It is currently 04/04/25 5:29 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours




  Page 1 of 1   [ 7 posts ]
Author Message
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/23/11 2:41 pm • # 1 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
The DoJ is getting VERY busy ~ love the sentence I emphasized/bolded below ~ SC's own "data demonstrate" the discrimination ~ more to go, but at least this train is chugging in the right direction ~ Sooz

South Carolina voter ID law blocked by Justice Department
'Non-white voters' are 'significantly burdened,' department alleges

By Jeremy Pelofsky
Reuters
updated 2 hours 2 minutes ago 2011-12-23

The Obama administration on Friday blocked a new South Carolina law that requires voters to have photo identification because of concerns it would hurt minorities' ability to cast a ballot.

Republican Gov. Nikki Haley in May signed into law a measure that says voters must show a driver's license, passport or military identification along with their voter registration card in order to vote.

Under the law, anyone who wants to vote but does not have a photo identification must obtain a new voter registration card that includes a photo. A birth certificate or passport can be used to prove identity.

The Justice Department said the requirement could harm the right to vote of tens of thousands of people, noting that just over a third of the state's minorities who are registered voters did not have a driver's license needed to cast a ballot.

"The state's data demonstrate that non-white voters are both significantly burdened" by the law and "disproportionately unlikely to possess the most common types of photo identification" needed, Thomas Perez, head of the Justice Department's civil rights division, said in a letter to the state.

The state can appeal the decision at the Justice Department or in federal court. Attempts to reach a spokesman for Haley were not immediately successful.

Democrats have described the law as a "voter suppression" effort against minorities who historically do not always have photo identification cards. Republicans countered that their goal was to prevent voter fraud.

However, Perez said that South Carolina's submission to the Justice Department did not offer any evidence of voter fraud that was not addressed by existing law and that "arguably could be deterred by requiring voters to present only photo identification at the polls."

The Justice Department said plans by state officials to provide exemptions to the photo identification requirement were incomplete and vague. The state also has not finalized education and training materials.

If those issues were addressed, the Justice Department said the state could resubmit its plans and officials would consider revising its position.

The Justice Department move marks an escalation in the battle between the Obama administration and Republicans who control the legislatures in some states just 11 months before the 2012 presidential and congressional elections.

Obama lost South Carolina in the 2008 presidential race by a nine-point margin to his Republican opponent Sen. John McCain.

Under the landmark 1965 Voting Rights Act, certain states like South Carolina must seek approval from the Justice Department or the federal courts for changes made to state voting laws and boundaries for voting districts.

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder earlier this month said his team was reviewing changes to voting laws in other states including Florida and Texas and will challenge any that are discriminatory in violation of the federal voting rights law.

"The reality is that — in jurisdictions across the country — both overt and subtle forms of discrimination remain all too common," he said in a speech in Austin, Texas.

The Justice Department has also challenged a new election map drawn by Republicans in Texas, arguing that it does not fairly represent the exponential growth in Hispanic voters. Hispanics largely have supported Democrats in past elections.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/.../politics-more_politics/



Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/23/11 2:55 pm • # 2 
Administrator

Joined: 01/16/16
Posts: 30003
Perhaps the Feds should look into photo ID cards.
It could be cheaper in the long run than all these effing legal manoeuvers.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/24/11 5:07 am • # 3 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
NOT a good week for/in South Carolina ~ Image ~ Sooz

Federal Judge Blocks Key Provisions Of South Carolina's Anti-Immigrant Law

United States District Judge Richard Mark Gergel just handed down a preliminary injunction blocking several key parts of South Carolina's anti-immigrant law. The provisions blocked by Judge Gergel's opinion include:

[list] [*]Papers Please: The SC law makes it unlawful for immigrants to fail to carry immigration papers. This provision is now blocked under Judge Gergel's order. Additionally, Judge Gergel's order suspends a provision prohibiting immigrants from presenting fake immigration papers to law enforcement. [*]No Rides For Undocumented Immigrants: The SC law makes it a felony punishable by up to five years in prison to “transport, move or attempt to transportâ€


Top
  
PostPosted: 12/24/11 5:35 am • # 4 
Exactly Oskar. If a photo ID is required, then it should be furnished to every American of voting age at the expense of the state that is requiring it. However, this card could only be used for voting and not as any other form of ID. That leads to a 'national ID' which I am totally against. 


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/24/11 5:48 am • # 5 
Administrator

Joined: 01/16/16
Posts: 30003
That leads to a 'national ID' which I am totally against.

Why? You already have one with your SS card. Simply add a pic and you're done.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 01/11/12 5:50 am • # 6 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
More up-is-down, cold-is-hot, early-is-late GOP/TP nonsense ~ the argument presented is clever/creative ~ but the fact set has already been clearly identified by SC's own documentation ~ Sooz

Lawyer Defending South Carolina's Voter ID Law Thinks DOJ Is Biased Against White People
South Carolina officials plan to file suit against the federal government because the Justice Department stopped the state from implementing a voter ID law that the state's own statistics showed would have a disparate impact on non-white voters. Fighting on their behalf will be a former DOJ official who claimed that the Civil Rights Division is opposed to protecting the civil rights of whites and who defended the Bush-era politicalization of the division by Bradley Schlozman as an effort to “diversify.â€


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 01/11/12 6:00 am • # 7 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 05/05/10
Posts: 14093
oskar576 wrote:
That leads to a 'national ID' which I am totally against.

Why? You already have one with your SS card. Simply add a pic and you're done.
That would create another problem. You are issued a SS card at birth. They would have to issue a new one upon adulthood with the picture or have new pics taken every few months/years. SS cards are not now considered valid ID, or weren't in the past. Don't most states issue valid picture ID's if you don't have a driver's license?

  


Top
  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  

  Page 1 of 1   [ 7 posts ] New Topic Add Reply

All times are UTC - 6 hours



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
© Voices or Choices.
All rights reserved.