Saturday, December 24, 2011

Justice Department: Vote Early, Vote Late, Vote Often

In daily life, we in general have to assume good faith in our transactions with others, otherwise as a practical matter we'll be consumed with doubt and unable to get things done.

But can anyone attribute good faith to th U.S. Justice (so-called) Department?

The latest outrage is that DOJ rejected South Carolina's voter ID law on the basis of alleged "racial disparities" according to Assistant AG Thomas Perez. Relying on the provisions of the Voting Rights Act, the agency will likely block similar measures recently enacted in other states.

This phony-baloney decision really amounts to the DOJ under Eric Holder simply wanting to make vote rigging and vote fraud easier just in time for the 2012 presidential election. Again, as we have mentioned previously, if you need to show a picture ID for mundane activities such as getting on a plane, buying booze or cigarettes, picking up a package at UPS or the Post Office, or in some cases completing a credit card transaction, why in the world should any reasonable person oppose showing a driver's license or other valid photo identification at the polls? And isn't it an insult to any individual or group to assume that they can't get it together to obtain a photo ID?

Presenting a picture ID at the polls was "endorsed by the Commission on Federal Election Reform headed by President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker in 2005 to protect the integrity of the ballot," the WSJ adds.

The DOJ action based on make-believe discrimination defies common sense. But it comes from the same fantasy world federal government that fails to enforce immigration law but sues states that do.

Earlier this week (before the South Carolina decision was announced, although the handwriting was on the wall), The Wall Street Journal decried Holder's use of the race card to oppose voter ID in a recent speech:
Mr. Holder says the Civil Rights Division led by Thomas Perez will review the policies and impartially "apply the law." If that's true, Mr. Perez's job should be easy: In 2005, Justice approved a nearly identical law in Georgia. In 2008's Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, the Supreme Court likewise ruled 6-3 that an Indiana law requiring photo ID at the ballot box was constitutional....
That isn't good enough for Mr. Holder, who says his department's priority is to "expand the franchise." But expand it for whom, exactly? The vast majority of voters already have the necessary photo ID, which they need to get through airport security or register for a grocery-store savings card.
Plaintiffs put up by liberal lawsuit shops routinely claim that ID laws endanger the rights of hundreds of thousands, but lawsuits in Indiana and Georgia were dismissed because they couldn't produce a single eligible voter who'd been turned away due to the ID requirement. Turnout has risen in states that have passed the voter ID laws, with no adverse impact on minorities.
Texas is apparently next on the chopping block. DOJ whistleblower J. Christian Adams recommends that "The way to save Texas voter ID is to withdraw the objection, immediately, and file in federal court on Tuesday.  The way to save South Carolina voter ID is to file in court immediately.  Stop wasting time with the corrupt leftist bureaucrats at the Justice Department."

Hopefully South Carolina, Texas, and other similar situated states will immediately use all the legal means at their disposal to overturn the DOJ bureaucracy.