Holder block South Carolina voter ID law on Christmas eve.

#1
gsvol

gsvol

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2008
Messages
14,179
Likes
11
#1
Gee, that's how we got the federal reserve act, more or less.


South Carolina Voter Identification Law Rejected - WSJ.com

The Justice Department blocked South Carolina's new voter identification law, citing concerns about the law's effect on African-American voters and setting up a new conflict between the Obama administration and Republican-led state governments.

The South Carolina proposal would require voters to provide state-issued or military photo identification in order to cast a ballot. Current law allows voters to use a printed voter registration card as identification.

Under the federal Voting Rights Act, South Carolina must prove that any changes in voting law don't have the effect of discriminating against minorities. The state can either change the law or, more likely, .
Click to expand...

» Eric Holder Blocks South Carolina Voter ID For Racial Reasons - Big Government

(I recommend reading all the above link from a former DOJ attorney.)

Eric Holder has been on a racialist bender the last few weeks. Last week, he said his skin color is responsible for the fury of criticism over his Justice Department allowing thousands of guns to flood Mexico.

Friday, he blocked South Carolina from implementing a voter ID law under the Voting Rights Act saying it was racially discriminatory.
---------------

Sixteen states, including South Carolina, must submit all election law changes to the United States Justice Department for approval. States also have the option of bypassing DOJ and going straight to court for approval, an option they should readily choose. This law, unlike so many federal laws, actually has a legitimate Constitutional basis – the Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which bars racial discrimination in voting. Passed in 1965, it was designed to prevent states from drifting toward renewed discrimination. It is now being challenged as unconstitutionally outdated by Arizona and Shelby County (AL) in federal court.

Eric Holder’s Voting Section, where I used to work, interposed an objection late in the day today. These Christmas Eve gifts are becoming tiresome. In 2009 it was Obamacare. Today, it was blocking Voter ID.

In the objection letter, DOJ said that South Carolina did not meet its burden to prove that photo identification laws did not have any discriminatory effect. Notice the word “any,” more on that later. The data show, according to DOJ, that 1.6 percentage points more voting blacks don’t have a driver’s license than whites. Roughly 10 percent of blacks registered to vote don’t have a photo ID, and 8.6 percent of whites don’t. That represents a “discriminatory effect” under the statute.

There are several problems with the objection. But some law first:
-------------------------------

Now the problems with the objection. The DOJ summarily rejected all of the mitigating provisions of the South Carolina voter ID law. For example, if you didn’t have an ID, you could still vote by filling out an affidavit, and later show evidence of your identity. Extraordinary steps were taken to ensure everyone could get a free ID. Governor Nikki Haley even offered rides.

DOJ turned their nose up at these mitigating facts, because personnel is policy, and the personnel reviewing the change have philosophical objections to voter ID.

DOJ also turned their nose up at the late breaking development that the data were wrong. South Carolina discovered that the state election commission sent data that probably included tens of thousands of people on the voter rolls who moved out of state. That explains why they had no driver’s licenses but were still on the voter rolls. Instead of waiting to review the new data, DOJ rushed the objection out the door. A credible operation, not interested in scoring political points, would have waited to review the correct data.

DOJ Attorney Catherine Meza was one of the lawyers on the case. If you’ve read my book Injustice, you know I provide the biographies of many of the new radicals hired by Eric Holder who will be in charge of federal election laws for the 2012 elections. Meza is one. Her biography:
------------------------------------

Lexington County (SC) GOP Chairman Richard Bolen wrote a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder asking for Meza to be removed from the review based on her partial background. Bolen, who recently announced a run for South Carolina Senate and is a zealous advocate for Voter ID, received a reply back that can best be characterized as a joke. Despite Bolen’s request, Meza stayed on the case.

The voter ID objection letter also plays fast and loose with phony statistics. Naturally, Charlie Savage at the New York Times published these numbers prominently. Whenever the government has talking points, Eric Holder can always count on his loveable pup.
----------------------------

The word “any” was inserted in 2006 at the urging of Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner and his staff. Some Republicans, particularly in Congress, see Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act only through the lens of redistricting. Republicans love it because it creates more republican seats in Congress and in state legislatures.

Unfortunately adding “any” also undermines election integrity efforts. House Republicans failed to anticipate its future use in striking down voter integrity efforts like photo ID. In 2009 and 2010, the word “any” was also used to block Georgia’s citizenship verification law to ensure that only American citizens were registering to vote.

Georgia’s law was only approved when Georgia went to federal court and challenged the constitutionality of Section 5. DOJ backed down because they didn’t want the law overturned
---------------------------------

Here is the best part – the DOJ staffers who recommended the Section 5 objection helped preserve their own jobs by doing so. Because Holder objected to South Carolina voter ID, it will make it harder to strike down Section 5 in the Arizona case, and thus lay off all those people who recommended the objection in the first place. Worst of all, the objection memo used to support the objection, and ultimately these jobs, will remain secret and free from scrutiny.
--------------------------------

The better course of action, at least if you live in Texas, is to urge your Attorney General and Secretary of State to withdraw the Texas Voter ID submission and go straight to court before Eric Holder wrecks your law too.
Click to expand...

The same may be said for Tennessee, let's see how Haslam handles this, he can shape up or ship out as far as I'm concerned.
 
#8
#8
Vocal Minority: Meet the F.O.C.ers*: AG Eric Holder's "Disenfranchised Minority Voter" Lie


Yet, the vast majority of election fraud convictions of recent years has been committed byDemocrats. Just last week four Democrats in New York state pled guilty to voter fraud in a 2009 primary. And the week before that, the chairman of Indiana's Democrat Party resigned as investigations into voter fraud in the 2008 presidential primary got underway.

And in 2010, Obama's tight buds at ACORN -- i.e., Democrats -- have been convicted in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Florida, Washington state, and elsewhere.

And need we rehash the way the bitter partisan Democrat Al Franken squeezed his way into the Senate in the state of Minnesota in 2008?

Make no mistake: Democrat opposition to voter I.D. is all because it makes voter fraud significantly more difficult to get away with. And Democrats need fraudulent votes to win elections. They need felons to vote. They need illegal immigrants to vote. They need dead people to vote. And they apparently need Mickey Mouse and Adolf Hitler to vote as well. All the while accusing Republicans of engaging in voter fraud!

So pardon me for saying so, Eric Holder, but you and your race-baiting minions of liberals/Democrats are F.O.C.

*F.O.C. = Full of cr@p (But you probably figured that out by now)
Click to expand...


obama_official_meat_2012.jpg
 
#9
#9
I have to show ID to board an airplane, buy beer, buy sudafed, drive, open a checking account, leave the country, buy a gun, etc.

How exactly does it harm me to have to show ID to vote?
 
#11
#11
If voters have to start proving they are real people or alive then the Democrat party is done for.

They know it. Hell, the Democrats on this board know it whether they want to admit it or not.
 
#13
#13
NEOCON said:
If voters have to start proving they are real people or alive then the Democrat party is done for.

They know it. Hell, the Democrats on this board know it whether they want to admit it or not.
Click to expand...

You're damned right they know it.

For over forty years we have have had some voters voting in six or seven precincts in every election and it is high time we stopped it, if we don't do that then we have a igantic fail.

And another thing, people who aren't citizens of this country shouldn't be voting or contributing to political campaigns, in the last presidential campaign there were an untold amount of dollars contributed to Obama from sources unknown.



RespectTradition said:
Then how do they drive cars or drink beer?
Click to expand...

As far as identification goes, it is easier to vote in the state of Tennessee than it is to buy a six pack of beer but that is supposed to be racist?

Why isn't it racist to ask for photo ID to buy a sixpack?
 
#14
#14
this country thinks that people are mature enough to kill other people at 18...but not to have a drink.
 
#15
#15
KiffinKiller said:
this country thinks that people are mature enough to kill other people at 18...but not to have a drink.
Click to expand...

And if you serve in a sharia law country you can't drink even if you are forty, unless you smuggle it in and then you face disiplinary action if caught.


Battle Over Voter ID Laws Heats Up In The States | Fox News

.....a photo ID is required to enter any federal building and most office buildings, among other things. "You need it to get welfare, you need it to get on an airplane, take the SAT, buy liquor, buy cigarettes. It's sort of ubiquitous," he said. "And it's crazy to exclude voting from the list of things you need it for."

The latest voter ID controversy centers on South Carolina's photo ID law, which the Justice Department blocked on Dec. 23, claiming it will hurt minorities and the poor.

Attorney General Eric Holder exhorted people to oppose such efforts just days before the move. "Call on our political parties to resist the temptation to suppress certain votes in the hope of attaining electoral success," he told a group at the LBJ Center in Austin, Texas. An even stricter law in Indiana, however, was upheld years ago by the Supreme Court on a 6-3 vote. So now, 15 states require or plan to require photo IDs.

"The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the law and the opinion was written by Justice John Paul Stevens, who as you know is one of the most liberal stalwarts of the Supreme Court,"
Click to expand...

Dhimmirats in general and Eric Holder especially are nothing more than low life race baiters when they aren't promoting class warfare.

classwarfare.jpg


180649.jpg
 
#16
#16
when have I advocated for sharia law? If you want my position...it's that I'm not afraid of it coming here.
 
#17
#17
KiffinKiller said:
when have I advocated for sharia law? If you want my position...it's that I'm not afraid of it coming here.
Click to expand...

So you aren't in opposition to sharia law in America at all?

But really, I thought this thread was about voter IDs.

What's your position on voting fraud and legal measures to try to curtail it by requiring photo IDs?
 
#18
#18
blt2g.jpg



Voter ID Laws | Holder's war on voter-ID laws is racially motivated | The Daily Caller

Eric Holder’s Department of Justice (DOJ) has launched an all-out war on voter-ID laws and other measures designed to safeguard the electoral process. Although Holder’s actions are purportedly to prevent African-Americans from being disenfranchised, the reality is that they serve the crass political purpose of ensuring that Holder’s boss gets re-elected next year.

In the past several years states have increasingly focused on measures to protect the vote. After years of the federal government loosening voting regulations, such as through the Motor Voter Act and the Help America Vote Act, the pendulum started swinging back at the state level.

The clearest example of this trend is through voter-ID laws. In 2008 the Supreme Court upheld Indiana’s landmark law requiring citizens to show that they are the person they claim to be by showing government-issued ID before casting a ballot. But to ensure that those without driver’s licenses or passports are not disenfranchised, Indiana provides free ID’s to everyone who applies for one. The court upheld this law, with the primary opinion written by no one less than liberal lion Justice John Paul Stevens.

Such laws combat voter fraud that we see on Election Day, especially in certain parts of the nation. In Washington State, King County suddenly “discovered” enough previously “unnoticed” votes for Democrat Christine Gregoire to edge out Republican Dino Rossi for Washington’s governorship in 2004. There are also examples from Wisconsin, Missouri, and other states.

Yet Holder has blocked South Carolina’s voter-ID law. DOJ argues that this law is different from Indiana’s because South Carolina is subject to additional federal oversight under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. (This is especially important because there are several federal cases challenging the constitutionality of Section 5.)
Click to expand...

o91dmt.jpg
 
#20
#20
I don't want Sharia Law here - don't think it will. If it gets close - well than we have you to stop it, don't we?
 
#21
#21
Archived-Articles: Democrats and Deep Vote fraud

In depressed urban areas an inordinate number of residents move in and out every year, with some taking up residence for only a brief time. Stability is less common among the poverty—stricken and others suffering social dysfunctions, and such people are more numerous in large urban areas than elsewhere.

A high rate of transiency inevitably leaves a large number of people who no longer live in an area on the voter rolls. The local authorities, says Deep Vote, 'are always somewhat late on removing non—residents.' All the Democrat operatives need do then is ascertain who these people are and vote for them. Deep Vote explains the mechanics of this process.
-------------------------

Deep Vote also mentions factors that have exacerbated this problem by enabling these election thieves. First, many states have enacted 'Motor Voter' laws, which he says often increase the chances of this type of vote—fraud. The reason for this is that such laws lead to the registration of larger numbers of irresponsible people who live transient lifestyles.

Then, not surprisingly, where there's the appearance of corruption and turpitude there often lurks the Reverend without a congregation, Jesse Jackson. Some years ago he brought pressure to bear on Washington, DC to stop purging the voter rolls because doing so was 'racist.' You see, racism is something on which ol' Jesse is an authority.
--------------------------------

But I do know this: with Democrats having a stranglehold over virtually all of the most densely populated urban areas in America, and with their tent including the constituency of the departed — both from this world and the neighborhood — it's well within their capacity to squeeze enough votes out of inner cities to turn close elections.
------------------------------

The Democrats can incessantly recite their mantra, 'every vote must be counted,' but this doesn't mean twice. Nor does it mean that the 'party of inclusion' has the luxury of providing a voice for their split personalities, channeled souls, imaginary childhood friends, dearly departed or the devil on their left shoulder.
Click to expand...

jesse-jackson-2.jpg
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top