Tag Archives: Voting Rights Act

Holder’s DOJ Halts Florida Effort to Remove Ineligible Voters from Rolls – Obama Can’t Win Florida w/o Voter Fraud!

Posted on by
Reply

Via Fox News
Kasey’s Note:  The hypocrisy of the left is astounding.  Democrats say Requiring Photo ID is Voter Suppression; yet For Massachusetts Democrats….No Entry to Convention Without Photo ID. Even better - Unions Also Require Photo ID to Vote.

TALLAHASSEE, Fla –  Federal authorities  are demanding that Florida halt its push to remove ineligible voters from the  voter rolls.

In a move that comes just months before the state could play a pivotal role  in the 2012 presidential election, the U.S. Department of Justice contends that  the state is violating federal law in its effort to identify and remove  ineligible voters.

For Video click here.

The state’s effort has already come under fire from local election  supervisors who belong to both political parties, as well as Democratic members  of Congress and voting rights groups.

Chris Cate, a spokesman for the Florida Department of State, said state  officials were still reviewing the letter, but hinted Florida may fight federal  authorities.

“Bottom line is we are firmly committed to doing the right thing and  preventing ineligible voters from being able to cast a ballot,” Cate said.

Florida, at the urging of Republican Gov. Rick Scott, began looking for  non-U.S. citizens on its voter rolls last year. An initial search turned up as  many as 182,000 registered voters who may not be U.S. citizens.

Earlier this year state officials sent to local election officials a much  smaller list of more than 2,600 voters and asked supervisors to start the  process to remove them from the rolls.

Supervisors, however, have loudly questioned the accuracy of the list, with  one GOP supervisor going on Twitter to show the picture of a U.S. passport of  one voter found on the list. Earlier this week two Democratic members of  Congress held a press conference with a World War II veteran whose citizenship  had been questioned.

Federal officials said that the procedures the state is using to identify  non-U.S. citizens has not been reviewed to make sure they are not  discriminatory. Florida must get approval for changes in voting procedures  because five counties are still covered by the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

T. Christian Herren, chief of the voting section of the civil rights  division, also said that removing voters from the rolls less than 90 days before  a federal election also appears to violate federal law. Florida’s primary  election is Aug. 14.

Herren’s letter gives Florida until June 6 to tell federal authorities  whether they plan to halt the purge.

Voting rights groups who had called on the U.S. Department of Justice to  intervene praised the decision.

“We commend the attorney general of the United States Eric Holder for  ensuring that the right to vote, the fundamental pillar of our democracy is  protected for all American citizens,” said Advancement Project co-director Penda  Hair in a statement.

The intervention of the U.S. Department of Justice came the same day that  Florida officials were trying to get another federal agency to help the state  verify the citizenship status of thousands of voters.

Secretary of State Kent Detzner wants the U.S. Department of Homeland  Security to let Florida have access to an immigration database maintained by the  federal government.

“I hope you will understand the importance of making sure the vote of an  eligible voter is not diminished by the vote of ineligible voter and provide my  department the access it needs,” Detzner wrote to Secretary Janet  Napolitano.

A Department of Homeland Security official said Thursday that the federal  agency is aware of Florida’s request but that there a “number of legal and  operational challenges” to granting the state access.

Detzner in his letter said that while Florida’s initial list was “credible  and reliable” he acknowledged that his department’s ability to “validate a  person’s legal status as up to date was limited.” The first list was drawn by  comparing driver’s licenses to voter registration lists. The Department of  Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles initially planned to double-check its  information with the federal database but has since been told that is not  permitted.

Even without access to the federal database Cate had said the state is likely  to circulate additional names to election supervisors in the weeks ahead.

But some election supervisors are already saying that they will ignore any  additional names given to them by the Florida Department of State.

“It’s illegal under federal law and I’m going to follow the law,” said Leon  County Supervisor of Elections Ion Sancho.

Read more at Fox News

Related articles

Obama’s Legal Humiliation

Posted on by
3

By via Western Journalism

Part 2 of: Barack Obama Foreign Student – American Media Threatened into Silence

Today, there is no American news outlet factually covering the illegal actions of the sitting President of the United States in context. Nor is there one consistently exposing the laws his administration has flagrantly broken, though this corruption now demonstrably permeates every level of the federal system.

Attorneys General Tom Horne, Arizona; Pam Bondi, Florida; Sam Olens, Georgia; Bill Schuette, Michigan; Scott Pruitt, Oklahoma; Marty Jackley, South Dakota; Alan Wilson, South Carolina; Greg Abbott, Texas; and Ken Cuccinelli of Virginia produced a joint memo on March 5th, 2012 detailing 21 blatant violations of law committed by the Obama administration.

By now it is unsurprising the media has by and large ignored this announcement, although AG Cuccinelli did appear in an extended segment with CSPAN (the relevant segment can be found here) on March 18th.

Fortunately, The Tea Party Tribune published the Attorney’s General memo, “A Report on Obama Administration Violations of Law” in full the same day it was released. It is nothing short of a flashing legal headline story, yet cannot be found at the Washington Post or the New York Times.

“Whether it is through the EPA, NLRB, Office of Surface Mining, FCC or other entities, the Obama Administration has aggressively used administrative agencies to implement policy objectives that cannot gain congressional approval and are outside of the law.” – A Report on Obama Administration Violations of Law

An abbreviated list of broken laws includes:

  • PPACA (Obamacare): Individual Mandate; To be heard by Supreme Court of the United States in March
  • FCC: Regulation of the Internet in the face of a court order from Circuit Court of Appeals for Washington D.C. stating that the FCC does not have the power to regulate the Internet
  • EPA 1: GHG (Green House Gas) lawsuit; EPA’s own Inspector General reported last September that EPA failed to comply with its own data standards; Heard in Circuit Court of Appeals for Washington D.C. in February
  • OSM: Attempting to impose regulatory requirements on the 19 states with authority for exclusive regulation of their coalmines for the first time in more than 30 years
  • DOJ: South Carolina & Voting Rights Act: Rejecting voter ID statutes that are similar to those already approved by the Supreme Court of the United States; DOJ ignored section 8 of the Voting Rights Act which calls for protections against voter fraud, and used section 5 to administratively block measures to protect the integrity of elections passed by state legislatures in preclearance states including South Carolina; South Carolina voter ID law merely requires a voter to show photo identification in order to vote or to complete an affidavit at the pain of perjury if the voter does not have a photo ID
  • DOJ: Arizona & Voting Rights Act: Rejecting voter ID statutes that are similar to those already approved by the Supreme Court of the United States
  • DOE: Yucca Mountain; In 2009, Administration arbitrarily broke federal law and derailed the most studied energy project in American history when DOE announced intent to withdraw 8,000 page Yucca Mountain licensing application with prejudice.

- A Report on Obama Administration Violations of Law

14 more violations of law are listed in the AGs’ memo. At one time or another, many of these violations have made the news, yet the full list is never presented to the public. When compiled, it is apparent even at a glance that the federal government as led by Barack Obama has no respect for the law. Clearly, the Obama government is acting as it deems fit. Much as a monarchy would. As if the States did not exist. As if the Constitution of the United States did not apply.

Indeed, when it comes to Obama and his government, the Constitution is a barrier to be removed. As Obama stated in a 2001 interview with NPR, “generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties.”  Undeniably, the Constitution limits government negatively; it states what the government cannot do. From the point of view of someone attempting to expand government powers beyond that which the Constitution limits it to, it is extraordinarily (and negatively) limiting. It was designed that way. It is the keystone, the cornerstone, the foundation of a free people; one freed and protected from government tyranny.

The M-1/A-2 tank in the room

If more evidence were needed to delineate the obvious disrespect coming from the Oval Office for the Law, on Monday, April 2nd 2012, President Barack Obama attempted to erase 200 years of legal history, stating in a press conference with world leaders that the law codified in the Supreme Court Case Marbury v. Madison (5 U.S. 137) 1803 is not valid:

“Ultimately, I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected congress.” – Barack Obama 4-5-2012

Hundreds of bills have passed out of Congress and been found unconstitutional, overturned by the Supreme Court, since Marbury V. Madison established in 1803 the Supreme Court’s right of judicial review.

The Supreme Court has been the final arbiter of law, determining the constitutionality of laws passed by Congress for over two hundred years. There is no article or section in the Constitution which specifically bestows this power within the Court. Instead, Marbury was the court’s interpretation of the Constitution; furthermore, the legal precedent it set in that decision still stands as good law today.

This is not the first time Mr. Obama has attempted to re-write history to his liking. The difference here lay in the fact that the media is in a feeding frenzy over this one.

The day following this massive falsehood, April 2nd, Eric Holder was ordered to address Obama’s statements by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, forcing the administration to publicly acknowledge the law established in Marbury.

Attorney General Eric Holder stated in the department’s court ordered response: “The Department has not in this litigation, nor in any other litigation of which I am aware, ever asked this or any other Court to reconsider or limit long-established precedent concerning judicial review of the constitutionality of federal legislation.” Even the Attorney General of the United States is hanging Obama out to dry on this issue.

Marbury V. Madison is not just an elephant in the room; it’s more like M-1/A-2 tank running flat out, but not for the reasons most immediately apparent. What is missing from this conversation, so ravenously devoured by the press, is this: Marbury was decided in 1803, it’s has been cited hundreds of times. It has never been overturned. The Attorney General of the United States affirms that it is good law. There is absolutely no question it is binding law, so commonplace it wasn’t even a discussion piece outside first year law school until the president tried to undo it in a press conference.

So far, so good, but what’s missing here?

If Marbury has never been overturned and is binding law with decades of citable history behind it, what makes it different from a case decided in 1875 which has also never been overturned and has been cited to for decades?

Nothing. They are both still law.

Minor V. Happersett in 1875 decided that Ms. Virginia Minor did not have the right to vote. While originally a Women’s Suffrage (voting) case, the Court in Minor interpreted the Constitution, determining that citizenship itself did not give right to vote, unequivocally stating in the final paragraph of the decision: “Being unanimously of the opinion that the Constitution of the United States does not confer the right of suffrage upon any one” – Minor V. Happersett (88 U.S. 162).

Constitutional Amendments against discrimination preventing a person from voting based on race (15th), sex (19th) and age (26th)., are taken for granted as being a constitutional rights to vote; yet in reality, there is no constitutionally protected “right” to vote (there are amendments against discrimination.)

To re-state this immeasurably important distinction, there is nothing in the Constitution which gives Americans the right to vote; instead, the Constitution eliminates circumstances such as gender and race from preventing voting. This is a legal distinction perhaps only a lawyer can properly love, yet the fact remains that the difference between the two is as great as the difference between lead and gold.

This is why the Minor Case has never been overturned; its conclusion is a statement of fact. Because it has never been overturned, the basic definitions of citizenship made in Minor still apply today because they are the independent grounds upon which the court made its decision.

To use a metaphor, ‘The light bulb turned on because there is electricity. Electricity is the flow of electrons in a current which heats a wire making a light bulb glow.’ The definition of electricity is the independent ground upon which we can say the light bulb turned on.

This is not an issue of dictionary semantics or the meaning of words changing over time. The Minor court defined natural born citizenship as part of its independent ground for deciding the case, making it a part of the “holding” – for deciding the case as it did. “Citizenship does not give the right to vote. Citizens are…” These definitions were codified in law which, like those made in Marbury V. Madison, makes them inviolate.

The court in 1875 chose to define through its specific wording what natural born citizens were and still are today, just as in 1803 it decided the right of judicial review lay with the Supreme Court and nowhere else.

Illegal governments do illegal things

Why is the Minor case relevant in 2012 as it applies to the federal government breaking laws left and right?

The answer is not only insidiously dangerous, but terribly simple. The man at the head of that government is there illegally. How can this be? Because Minor V. Happersett is still law, it has not been overturned any more than Marbury V. Madison has.

“At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.” Minor V. Happersett (88 U.S. 162)

The Court did not need to decide if Virginia Minor was a citizen because she was obviously a natural born citizen, born in the United States to two parents who were its citizens. The Minor case instructs clearly and concisely that those not born to two citizen parents will have doubts cast on their citizenship status, which in some circumstances, such as qualification under Article 2 Section 1 of the United States Constitution, will demand answers.

Simple logic tells us that where there is doubt about something, proofs must be offered to confirm its status. The proof offered by Barack Obama of his Natural Born Citizenship and placed by him on the White House website has been found to be a “probable forgery” by Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Arizona, in a legitimate law enforcement action undertaken at the written insistence of the Citizens of Maricopa County and presented to them in person on March 31, 2012. The Sheriff is a five time, popularly elected law enforcement official who has served 20 years in that office.

This is the M-1/A-2 tank roaring through the room. If Marbury V. Madison is still law, so too is Minor V. Happersett.

If Barack Obama was completely wrong to state: “…the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected congress…”, then he is equally incorrect to claim Natural Born Citizenship because he was not “born in a country of parents who were its citizens.” He has offered no legitimate proof that he could be a citizen; his father was a British subject of Kenya and was never a citizen of the United States. What proof Obama has offered has been proven a forgery by law enforcement officials.

The simplest of conclusions is unavoidable: Illegal governments do illegal things. Expect nothing less.

Mrs. Cotter is a senior at American Military University, recipient of the Outstanding Student Essay of 2009, a member of Delta Epsilon Tau and Epsilon Pi Phi Academic Fraternities and on the Dean’s and President’s Lists for academic achievement. She has published at American Thinker, Examiner.com, Accuracy in Media, Family Security Matters, Post and Email, English Pravda, Tea Party Tribune, Patriot Action Network, and The Western Center for Journalism.

For more information click here.

Related articles

Counterfeit Voting – Voter Identification Laws Protect Your Civil Liberty

Posted on by
3

By Michael Loeb via Tea Party Nation

If there is anything I have learned over the years, it is that when the Federal Government says, does, or creates something, the opposite is usually true.

Here are some prime examples:

You can chart the rise and expansion of the Department of Education against the fall of test scores, and the rise of number of high school drop outs as indicators of the quality and effectiveness of education found in public schools.

You can chart the rise and expansion of the Department of Energy against the fall of our energy production and expansion of our dependence on foreign oil, regardless of what our current President might say.

The Patriot Act is a direct attack on the Bill of Rights.

The Food Safety Act puts more power into the hands of agricultural giants that have been exploring and utilizing genetically altered food where the long term consequences are yet unknown while driving small family owned farms (locally grown and fresh food) out of business.

Then there is the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act  (Obamacare) billed to save money now reported to be twice as costly as we were told, over a $Trillion dollar difference.

The list goes on and on.

As of late state after state has been promoting the idea of requiring voters to prove who they are at the polls by passing voter identification laws.  The idea is simple, it cuts down on voter fraud, which is a much bigger issue than the government would like you to believe.

Not surprisingly the Obama administration led by Eric Holder claims that requiring proof of identity somehow violates a person’s civil rights.  The memo has been distributed and that is the main talking point of the Democratic (Socialist) Party.  When asked to defend their position they cannot, so they play the race card.  As if African or Hispanic Americans have no form of identification solely because they are African American or Hispanic American.  It makes no sense to rational thinking people and it shouldn’t.  Mostly what does this say about Eric Holder and fellow Democrats who feel that African and Hispanic Americans are so inept that these individuals cannot figure out how to obtain proper identification?  If I were a member of these groups I’d be personally outraged at such a slight.

States requiring ID’s have gone out of their way to provide verifiable ID to all that ask.  You need ID to buy beer, cigarettes, drive a car, get on a plane.  Recently I received a postcard from the Florida Blood Bank, requesting that I give blood.  It told me of the time and location of where the “big red bus” was going to be, and told me to bring picture ID.  So to save a life, to give a pint of blood, I’m required to identify myself.  Where is the outcry that we’re not accepting enough African American and Hispanic American blood?  Where is the outcry that beer and cigarette sales are discriminatory against minorities?

As usual if you flip it and turn it around you WILL see the truth and the agenda contained within.

Voting by those who cannot or will not identify themselves is a civil rights violation against those who can.

Your vote should be considered as sacrosanct as your 1st Amendment Right.  It is your 1st Amendment Right.  It is the primary way to speak directly to the government, to choose who represents you, to choose who you feel will best protect your rights, which is the sole purpose of government.  At least that is the way our founders envisioned a proper government of the people to be.

A vote by someone who cannot identify himself or herself should be considered a counterfeit vote, and anything counterfeited always diminishes the value of the real article.

I for one do not want my vote diminished.  I hope you agree with me.  I’m not surprised that Eric Holder who is unelected to his position and serves at the pleasure of the President wants my vote diminished.  Not surprised because the President wants my vote diminished.  The only way he can win re-election, by stuffing the ballot boxes with counterfeit votes.  ACORN is still alive and well, and wants to remain that way.  A re-election of Barack Obama means $Millions more for ACORN, in its 100’s of forms in all its glory, and for community organizers to build the socialist dream country.  An Obama victory will very likely mean the loss of free and true elections for generations to come if not forever.  The next president will likely appoint 2 or 3 Supreme Court justices.  Giving that power to Obama means that we will lose our Constitution, our Freedom, our Country.

More importantly, this is not an issue for the Federal Government.  It is a State issue as they are state elections.  Even the election for the POTUS is a State issue because you are electing electors, not the President.

Those that oppose voter identification laws point to the Voting Rights Act as well as the 15th Amendment.  Let it be known that the VRA and the 15th Amendment only apply to citizens of the United States.  If you cannot prove who you are by some form of reliable identification how can you prove you are a citizen in the first place?

So call your representatives and demand that your state adopt voter identification laws requiring everyone that votes show proper identification.

Originally posted here  St Lucie County 9/12

For more click here.

Related articles

Holder Ignores Supreme Court Ruling, Steps Up Voter Fraud Efforts

Posted on by
5

By  via Western Journalism  March 16, 2012

On Monday, Eric Holder’s Department of Justice barred the proposed Texas voter ID law from taking effect. Writing for the DOJ, Assistant Attorney General Robert Perez claimed that the law requiring all Texas voters to present a state issued photo ID at the polls would “adversely affect Hispanic voters” because they are “more than twice as likely not to have valid photo identification than non-Hispanic registered voters.”

It is hardly surprising that Democrats hold nationwide antipathy for voter ID laws. After all, as it is the left which benefits from criminal misadventure at the polls, anything which tends to interfere with turning the votes of the dead, the illegal, and the non-existent into a Democrat victory must be fought with every resource of the Obama Administration.

The proposed Texas law and a similar South Carolina statute rejected by the DOJ last year were both victims of Eric Holder’s deliberately disingenuous use of the 1973 Voting Rights Act, which requires states or areas with “a history of voting discrimination” to have proposed changes to their voting laws “pre-approved” by the federal government.

The fact is, the Obama Regime used Section 5 of the VRA to mask its real goal of enabling voter fraud by claiming the proposed legislation of both states to be in violation of the Act’s aim of ensuring fair and honest voting standards.

And just as it had in the case of South Carolina, the DOJ barred the revision to the Texas law by completely ignoring a decision of the United States Supreme Court.

In 2008, the Supreme Court ruled the newly enacted State of Indiana statute requiring all who come to the polls to present a state issued, picture ID as legal and constitutional.

Described as one of the strictest voter ID laws in the nation, the Indiana statute had been opposed by a typical assortment of left-wing agencies which claimed its enactment would unfairly burden the usual victim classes of the poor, minorities, the aged and infirm.

Yet in the Court’s 6-3 ruling on the case Crawford v Marion County Election Board, even far left Justice John Paul Stevens agreed that the requirement that voters obtain picture ID did not represent an unfair or undue burden.

Writing a concurring opinion on the Court’s judgment, Antonin Scalia said “the Fourteenth Amendment does not regard neutral laws as invidious, even when their burdens purportedly fall disproportionately on a protected class.”  That is, as the law applies uniformly to all citizens, the fact that it might burden some more than others is not a basis for discarding it.

The Supreme Court clearly ruled that “…without proof of discriminatory intent, a generally applicable law with disparate impact is not unconstitutional.”

Free voter ID’s made available by the state to any American citizen who wishes one does not constitute a basis for a claim of disenfranchisement of Hispanics. But Barack Obama’s Department of Justice did not look to the Court for guidance as it is the “disenfranchisement” of illegals and others who should not be voting that actually BOTHERS Barack Obama, Eric Holder, and the Department of Justice in the first place!

From Obamacare to immigration law and voter ID laws, the Obama Regime is interested only in the exercise of power and control over the American public. By enabling millions of illegals to vote for Democrats, the left hopes to secure the legislative and executive authority it needs to turn a Constitutional republic into a Marxist dictatorship. Should Obama and his handlers succeed, voter ID laws would become moot as elections themselves will be a distant memory.

Read more here

.

Related articles

Holder plays race card to block Texas voter ID law

Posted on by
3

Texas Voter Identification Law Blocked by Justice Department as Biased

By Seth Stern via Bloomberg

The Obama administration blocked Texas (BEESTX)’s new law requiring voters to show government-issued photo identification at the polls, escalating a partisan dispute over voting restrictions.

The U.S. Justice Department used its power under the Voting Rights Act to halt the Texas law, saying in a letter to the state today that the measure may disproportionately harm Hispanics. The department in December blocked a similar law in South Carolina (NFSESC).

Democrats have objected to the voter ID laws as impediments to minority voting while Republicans have said they protect the integrity of elections. Republican officials in Texas, one of eight states that passed voter identification laws last year, said the administration has no valid reason to challenge the measure.

“Their denial is yet another example of the Obama administration’s continuing and pervasive federal overreach,”Texas Governor Rick Perry said in a statement.

The Justice Department’s decision isn’t final. Texas and South Carolina have filed suit in federal court in Washington seeking permission to enforce their photo ID requirements.

Before blocking South Carolina’s law, the last time the Justice Department challenged a state voter identification measure under the Voting Rights Act was in 1994.

History Binds States

Texas and South Carolina are among 16 states or portions of states that must obtain permission from the Justice Department or a federal court in Washington before redrawing their district lines or changing election procedures because of a history of voting rights violations.

Hispanic registered voters in Texas are 47 percent to 120 percent more likely to lack the required identification than non-Hispanic voters, the Justice Department said in its letter. Texas has 12.9 million registered voters of whom 2.81 million are Hispanic.

“Even using the data most favorable to the state, Hispanics disproportionately lack either a driver’s license or a personal identification card,” Thomas Perez, head of the Justice Department’s civil rights division, wrote in the letter to Keith Ingram, the director of elections for the Texas Secretary of State.

The Voting Rights Act puts the burden on Texas to prove its law wouldn’t interfere with minorities’ ability to vote.

‘Federal Overreach’

Representative Lamar Smith, a Texas Republican and chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said in a statement that the Justice Department’s action is an example of the administration’s “abuse of executive authority.”

The American Civil Liberties Union supports the administration’s efforts to block the laws.

“It’s a good sign that the Department of Justice is stepping into the jurisdictions where it can to stop these laws in their tracks,” said Nancy Abudu, a senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project in Atlanta,

Under the Texas law signed last year by Perry, voters who arrive at the polls without one of seven acceptable forms of photo IDs issued by the state or federal government, including concealed carry handgun permits, would be given a provisional ballot, according to the Texas Secretary of State’s website.

Those ballots would count only if voters bring an approved ID to the registrar’s office within six days of the election.

‘Minor Inconveniences’

The law exempts mail-in ballots and voters with significant disabilities or religious objections to being photographed.

The law’s requirements “entail minor inconveniences on exercising the right to vote,” Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott said in his court filing on Jan. 24.

The photo ID law would disproportionately affect poor and minority voters, who are least likely to have any of the required forms of identification or the documentation needed to obtain one, said Luis Figueroa, a San Antonio, Texas-based legislative staff attorney with the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund. It also would hurt students because college or university IDs would not be accepted, Figueroa said.

The photo ID requirement could suppress minority turnout by three percent to five percent in Harris County, where Houston is located, and give Republicans an edge in local elections, said Carroll Robinson, a professor at Texas Southern University in Houston and a former city council member.

Election Integrity

“We’re going to disenfranchise significant numbers of minority voters as they become more and more the majority in Texas,” Robinson said.

Patricia Harless, a Republican state representative, said concerns among constituents about “the integrity of elections”rather than possible partisan advantage explains why she sponsored the voter ID measure last year. The law reduces the possibility of fraud, she said.

Lawmakers excluded student IDs because “we wanted a form of identification that was easily recognized by the poll workers at the election site,” Harless said.

Voters 65 and older automatically qualify to cast ballots by mail, which requires no ID, and the state will provide free voter identification cards.

“We worked really hard to make sure we met the constitutional requirements,” Harless said.

Lacking State ID

The Obama administration blocked South Carolina’s law in December after concluding minorities in the state are almost 20 percent more likely to lack state-issued identification than white registered voters.

The Justice Department asked for similar statistics from Texas, which said it doesn’t collect the kind of racial data needed to accurately determine how many of the state’s registered voters don’t have a driver’s license or state ID card are black or Hispanic. Texas provided data based on Hispanic surnames and no data on the impact on black voters, according to the Justice Department.

Jasmine Price, a sophomore at Prairie View A&M University, a historically black college 30 miles from Houston, said the law would make it harder for her to vote in person in Texas, as she’d prefer, rather than by absentee ballot in her home state, Arkansas.

Price, 19, said if the law takes effect, she’ll try to find the time in between a full course load and three shifts a week as a manager at a Houston sporting goods store to drive seven miles from campus to the nearest state Department of Public Safety office that issues IDs.

Literacy Tests

“My forefathers had it even harder to vote — they had to pass literacy tests — but they made sure they did what they had to do so that their vote could count,” said Price, who is black. “So if they say I have to go to the DPS office, as much as an inconvenience as it is to go there, that’s what I’m going to do.”

Alabama, where the voter ID law is not scheduled to go into effect until 2014, and Mississippi, where lawmakers haven’t adopted legislation to implement a citizen initiative approving a similar requirement, would also have to obtain Justice Department or federal court approval.

In Wisconsin, which doesn’t need to obtain the same kind of advance approval under federal law as Texas does, two state judges have temporarily blocked a voter ID requirement.

The latest ruling today in a challenge by the League of Women Voters came six days after a second judge ruled in a separate suit by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People against Governor Scott Walker.

To contact the reporter on this story: Seth Stern in Washington at sstern14@bloomberg.net

Related articles

The party of voter fraud strikes again

Posted on by
9

By Judson Phillips

The efforts of the Obama regime to steal the 2012 election have kicked into full swing.  Many states have passed laws to require ID to vote.  Of course, the Obama regime needs voter fraud in order to win, so they are fighting voter ID laws tooth and nail.

From Fox News:

The Justice Department on Friday rejected South Carolina’s law requiring voters to show photo identification at the polls, saying it makes it harder for minorities to cast ballots. It was the first voter ID law to be refused by the Obama administration.

Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez said South Carolina’s law didn’t meet the burden under the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which outlawed discriminatory practices preventing blacks from voting. Perez said tens of thousands of minorities in South Carolina might not be able to cast ballots under South Carolina’s law because they don’t have the right photo ID.

South Carolina’s new voter ID law requires people casting ballots to show poll workers a state-issued driver’s license or ID card; a U.S. military ID or a U.S. passport.

South Carolina is among five states that passed laws this year requiring some form of ID at the polls, while such laws were already on the books in Indiana and Georgia, whose law received approval from President George W. Bush’s Justice Department. Indiana’s law, passed in 2005, was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2008.

Those new laws also allow voters without the required photo ID to cast provisional ballots, but the voters must return to a specific location with that ID within a certain time limit for their ballots to count.

You cannot board an airplane, open a bank account, receive government benefits, even enter some government building, or buy alcohol without a proper ID.

Funny, the Obama regime and the party of voter fraud does not have a problem with any of those issues.  It is only when the party of voter fraud needs to steal elections is this idea that ID is required becomes suddenly onerous.

If the Obama regime thinks it is discriminatory for people to be required to show ID’s to vote, how about we all go to the airport and claim discrimination when the TSA wants to see an ID before boarding an airplane.

(Note by Kasey:  Dr. Caroline Heldman of Occidental University claimed on Bill O’Reilly’s Factor show that showing a water bill should be sufficient proof to vote – think I could buy a bottle of Bailey’s Irish Cream with my water bill?)

Related articles