There is absolutely no good reason why the Obama Justice Department rejected South Carolina’s voter identification law.
And no, politically motivated spite isn’t a good reason.
But it’s good enough for Attorney General Eric Holder, who perpetuates the canard that requiring a voter to produce a photo ID foments voter disenfranchisement.
From the Associated Press: “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, Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez said.”
So just where are all these disenfranchised voters? That’s what judges asked in Indiana when plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against that state’s photo ID law. Not even one such voter could be produced, so the suit was rightly tossed out.
In this case, how is South Carolina so different from Indiana? It’s not.
Look at the way welfare benefits were being handled in Philadelphia earlier this year. The city saw a surge in supplemental food stamp applications from people recovering from Hurricane Irene.
And what did the government require from each applicant? A photo ID. Is that discrimination against the poor? Of course not. That’s plain common sense.
But common sense is in short supply inside the most political Justice Department in the nation’s history.
“Nothing in this act stops people from voting,” said South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson, who vowed to fight the feds on this nakedly partisan ruling.
Absolutely. No state that makes the right decision on voter IDs should have to be pushed around by Big Government.
Now Texas’ voter ID law is under review by the Justice Department. Texas had better prepare for a similar fight.
You need a photo ID to drive a car, rent a movie, cash a check, fly on a passenger jet, send a package through a private freight company and perform any number of life’s mundanities.
Voting, on the other hand, is one of our most important responsibilities as citizens. The question shouldn’t be: Why require photo IDs for voting? It should be: Why haven’t we required them before now?