Messing with Texas and Deceiving the Public


Pages: 1 2

Yet the DOJ is on tenuous ground. In April of 2009, the United States Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that an Indiana voter-identification law was not unconstitutional, that the state had “valid interest” in improving election procedures and/or deterring fraud, and that the ID requirement imposes no “undue burden” on the aged, the poor or minorities. Writing for the majority, liberal Justice John Paul Stevens concluded that “there is no question about the legitimacy or importance of the state’s interest in counting only the votes of eligible voters.”

At the time, Indiana’s law was considered the strictest in the country. Currently 31 states have voter ID laws, passed by legislatures under both Democrat and Republican control. Moreover, the Justice Department itself “pre-cleared” a Georgia voter ID law in 2005. Ironically, that law resulted in an increase in minority turnout at the polls. Hispanic and black turnout in the 2008 election was 140 percent and 42 percent higher, respectively, than it was in the 2004 election.

Since those decisions undercut both the legality and credibility of the DOJ’s efforts in both South Carolina and Texas, one is left with progressive politics as the prime mover here. Thus, the reactions by those on the left are predictable. “Texas’s voter ID law would prevent countless Latinos, African Americans, elderly citizens and others from casting their ballot,” said Katie O’Connor, a staff lawyer with the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project. “We’re pleased the Department of Justice has recognized the harms this discriminatory law would have on people’s fundamental right to vote.” NAACP President Benjamin Todd Jealous echoed that sentiment, contending that “the integrity of our election process remains intact.”

Such notions of “integrity” get a big thumbs down from the American public. A Rasmussen poll reveals that 75 percent of Americans are in favor requiring voters to present a photo-ID prior to casting a ballot. That reality likely reflects the realization that photo-ID has become a prerequisite for conducting a substantial number of transactions in modern-day America, most of which are far less critical than choosing elected representatives. Yet progressives such as DNC Chairwomen Debbie Wasserman Schultz continue to liken such a common sense provision to Jim Crow segregation laws, and Attorney General Holder contends that “in jurisdictions across the country–both overt and subtle forms of discrimination remain all too common–and have not yet been relegated to the pages of history.”

Texas Governor Rick Perry undercuts such odious contentions. “Texas has a responsibility to ensure elections are fair, beyond reproach and accurately reflect the will of voters,” he said in a released statement. “The DOJ has no valid reason for rejecting this important law, which requires nothing more extensive than the type of photo identification necessary to receive a library card or board an airplane. Their denial is yet another example of the Obama Administration’s continuing and pervasive federal overreach.”

The latest video from conservative gadfly James O’Keefe undercuts the other progressive shibboleth: the contention that voter fraud is virtually non-existent. An agent for the film-maker showed up at various voting centers in Vermont, giving workers a different name at each location. In each location, he is given a ballot without showing an ID. A previously released O’Keefe video revealed voter fraud in New Hampshire–fraud that may have been the catalyst for the state senate passing a voter ID law, currently awaiting approval in the state’s House of Representatives. “Voters are rightly outraged by the reports of voter fraud during our First-in-the-Nation Primary,” said Wayne MacDonald, chairman of the Republican State Committee. State Sen. Ray White (R-Bedford), who supports the bill, went further. “Voting is a precious commodity,” he said. “People get excited to vote when they know their vote counts. People get discouraged if they think voter fraud will cancel their vote.”

Unfortunately, the voters of Texas and South Carolina will likely be facing discouragement in November. Regardless of the way the U.S. District Court in Washington rules, it is virtually certain the losing side will file an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. As the Wall Street Journal sarcastically notes, when one “crosses lawyers with statisticians” an “endless morass” is produced. A morass that will almost certainly make a final ruling in both this case and the one from South Carolina impossible to reach before the 2012 election.

Given the Supreme Court’s clear-cut decision in the Indiana case, it is precisely this delay that may be the most compelling factor for the DOJ. For progressives in general, their arguments against voter ID illuminate the utter bankruptcy of an ideology where something as intrinsically commonsensical as protecting the integrity of elections for everyone, takes a back seat to the contemptible urge to win by an election means necessary. If a bedrock principle of our democratic republic is undermined in the process? The ends justify the means.

For Attorney General Eric Holder, who long ago abandoned any pretense of constitutional fealty or racial even-handedness, it is nothing more than business–Chicago-style–as usual.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

Pages: 1 2

  • davarino

    For some reason we Americans have the idea that EVERYONE should and must vote. So if we have to drive you to the polling place, wonderful, the republic is saved. If we have to forgo asking for ID to make sure you are a citizen before you can vote, great, at least a maximum number of people voted which proves to Jimmy Carter we have fair elections. My feeling is that if you cant afford to get the necassary ID to vote then you dont deserve to vote because you are one of those who are not educated enough to know what your voting for and your one of those who have no skin in the game and keep voting for more goodies for yourself and all your compadres.

    Will vote for cookie

    • pagegl

      Texas voter ID cards are free. But, I guess having to drive to get one is a hardship. Then again, having to get a ride to vote in several precincts in Houston is something the left will gladly support.

  • StephenD

    The other, often overlooked side to this is the fact that those who supposedly the DOJ are trying to protect, the minorities, become the ultimate victim of voter fraud. When their "community" is fraught with votes that do not truly reflect the constituencies wishes they are the victims. Their vote is suddenly…useless. So talk of the poor disenfranchised minority voter is a straw man at best and an attempt of outright invalidation at worst perpetrated by the very folks that claim to have their backs.

  • oldtimer

    I have a photo ID to get into the big box store clubs, but you don't need ID to vote? DUH!

  • mrbean

    (getting excited and smacking lips metttt….metttt….mettttt) Ah beez Prez Obam un the farmerPrez Bush beez keeping meh down, it awl beez dat white man fault, cause he fum Texsas and dey dun gonna keeps dah dead, dah illegal aliens un dah convix fum voting fah meh. yassah1

  • Spider

    There is only one reason you wouldn't want IDs required for voting: That is if you support voter fraud by illegal aliens. Every vote cast by an illegal alien illegally and unconstitutionally will nulify one vote from someone casting a legal vote thereby disinfrangising him or her. This is the real goal of the DOJ and it makes real voters the victims not minorities.
    We no longer have a DOJ with Holder at the helm. it has become nothing but a militant enforcer for the left wing Chicago Syndicate (Obama administration) that is bent on destroying the constitution and steeling an election with illegal votes.

  • Spider

    Sorry – I corrected some spelling

    There is only one reason you wouldn't want IDs required for voting:
    That is if you support voter fraud by illegal aliens. Every vote cast
    by an illegal alien illegally and unconstitutionally will nulify one
    vote from someone casting a legal vote thereby disenfranchising him or her.
    This is the real goal of the DOJ and it makes real voters the victims not
    minorities. We no longer have a DOJ with Holder at the helm. it has
    become nothing but a militant enforcement arm for the left wing Chicago Syndicate
    (Obama administration) that is bent on destroying the constitution and
    stealing an election with illegal votes

  • maturin20

    Hey, it gets headlines. Electoral politics is a rough game. Ask Kenneth Blackwell.

    • pagegl

      Yeah, especially if you do anything the left would consider an impediment to their ability to stuff the ballot box.

      • maturin20

        Mwahaha, the Left is so powerful! One side, America, or be crushed under the iron wheels of the Juggerleft!

  • ofbag

    While the federal won't enforce existing laws, the states of course can enforce a law that does exist. LOL.

  • hajid

    The DOJ is under the execution branch, who gave it the right to translate the law that passed in the states? This is against the Constitution and against the people.

  • pagegl

    We ought to require that anyone wanting to vote in a federal election pass a test on the Constitution. Unfortunately for the left that would probably exclude most of them. Wow, what a bummer, Obama and Holder wouldn't be able to vote for themselves.

  • johnnywoods

    Maybe I missed something but I remember one Henry B. Gonzales being elected to Congress from San Antonio back around 1960 and Henry Cisneros a former mayor of San Antonio who also served in the Clinton administration. How did they get elected in Texas with all the discrimination going on here?

  • Rexter

    I like the idea of voters having ID in order to be admitted for election. This is a form of control in order to prevent perpetration and fraud or if not prevented, it will never be easy to commit crime in such case. In our country, we do have voter's ID. Unfortunately, illegal acts of politicians still dominates. I do not know how our DOJ works about them. It seems like they are under somebody else's control.