Spiting South Carolina

Ruling on state's voter ID law drips with political motivation

  • Follow Editorials

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?

Comments (27) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
copperhead
1035
Points
copperhead 12/28/11 - 11:30 pm
0
0
The feds should declare war

The feds should declare war on S.C. and force it to knuckle under. Who do they think they are anyway,citizens? Bah! Humbug!

faithson
5456
Points
faithson 12/29/11 - 01:19 am
0
0
The decision is based upon

The decision is based upon the 'fact' that this new law effects the minority population's voting rights in a way that effects their representation in the government they are citizens of. This law, as written and implemented is questionable, especially if 'voter fraud' is the basis for it's implementation. Sorry bigots, vote fraud is insignificant, statistically not significant.. period

Fundamental_Arminian
1871
Points
Fundamental_Arminian 12/29/11 - 05:06 am
0
0
The Justice Department may

The Justice Department may have covered its motives in its lawsuit against South Carolina by approving Georgia's redistricting map, which Democrats have charged is biased. Anyway, the editorial is spot-on to recommend photo IDs for voting.

I have one peeve, though: "Voting, on the other hand, is one of our most important responsibilities as citizens" (editorial).

We shouldn't write "on the other hand" unless we've already written "on the one hand." The writer had me searching in vain for the first hand and wondering, "What other hand?"

owensjef3
5639
Points
owensjef3 12/29/11 - 05:54 am
0
0
Your horrible history is what
Unpublished

Your horrible history is what caused this.

Riverman1
90744
Points
Riverman1 12/29/11 - 06:49 am
0
0
There is a law for northern

There is a law for northern states and another one for southern states under Reconstruction. The Yankee Army is going to come marching through the state again and burn a swath of ground 10 miles wide. On Feb. 17, 1865 Columbia was burned to the ground.

General William Sherman, "With Savannah in our possession, at some future time, if not now, we can punish South Carolina as she deserves...I do sincerely believe that the whole United States, north and south, would rejoice to have this army turned loose on South Carolina, to devastate that State..."

Truth Matters
7834
Points
Truth Matters 12/29/11 - 06:53 am
0
0
Okay, let’s put this in

Okay, let’s put this in perspective. I do not understand the obsession that many have and believe that liberals want to take their guns away. However, I accept that some truly want to preserve the right to bear arms. Even though many abuse the right to bear arms, we are not about to abridge the rights of the many for the conviction of the few. Remember the mantra, “Guns don’t kill, people do.” The same is the case where minorities are concerned about voting rights. Any law that has the potential of preventing lawful people the right to vote will and should be opposed by the Justice Department and all other citizens who care about the soldiers who died to preserve our freedom. How in the world can we hold ourselves up as an example of democracy to Third World countries and sit by while these laws take effect? I suppose if I had never heard Karl Rove declare that if the minority vote is decreased by just a few percentage points it will change the outcome of the next election, I would not be suspect.
I am able to remember my grandfather, a land owner, not being allowed to vote. There is no way he would be able to produce a birth certificate to get a photo ID if his life depended on it. There is not a problem with requiring a photo ID, it’s the exceptional hoops that one must go through to get the photo ID.
We have computers. Once a person is registered to vote their names should be entered into the database, as I am sure is already done since we can cite which precincts turned out the vote for which candidates. If a voter shows up on voting day at more than one poll then the computer should override the excess votes and thus only the first vote cast will count.
The smart use of computers to stop potential voter fraud is not rocket science. Law enforcement uses them in a very proficient manner. If one is stopped by an officer for a traffic violation such as running a traffic light, the officer knows if the driver associated with that vehicle has other violations before he gets out of the car.
Finally, just because some prankster registers as Mickey Mouse does not mean there is an attempt to defraud the system. It simply means someone has a morbid sense of humor. If the “big rat” does not show up to vote, then there is no problem!

Truth Matters
7834
Points
Truth Matters 12/29/11 - 06:57 am
0
0
Ooops! Sorry about the lack

Ooops! Sorry about the lack of indention for paragraphs; that's what happens when one composes in Word and then pastes into comment box. I'll do better next time.

Have a great day all! I'm off to work!

Riverman1
90744
Points
Riverman1 12/29/11 - 06:59 am
0
0
Because Karl Rove said

Because Karl Rove said something about decreased minority voting hurting the Democrats, we should declare war on SC? Maybe we should even ask private citizen, Rove, if he were referring to illegal disenfranchisement?

Riverman1
90744
Points
Riverman1 12/29/11 - 07:33 am
0
0
Look, enough of these attacks

Look, enough of these attacks on our laws and institutions. I say we raise an Army and go for it...again. Georgia will surely join with its sister state, as will North Carolina.

I'm going to raise a cavalry unit myself. We can get the Occupiers to join with us. They are so stupid they will follow anything, plus they have their own tents and know how to camp out. Tell others the feds are cutting their benefits and they'll become part of our army, too. We could take Washington before they knew it, sue for peace and make secession a reality.

The wealthy Congressmen will drive out in their cars to watch our army be defeated by the powerful federal forces and pick the pockets of our soldiers, but we will have a surprise for them as we march through Washington torching the bureaucracy with the mounds of IRS and other government paperwork. Southern Wolverines!!!

allhans
24522
Points
allhans 12/29/11 - 09:01 am
0
0
The argument that a citizen

The argument that a citizen now alive and well and residing in the U.S. can't get proof of birth is ludicrous. All of our senior citizens either draw social security, medicare, medicaid, etc and had to produce documentation at that time. I doubt they threw the paperwork away. A 100 year old now would have been born in 1911...not exactly the ice age.
ID for voting is the fair and equitable thing to do.

The Democrats will defend the childish actions because they are being done by "their" party. Bah!

carcraft
27895
Points
carcraft 12/29/11 - 09:02 am
0
0
There was an interesting

There was an interesting article in the 23 December 2011 Augusta Chronicle on page 5B. The story "Voter ID report numbers inflated". According to the article 240,000 registered voters were reported as lacking voter ID. Well it turns out 204,000 had moved to other states and allowed drivers licenses to lapse. 60,000 were deceased or there names didn't match i.e. Robert on drivers license but Bob on voter registration card etc. Very few voters lacked the proper ID. As I read if the James Brown turkey give away can require and ID AND utility bill why is it a streatch to require a voter ID.. OH I know Holder says so..Now maybe Holder can figure out who in his department of Justice authorized Fast and Furious, after all over three hunderd peope were killed and all of them were Democratic voters...

allhans
24522
Points
allhans 12/29/11 - 09:08 am
0
0
I had to chuckle over the

I had to chuckle over the long comment by "truth matters". I can see him/her showing up to vote and being told "sorry, the computer says you have already voted" because someone by the same name was checked off the list. After all, he SAID he was named "truth matters"
.
You would have to work at a polling place to understand just what a foul up it could become.

effete elitist liberal
3173
Points
effete elitist liberal 12/29/11 - 09:26 am
0
0
Remember Paul Harvey and "the

Remember Paul Harvey and "the rest of the story"? Well, you won't read the rest of the story here in the opeds of the AC, at least when Mike Ryan is spinning the tale. What you won't read here is that the proponents of the Indiana law could not present the courts with a single example of a conviction for at-the-polls voter fraud in Indiana to support the claim that the purpose of the Indiana law was to prevent fraud. Not one! Absentee ballot fraud? Yes, but the Indiana law, passed by a Republican-controlled state legislature, did not cover absentee voting, no doubt because a large majority of absentee ballots in Indiana are cast by Republicans. By here's a even more interesting part of "the rest of the story." What Mike Ryan doesn't want readers to know is that in 2009, a year after the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Indiana law, ruling it does not violate the federal constitution, the Indiana Court of Appeals unanimously ruled the law violated the equal protection clause of the Indiana Constitution! What about that Mr. Ryan? The AC is on record as supporting state courts over federal courts, especially on state voting policy. What about those "states' rights" Mr. Ryan? Don't they count any more?

Little Lamb
48010
Points
Little Lamb 12/29/11 - 09:41 am
0
0
EEL wrote: . . . the

EEL wrote:

. . . the proponents of the Indiana law could not present the courts with a single example of a conviction for at-the-polls voter fraud in Indiana to support the claim that the purpose of the Indiana law was to prevent fraud.

You have a well written post, EEL, but to me the part I quoted fits into the red herring category. Where is it cast in stone that a legislature cannot write a law unless someone has been convicted of something? They said they wanted to provide a structure to prevent voter fraud. It is the will of the people to prevent such fraud. Just because the lax officials of the Indiana Boards of Election have not agressively pursued justice in bringing peretrators of election fraud to justice should not prevent a legislature from providing this very reasonable tool.

Little Lamb
48010
Points
Little Lamb 12/29/11 - 09:45 am
0
0
If it is incumbent on the

If it is incumbent on the defendants (i.e., the governments of Indiana or South Carolina) to show that there have been convictions of at-the-polls voter fraud; then it should also be incumbent on the plaintiffs to show that eligible black people have been denied picture I.D.s when they applied for them. The trouble is, no one qualified has been denied.

justthefacts
24063
Points
justthefacts 12/29/11 - 09:58 am
0
0
EEL, the rest of the rest:

EEL, the rest of the rest: "The Indiana Supreme Court upheld the state's voter identification law in a 4-1 decision Wednesday, saying the Legislature has the power to require voters to show a photo ID at the polls."

justthefacts
24063
Points
justthefacts 12/29/11 - 10:04 am
0
0
"The empirical evidence shows

"The empirical evidence shows that voter ID laws do not suppress minority voting. In Georgia, black voter turnout for the 2006 midterm elections was 42.9%. After Georgia passed its photo ID, black turnout in the 2010 midterm rose to 50.4%. Black voter turnout also rose in Indiana and Mississippi after enactment of their voter ID laws."
I'm not black, but I am pretty sure if I was, I would be offended that anyone would argue I am not smart enough to have ID.

avidreader
3481
Points
avidreader 12/29/11 - 10:31 am
0
0
Looking at this on a national

Looking at this on a national level, the entire ordeal is geared toward illegal immigrants, not the down-on-her-luck, poor African-American grandmother. What is so wrong with asking a person for a photo ID? The process is so simple. All one has to do is produce a utility bill or something that proves residency. The ID card pops up from a computer in minutes.

Chillen
17
Points
Chillen 12/29/11 - 10:43 am
0
0
Eric Holder = Major

Eric Holder = Major Racist.
Eric Holder = Incompetent.
Eric Holder = Criminally Crooked.
Eric Holder = obama puppet.

Draw your own conclusions.

If the federal govt keeps this crap up you will be seeing states make moves to secede. It is inevitable. States basically have no rights anymore. It's "all about the feds" now. And that is not a good thing

Little Lamb
48010
Points
Little Lamb 12/29/11 - 10:59 am
0
0
First, let me say I support

First, let me say I support and salute honest law enforcement officers at all levels. You keep us citizens from being taken down from civilization into savagery by keeping criminals at bay. You are COPS and we are proud of you and need you.

Eric Holder is no COP.

Nevertheless, I took the first letters of Chillen's description of the characteristics of Eric Holder — M R I C C O P — then re-arranged the letters to form:

Crim-Cop

Eric Holder is a criminal agent within the Justice Department. Crim-Cop seems to be an apt description.

Little Lamb
48010
Points
Little Lamb 12/29/11 - 11:16 am
0
0
Truth Matters wrote: Any law

Truth Matters wrote:

Any law that has the potential of preventing lawful people the right to vote will and should be opposed by the Justice Department and all other citizens who care about the soldiers who died to preserve our freedom.

His sentence has the ring of truth (the part about the dead soldiers is an inflammatory red herring, but we can ignore that and get to the point), but the devil is in the details.

The key phrase is “lawful people.” In so many important areas of our lives we have to present credentials to show that we are lawful.

Keeping and bearing arms is a right, but governments have added restrictions.

Voting is a right, but governments have added restrictions. For example:

— Above a certain age
— Citizen of the nation
— Resident of the physical territory covered by the election
— Civil rights not taken away by some court action
— Physically able to vote
— Any others come to mind?

Children cannot vote in the U.S. Non-U.S. citizens cannot vote in the U.S. Louisianans cannot vote in New Jersey. People in prisons cannot vote in some jursidictions, but they can in others depending on state laws. In most states, a person physically unable to operate the voting mechanism (paper, machine, etc. — although more and more accommodations of voting mechanisms are being developed to increase particpation by disabled people) cannot vote. For example, a person in a complete coma cannot vote and cannot authorize another to vote for him.

You see, there are restrictions. Requiring a government-issued, photo I.D. is a reasonable restriction.

allhans
24522
Points
allhans 12/29/11 - 11:16 am
0
0
Those arguing against the

Those arguing against the requirement for voter I.D. should, beginning now, refuse to show I.D. for ANYThing... EVER!

justthefacts
24063
Points
justthefacts 12/29/11 - 11:17 am
0
0
"Any others come to mind?"

"Any others come to mind?" How about you have to have actually paid Federal Income taxes? Let the people who pay taxes have the say in how they are spent.

eagle
94
Points
eagle 12/29/11 - 02:30 pm
0
0
SC is going to appeal the fed
Unpublished

SC is going to appeal the fed ruling. As someone above stated, the DOJ is simply a puppet for Obama. Is is 2012 yet?

specsta
6776
Points
specsta 12/29/11 - 03:01 pm
0
0
To Truth Matters - great

To Truth Matters - great comment! Very insightful and well-written.

Bowtie355
0
Points
Bowtie355 12/29/11 - 08:11 pm
0
0
When Holder went to Texas to

When Holder went to Texas to denounce the voter ID laws of that and other states, each person entering the LBJ Library where he spoke had to present his or her photo ID in order to enter.

CobaltGeorge
170599
Points
CobaltGeorge 12/29/11 - 08:22 pm
0
0
When the U.S. Justice

When the U.S. Justice Department last week blocked South Carolina's new voter ID law because of possible discrimination against minorities, attention quickly focused on Texas, which passed similar legislation this year.

Read more here: http://www.star-telegram.com/2011/12/28/3621998/texas-voter-id-law-unnec...

I have just one stupid question....."Do minorities have trouble getting a picture ID"?

Sargebaby
4693
Points
Sargebaby 12/29/11 - 08:27 pm
0
0
CobaltGeorge asks: "I have

CobaltGeorge asks: "I have just one stupid question....."Do minorities have trouble getting a picture ID"?"

Only if they are wanted by law enforcement agencies. The discrimination against minorities is largely a huge excuse that will promote voter fraud. Picture ID should be mandatory for all.

CobaltGeorge
170599
Points
CobaltGeorge 12/29/11 - 08:37 pm
0
0
Well then, if they are wanted

Well then, if they are wanted by law enforcement agencies then they are illegally can't vote and the only picture need taken is mug shot. Right. The good minorities don't have any problem getting a picture ID.
This is nothing but a liberal issue and it only going to get worst when they are about to be poo=canned out of office.

Back to Top

Top headlines

Lincoln County deputies injured breaking up fight

Two Lincoln County deputies were treated at an Augusta Hospital after being injured breaking up a fight at a party at an American Legion building in Lincolnton.
Search Augusta jobs