on January 24, 2014 at 7:34 PM

There is a why proponents are mainly republicans and opponents are mainly democrats.

loveofcountry on January 24, 2014 at 5:23 PM

.
Your wording really left that wide open to interpretation.

I believe it’s because Democrat voters CHEAT … period.

listens2glenn on January 24, 2014 at 7:44 PM

it is being used, in too many instances to depress the vote of particular groups of people who are not supportive of the party that is advancing these photo ID measures.

Yeah, like the dead… the non-citizen… the fictitious character…. Yeah, those groups of people.

GWB on January 24, 2014 at 7:53 PM

Everyone knows the core reason republicans are pushing voter ID is to disenfranchise those who tend to vote democrat.

loveofcountry on January 24, 2014 at 5:23 PM

See comment above. *shakes my head*

GWB on January 24, 2014 at 7:55 PM

I won a prize on my local radio station. Rules are repeated several times daily, one of which is I need an official gov’t ID to claim the prize. The fight over ID always brings to mind “Me thinx thou dost protest too much”. If they get ever get ObamaCare working there will no longer be an argument against voter ID since the gov’t will know everything about you (with the help of the NSA they will know what color underwear you are wearing).

teejk on January 24, 2014 at 7:59 PM

when it is used in certain ways to disenfranchise certain groups of people

For example, the dead.

Kafir on January 24, 2014 at 8:27 PM

Heh, if I remember rightly the NAACP asked the UN to provide monitors at certain voting places to make sure that no one was “dis-enfranchised”. The UN monitors were appalled at the lack of integrity in the process. They said there were no safeguards to protect against anyone voting multiple times, no identity authentication and a serious lack of accountability. Kind of backfired on the NAACP.

lfwest on January 24, 2014 at 9:04 PM

Here in Canada, you need to show picture ID when you try to vote. No one ever seems to complain about that. Ever.

grimble grumble on January 24, 2014 at 11:09 PM

Behold~ the ethical equivalent of Kermit Gosnell.

Holder.

And Obama. Reid. Pelosi. Cuomo. DeBlasio.

Scum without a shred of humility- as they execute their despotic Dream.

By any means necessary.

The sadistic slogan of anarchistic tyranny.

profitsbeard on January 25, 2014 at 3:28 AM

Mimzey on January 24, 2014 at 7:31 PM

yup, the gop (shockingly) acted like…cowards.

dmacleo on January 25, 2014 at 8:22 AM

Shorter Holder: “We clearly benefit from voter fraud and I will therefore make sure that it continues.”

If he were to state that publicly, I’d at least give him some grudging respect for honesty.

Physics Geek on January 25, 2014 at 10:43 AM