Heaven forbid voters should have to show ID when at the polls. That could get in the way of the Democrats’ voter fraud efforts. The Washington Post reported that Eric Holder and the Department of Justice have nixed South Carolina’s voter ID law. Therefore, the state will either have to re-write the law, or take it to court.
Under the 1965 Voting Rights Act, several of the states that enacted voter-identification laws are required to receive federal “pre-clearance” to ensure that the changes don’t affect minority political power.
In its first decision on one of those new measures, the Justice Department said Friday that South Carolina’s law will discriminate against minority voters, though the department declined to take a position on whether the alleged discrimination was intentional. The law, passed in May and signed by Gov. Nikki Haley (R), requires voters to show a driver’s license or one of several other forms of photo identification.
Officials in South Carolina could not immediately be reached for comment Friday afternoon. The rejection leaves the state with the option of trying to get the law approved by a federal court or passing another law and submitting it to the Justice Department. (Read More)
If it’s discriminatory to require people to show ID to vote, why is it not discriminatory to require identification when flying, driving a vehicle, purchasing alcohol or cigarettes, entering a state or federal building or cashing a check?
Update – linked by the Daley Gator – thanks!
Update 2: Scared Monkeys – thanks!
Update 3: The Pirate’s Cove linked – thanks!
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
1
And by “suppress the vote”, you mean allowing dead people and pets to vote Democrat. By “suppress the vote”, you mean finding a way to get Democrats to vote multiple times.
Funny how you Dems whined for a decade about elections being stolen. Yet, you block every meaningful attempt to make sure we have 1 person 1 vote. Why is that?
Like or Dislike:
4
Holder should certainly know what injustice looks like, he sees himself in the mirror every day!
The US Supreme Court has allowed other states to initiate voter ID laws. See Indiana case.
http://archive.redstate.com/stories/the_courts/breaking_supreme_court_rejects_challenge_to_indiana_voter_id_law
See also MSNBC article:
In the majority ruling 6-3, the opinion offered is as follows:
“The law “is amply justified by the valid interest in protecting ‘the integrity and reliability of the electoral process,’” Justice John Paul Stevens said in an opinion that was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Anthony Kennedy. Stevens was a dissenter in Bush v. Gore in 2000.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24351798/ns/politics/t/supreme-court-upholds-voter-id-law/#.TvUaGzWXTCY
So, Holder is obviously just as clueless about voter ID laws as he appeared to be during the recent US House hearings on DOJ involvement in the gun walking case.
Holder is attempting to circumvent the 2008 case law which supersedes the 1965 Voters Rights Act. But, why expect holder to understand the law, he just knows how to circumvent the law.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
8
[...] Details at The Lonely Conservative The Washington Post reported that Eric Holder and the Department of Justice have nixed South Carolina’s voter ID law. Therefore, the state will either have to re-write the law, or take it to court. Under the 1965 Voting Rights Act, several of the states that enacted voter-identification laws are required to receive federal “pre-clearance” to ensure that the changes don’t affect minority political power. [...]
Like or Dislike:
2
[...] you get a drivers license you must show ID. Oops, looks like I forgot a couple more. Thanks to the Lonely Conservative, she ads to the list of photo ID requirements, purchasing alcohol or cigarettes, entering a state [...]
Like or Dislike:
1
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
0
This is an argument for voter fraud. IDs are an integral part of a lawful society!
Are you saying that only poor people are victims of mugging? Or, are you implying that poor people without ID should be able to break the law and vote several times in the same election?
Fortunately, the US Supreme Court has determined that states are obligated to ensure a fair election process. This allows the states to protect the process without the impunity of discrimination!
To argue that this is discrimination is both disingenuous and a form of enabling voter fraud.
If any citizen, including the poor, can’t find their IDs, they forfeit the right to vote, the right to drive, the right to buy alcohol, the right to buy property, and the right to apply for loans.
Get real, state governments must facilitate every legitimate voter’s honest attempt to vote, just once per election. Those who break this law will be prosecuted and given lawful punishment.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
7
[...] The Lonely Conservative: If it’s discriminatory to require people to show ID to vote, why is it not discriminatory to require identification when flying, driving a vehicle, purchasing alcohol or cigarettes, entering a state or federal building or cashing a check? (WT – or entering an Obama campaign event?) [...]
Like or Dislike:
0
Hey, Terry, the cost of a S.C. ID card is a whopping $5. Its kinda racist to think that minorities in SC are incapable of coming up with that amount of money.
Like or Dislike:
2
This debate has been haggled to death and at the end of the day, everyone knows that it’s a) a solution that repairs a nonexistent problem and b) the end results has nothing to do with voter fraud and has everything to do with voter disfranchisement. Accordingly, the DOJ made the right all. And seriously, admit it or not, we all know this.
Hot debate. What do you think?
1
There is no haggling here, the law has been validated by the US Supreme Court!
The terms discriminatory and disenfranchisement are empty terms with no measurable variables, but are frequently used by voter fraud advocates who would like to imply that somehow there should be a rationale for cheating.
Since states are required to enforce standards to ensure integrity, those who are unwilling to comply with the law use fictitious words to support criminal behavior!
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
7
Joesph, your “voter fraud advocate” is sheer bullshit. You and I both know that. There is no voter fraud problem. You and I know that. In Wisconsin for example, the nonpartisan Brennan Center for Justice found 7 cases out of 3 million votes(2 persons with felony convictions, 1 foreign national, 1 17-year-old, and 4 absentee ballots cast by deceased voters), or .0002%. This is pretty much consistent with other states. This isn’t opinion, this is fact.
Let’s not pretend this is some “wide spread problem” when the will issue is to discourage certain groups of voters from the polls. That group happens to be the poor, elderly, and minorities. That group also happens to be more apt to vote for Democrats.
In October, the Associated Press reported that South Carolina’s voter I.D. law “appears to be hitting black precincts in the state the hardest.” Regardless of its valitity, Wesley Donehue, a political strategist for the South Carolina Senate Republican Caucus, foolishly took to twitter with a quote saying the story “proves EXACTLY why we need Voter ID in SC.” So the guy that championed the very law, made the admission that his state needed the law, not for voter fraud, but rather because it was hitting black precincts.
This is clearly a law that does not address any problem other than legitimate people voting for Democrats.
Now, I’m not saying I necessarily blame the GOP for utilizing a tool to help them win elections. Just knock off the bullshit that it’s about voter fraud when it’s strictly and 100% about voter disfranchisement.
Hot debate. What do you think?
2
So take your argument to court, tell the judge this is BS. It’s not my word against your misperception of law. It is up to the individual state to control for voter fraud and investigate wrong doing in accordance with the law.
What the law does not and cannot protect is illeterate and incompetent people that are being bribed to vote illegally. This class of person is not granted voting rights, they simply do not qualify.
In fact, these people discriminate against themselves by choosing to remain ignorant in order to participate in voter fraud.
Ince the person is arrested, then your aforementioned BS begins! They pretent to be ignorant of the law!
One such person who used your propaganda strategy, us now serving time on felony charges for voting 10 times in the 2008 presidential election. She disenfranchised herself by permanently disqualifying herself from the voting process.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
7
And exactly Joesph Hall, how many people have been arrested? You actually validated my point that the offense is so minute, it’s hardly worth mentioning.
I noticed you chose not to elaborate on SC officials openly admitting the need for the ID laws were to “hit black precincts in the state the hardest”.
I could get into state laws that make it hard for people to navigate through their intentional bureaucracy to get a card. We could look at how some states cut back on programs allowing early voting, or imposing new restrictions on absentee ballots, simply because early voting was popular among black voters supporting Barack Obama in 2008. We could discuss new restrictions on voter registration drives run by groups like Rock the Vote and the League of Women Voters, making serious fines for minute issues like handing in registration forms within 48 hours. How about refusing to allow college or university IDs, even when that person’s name is on the register? And then there’s states that have overturned allowing those convicted of nonviolent crimes. And in Wisconsin, half of all black and Hispanic residents in Wisconsin do not have a driver’s license, and the state staffs barely half as many DMVs as Indiana – a quarter of which are open less than one day a month. Walker tried to shut down 16 more DMVs, most located in Democratic areas. In one case, Walker planned to close a DMV in Fort Atkinson, a liberal stronghold, while opening a new office 30 minutes away in the conservative district of Watertown.
So like I said, I understand they GOP’s objectives in suppressing the votes of the poor, elderly, minorities, and college students. But that’s exactly what it is, suppression and disenfranchisement. To claim that it’s anything other than that is just stupid.
Like or Dislike:
1
The Supreme Court has taken a zero tolerance policy towards voter fraud and states must enforce that policy, even if there is no voter ID law. The Supreme Court has final say in laws regarding the presidential election.
While you may argue against such laws, voter ID statutes are required by law. While your argument may stir a popular notion of social wrong doing, the argument of, “If it isn’t happening, laws must not exist to prevent voter fraud from happening,” is considered void in a court of law.
The reason that voter fraud cases are routinely under-reported is because valid ID checks can be used to stop the fraudulent activity before a second illegal vote is cast.
Additionally, if fraud can be determined by a state, the vote is cancelled out, having no impact on the election. So, a review of court dockets in no way is an indication of how big the problem is.
By using your logic, if one voter cast two votes in a general election because there was no voter ID law in that district, and the Republican candidate won the election by one vote, you would be obligated to argue that since this happened only once, the action is allowable. If you were to say that it becomes illegal when the election turned on one bad vote, then you no longer have a valid argument against the SC voter ID law. Or, would your argument only apply to law breaking poor people from South Carolina?
The Supreme Court gives the individual states maximum latitude to ensure that even one fraudulent voter can be charged with a crime. Most states only prosecute the most flagrant cases of fraud, so there is no accurate measurement of how often this occurs. If GW Bush had won Florida by one fraudulent vote, I’m sure you would demand the most stringent voter fraud laws be enacted and enforced.
The AP inference that the SC law appears to work against the poor, is just that, a baseless and unsubstantiated opinion. If there is evidence that the state legislature broke federal law, they would report it as a civil rights violation!
Finally, the popular vote alone does not elect presidents. The framers of the constitution designed the Electoral College as a defense against possible voter fraud. Candidate Gore learned that his lead in the popular vote in the 2000 election did not ensure a win for him in the Electoral College, thus he lost.
Two suggestions: Warn your friends of the consequences of accidentally voting multiple times in the same election, it’s a crime! And push for a constitutional amendment that permits your argument to become lawful, that is your civic duty!!
There is currently zero tolerance for voter fraud!
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
7
Joe, you impute opinions or rationales from me that I never had. You continue to build an imaginary case that I advocate voter fraud or that I believe fraudulent votes should be counted. This isn’t nor was it ever the case. I strongly agree that offenders should be prosecuted and that any unqualified votes should be voided.
But of course, the objective of your response was to avoid my arguments (restrictions on registrations, fines for registration groups, refusal to except university IDs, fees for IDs, shutting down DMVs in Democratic precincts while opening more in Republican precincts, eliminating early voting, admission from SC Wesley Donehue that the intent was to impact black precincts, creating more bureaucracy to discourage the poor and elderly) and instead, put me on defense with your new argument that you created out of thin air.
Your 500+ word spin does nothing to dispute the fact that the voter ID law was implemented solely to suppress Democratic votes. And it does exactly that while supposedly correcting a nonexistent problem. Your irrelevant tutorial on electoral college votes dodges those issue while offering nothing in your defense, indicting a grasp to change course on your part. Your sophomoric implication that my circle of friends need to be educated not to commit voter fraud further indicates your well of constructive rebuttals has run dry.
Hot debate. What do you think?
1
If the law was broken in SC I’m sure that Mr. Holder will investigate and lead the prosecution of anyone guilty of actions that lead illegal voter discrimination and disenfranchisement.
I’m sure you would agree that Secretary Holder should be investigated for his refusal to investigate actual voter intimidation and disenfranchisement on the part of ACORN and the New Black Panther party against White voters in the northeast. Also, the same action should be taken against President Obama who sealed the record of voter fraud by executive order on his first day of office.
As to the other issues you have raised, I will investigate!
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
6
J. Hall: 3
A 42302: 0
Like or Dislike:
3
To this administration, this is what democracy looks like. To real people, this looks like a centralized tyranny. Dig into their brains and you will find that Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot Che Guevera,Ho Chi Minh, and Mao Tse Tung are their greatest heroes.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
6