This action is par with the course at the Obama/Holder Justice Department:
On Tuesday, the Obama administration will enter an increasingly divisive national debate over modern voting laws in several states that could lower turnout among minorities and others who helped elect the president in 2008. This year, more than a dozen states have tightened laws requiring voters to show a state-issued photo ID at the polls, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Although Democratic governors vetoed four of the measures, liberal and civil rights groups are raising alarm over the remaining bills, calling them an “assault on democracy.” and an attempt to lower minority voter turnout.
Supporters of stricter regulations say they are needed to combat voter fraud. As the presidential campaign gains momentum, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. will deliver a speech on Tuesday expressing concerns about voter ID laws as well as a Texas Supreme Court redistricting plan that does not take into account the state’s growing Latino population, he said in an interview Monday.
“We are a better nation now than we were because more people are involved in the electoral process– Holder said in an interview. “The beauty of this nation, the strength of this nation, is its diversity, and when we try to exclude people from participating in that process… we weaken the fabric of this country.”
The more the merrier! Who cares if they are legally entitled? Why, asking someone to do it actually prove they are who they say they are, it’s rank discrimination! Holder – of course – insists that his actions are completely devoid of even a hint of political considerations:
Holder said the rules could lower turnout for minorities, the penniless and elderly, and people with disabilities who would have difficulty obtaining valid IDs. He rejected any notion of politics influencing Justice’s decisions on modern laws. “We do it in a very fair and apolitical way,” he said. “We don’t want anyone to think there’s a partisan element to everything we do.”
“Very honest” and “apolitical.” Normal. I suppose it’s a remarkable coincidence that the Democratic National Committee also announced main series of initiatives to combat (you guessed it) early voter ID laws this month: :
The Democratic National Committee today announced modern initiatives aimed at opposing voter ID laws that Democrats say suppress voting. The modern website ProtectingtheVote.org argues that actual cases of voter fraud are infrequent, despite Republican success in passing tougher laws to combat fraud in dozens of states. Democrats accuse the GOP of trying to suppress minority votes to win the election.
The website and its accompanying report, “A Reversal in Progress,” are the first step in an “unprecedented effort to protect voters,” DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz (R-Fla.) said on a conference call. “We are strongly committed to helping voters remove these obstacles and barriers” said Wasserman Schultz, adding that Republican-favored voter ID laws “are fundamentally designed to steal elections.”
But, as you can see, this is not a coordinated DOJ/DNC effort. Eric Holder says so and his words may as well be gospel. According to the WaPo historyin addition to requiring a valid photo ID to vote, “the measures, most of which were passed by Republican legislatures, also include impose restrictions on early voting and make it more difficult for ex-felons to vote. For example, Florida and Ohio – both key battlegrounds – would almost halve the number of early voting days.” Are Democrats willing to illegally enfranchise former felons? Regarding the “early voting halved” statistic, I addressed this issue in a report on Florida’s “draconian” modern law in June:
GB: What was the thought process that cut the early voting window almost in half? [from 15 to 8 days]?
CC: Early voting will not be cut in half. Early voting lasted 96 hours under the previous law, and under the modern law it is 96 hours in every county that needs it. In fact, early voting has become more accessible because working voters now have 12 hours a day to vote early, not just 8. They also have 36 hours of possible weekend voting instead of just 16. Meanwhile, in rural counties, the flexibility to save taxpayers money because they don’t they are forced to keep polling stations open for the full 12 hours if the polling stations are not used for the full 12 hours.
I’ll leave you with two more relevant data points and then a question. (1) Georgia was an early supporter of the kind of legislation that Democrats would hysterically label voter suppression. In 2007, the deep red state passed a voter ID law. The Liberals filed a lawsuitAND lost. But a witty thing happened on the way to rampant voter suppression: minority voter participation increasednot only in 2008, but again in 2010. (2) Seventy-five percent of Americans support voter ID laws. That’s a huge super-majority, especially in these polarized times.
But undeterred by the facts, public opinion, and actual results, the leftist outrage machine is once again revving into high gear over newly enacted legislative efforts to enshrine these extremely popular, commonsense, fraud-cutting measures into law. Question: If Democrats are willing to fight against the overwhelming tide of public opinion and seem desperate to ignore findings that disprove their chosen narrative, wouldn’t it follow that they are actually driven by something other than good governance and ensuring fair and exact elections? Perish the thought.
UPDATE – Note the ironyBy Ed Morrissey: :
I wonder if our fearless, justice-seeking attorney general has launched a comprehensive investigation into this voice suppression union? No, he is busy taking care of people’s affairs. You know, covering up a deadly arms trafficking program, suing states for trying to enforce federal laws that his own gang won’t, forcing local communities to adopt Democrat-friendly party identification mechanisms, dismissing already won voter intimidation cases, and conspiring to turn over foreign jihadists to the U.S. civil courts for trial. Priorities.
