SC Voter-ID Law: Justice Dept Blocks Legislation

South Carolina Voter ID Law: Justice Department Blocks Controversial Legislation

COLUMBIA, S.C. -- The Justice Department is rejecting South Carolina's voter ID law, saying it makes it harder for minorities to vote.

Assistant Attorney General Thomas E. Perez said Friday that South Carolina's law didn't meet the burden under the Voting Rights Act. He says tens of thousands of minorities in South Carolina may be unable to cast ballots under the law because they don't have the right identification.

The Justice Department must approve changes to South Carolina's election laws because of the state's failure in the past to protect the voting rights of blacks.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/2 ... 68162.html

The first of these odious voter-suppression laws to fall... There will be others, but it's good to see these kinds of ALEC laws being thrown in the trash-can where they belong....

The Obama Administration's re-election mobilization continues: Witness Eric Holder's attempt to play the race card and perhaps twist the law in a campaign against voter identification laws.

In the Attorney General's telling, the movement in the states to require voters to show some ID is a revival of minority disenfranchisement a la Jim Crow. A growing number of minorities, he said in a speech last week, are now worried about "the same disparities, divisions and problems" that beset the country in 1965 and "many Americans, for the first time in their lives . . . now have reason to believe that we are failing to live up" to the promise of democracy for all.

If you haven't heard about this national crisis, perhaps that's because you don't travel in Mr. Holder's political circles. He is merely repeating the howls of groups like the NAACP and the George Soros-funded Brennan Center, which claim without evidence that voter ID laws hurt minorities.

Holder's Voter ID Fraud

Interesting FACTS about so-called "voter fraud:

1) S.C. Election Commission has no confirmed cases of voter fraud .

2) Confirmed cases of “voter fraud” account for about 0.0004% of ballots cast. (About 89 out of 30 million...)

Boy, if ever there was a non-event looking for a drastic solution, this is it...

It's almost as important as passing legislation to stop a rule about farmers have "dust limits"...(for a rule that never existed...)

I can feel a bill coming on to prevent cohabitation between earthlings and aliens....

So LJ, what requirements should there be to vote...a pulse? Would you be ok with illegals voting?

"But former Alabama Democratic Rep. Artur Davis told The Daily Caller that anti-fraud measures are needed to protect African-Americans from corrupt political bosses — many of them African-Americans themselves — who run Democratic Party machines in the South.
"


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/11/21/democ ... z1hJ8r0eCu

Everyone that votes should have to have prove they are American citizens. The arguement that poor people cannot get ID is nothing more than BS. If you are an american citizen then it would not be that hard to prove it. This would take the illegals out of the equation. Why is it I have to show ID to use a credit card, or a birth certificate to get a US Passport, to get a loan etc. To vote in this country they just take your word for it. I always hear Democrats say things like it should not be a requirement etc and that voter fraud is so small it would be a waste of time. So if it is that small of a percentage, lets make it manadatory to show absolute proof of citizenship and lets see what happens. I am all for it. Everyone should also have to prove they live in the district they vote in also. Tax bill, or something more than just a utility bill, as fake ID are common in this country it seems.

LLIB wrote: So LJ, what requirements should there be to vote...a pulse? Would you be ok with illegals voting?

Illegals AREN'T voting... Did you miss the part about SC doesn't have a SINGLE CONFIRMED CASE of voter fraud?

navycpo7 wrote: The arguement that poor people cannot get ID is nothing more than BS. If you are an american citizen then it would not be that hard to prove it.

It isn't just about "poor people"..And it's not b.s.

84-Year-Old WI Woman May Need $200 to Cast Legal Vote

For 63 years, Brokaw, Wisconsin [Northern Wisconsin, population-310] native Ruthelle Frank went to the polls to vote. Though paralyzed on her left side since birth, the 84-year-old “fiery woman” voted in every election since 1948 and even got elected herself as a member of the Brokaw Village Board. But because of the state’s new voter ID law, 2012 will be the first year Frank can’t vote. Born after a difficult birth at her home in 1927, Frank never received an official birth certificate. Her mother recorded it in her family Bible and Frank has a certification of baptism from a few months later, along with a Social Security card, a Medicare statement, and a checkbook. But without the official document, she can’t secure the state ID card that the new law requires to vote next year.“It’s really crazy,” she added. “I’ve got all this proof. You mean to tell me that I’m not a U.S. citizen?” But state officials have informed Frank that, because the state Register of Deeds does have a record of her birth, they can issue her a new birth certificate — for a fee. And because of a spelling error, that fee may be as high as $200.

In Wisconsin, where “an estimated 177,399 Wisconsin residents 65 and older do not have a driver’s license or state photo ID — 23 percent of that population”, and where Frank may have to pay as much as $200 to cast her legal vote under the GOP’s new anti-democratic and anti-Democratic polling place Photo ID restrictions, the non-partisan League of Women Voters has filed suit charging the law to be in violation of the state’s constitution, as The BRAD BLOG detailed in October. That case is still pending.

http://www.veteransnewsnow.com/2011/12/ ... egal-vote/

It's voter-suppression...and it's illegal... And I hope the Justice Department busts the chops of every one of these ALEC-infested right-wing states.

LJ seems to forget to tell all the story: Media Forgets To Mention Judge Who Blocked S. C. Immigration Law Is Obama Appointee

One of the Old Media’s favorite ways of attempting to hide the ideological track of a story is to somehow forget to mention which party someone in the news hails or to whom they owe their fealty. In this case, it is what they don’t report that misleads. This week we find a classic what-they-don’t-say story concerning the judge that blocked sections of South Carolina’s new immigration law. For those unaware, U.S. District Judge Richard Gergel temporarily blocked segments of South Carolina’s new immigration laws because he claimed that some of its provisions impinged on federal prerogatives, things over which the state has no jurisdiction. The South Carolina law was opposed in court by Obama’s left-wing, activist Department of Justice headed by Eric “Fast And Furious” Holder and a gaggle of civil rights groups. Judge Gergel agreed with these attackers and issued an injunction to stop implementation of the provisions in question.

LadyJazzer wrote:

LLIB wrote: So LJ, what requirements should there be to vote...a pulse? Would you be ok with illegals voting?

Illegals AREN'T voting... Did you miss the part about SC doesn't have a SINGLE CONFIRMED CASE of voter fraud?

Are illegal votes being cast in the absence of photo ID being required? Hard to say one way or the other, isn't it. You can't tell, for instance, if a mail ballot was cast by the person it was mailed to with absolute certitude, can you. You can't tell, with absolute certitude, that the person presenting the utility bill addressed to someone is that same someone casting the vote, can you. No, you really can't prove that illegal votes are being cast in the absence of strict regulations in place that make such practices difficult. Given the cavalier manner in which voter registration is carried out by ACORN and other groups whose driving motivation is clearly the integrity of the vote, what recourse is there to assure that integrity outside of strict regulation of the process? We currently have a sitting president who likely was ineligible to be on at least one state primary due to voter fraud and the forging of signatures. Is it not then reasonable to put in additional protections to prevent the integrity of future ballots from similar intrigue?

LadyJazzer wrote:

navycpo7 wrote: The arguement that poor people cannot get ID is nothing more than BS. If you are an american citizen then it would not be that hard to prove it.

It isn't just about "poor people"..And it's not b.s.

It's voter-suppression...and it's illegal... And I hope the Justice Department busts the chops of every one of these ALEC-infested right-wing states.

If Wisconsin has an unusual problem with folks born on farms at the beginning of the last century possessing birth certificates, I trust that the local government agencies in Wisconsin (her county government, her state representatives and senators and the general government representatives from her district and state) can get those problems solved while leaving the legislation in place for those born in more modern times. A waiver for those born before say 1950 ought to get that done without tossing out the baby with the bathwater.

I, for one, hope the States take the Jacksonian approach to the federal judiciary and challenge the general government to find a way to enforce their decisions.

Yes, since it's not YOUR vote that's being denied, I guess YOU "can trust that the local government agencies can get those problems solved." How nice of you.

b.s.

It's voter-suppression...and it's illegal... And I hope the Justice Department busts the chops of every one of these ALEC-infested right-wing states.

Of course, you can take your "general government" jacksonian b.s. and put it in the usual place.