In a speech at the LBJ Library at the University of Texas–Austin, Attorney General Eric Holder attacked efforts by state legislators to ensure the integrity of the ballot box. In a setting obviously designed to evoke Lyndon Johnson’s historic signing of the Voting Rights Act in 1965, Holder railed against voter-ID laws and other election-reform measures. While minimizing the danger of fraud, Holder seemed oblivious to the irony of doing so at the LBJ Library: It was, after all, the infamous Ballot Box 13 and the stolen 1948 election that launched LBJ’s political career.
As the government’s chief lawyer, Holder is tasked with enforcing federal election laws in an objective, nonpartisan, race-neutral manner. Instead, Holder parroted the talking points of the Democratic National Committee and racial-grievance organizations, falsely comparing voter-ID requirements and other election reforms with the violent efforts of state officials to keep black citizens from the polls a half-century ago. Holder claimed that such practices “remain all too common.”
Advertisement
This comparison insults the heroic work of so many who helped end the injustices of Jim Crow. It is also quite ironic to hear Holder refer to the fire hoses, bullets, bombs, and billy clubs that voters had to confront in the 1960s, given that his Justice Department dismissed the voter-intimidation lawsuit it had won by default against the New Black Panther Party and its billy-club-wielding thugs, who menaced voters in Philadelphia in 2008. His Justice Department has made it clear that it does not believe in the race-neutral enforcement of our voting-rights laws.
Holder also incorporated into his speech Rep. John Lewis’s absurd claim that election-reform efforts are “a deliberate and systematic attempt to prevent millions” of minority and other voters from going to the polls. This shows how the paranoid fantasies of the Left infect the attorney general and his entire department. Voter-ID laws have been in place in Georgia and Indiana for more than five years, and none of the hysterical claims made by opponents have materialized. As NRO has documented, turnout of minority voters did not decrease in those states — it increased significantly. Voters certainly disagree with Holder: Polls show overwhelming support for voter-ID laws across racial, ethnic, and party lines.
Holder said that the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division would “thoroughly” review these state policies and “apply the law.” But if that were an accurate description of how Holder’s Civil Rights Division evaluates voting laws, the voter-ID laws submitted by Texas and South Carolina for review under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act would have already been approved.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Indiana’s voter-ID law was constitutional, and the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals approved Georgia’s voter-ID law as nondiscriminatory. In fact, the Justice Department itself cleared Georgia’s law under the Voting Rights Act. Both of these laws are similar to the Texas and South Carolina policies that are now under review.Holder’s disregard of precedent is an improper and rank politicization of the process.
Holder’s foolish imaginings about voter-ID requirements should come as no surprise. After all, the government-transparency group Judicial Watch has discovered through a Freedom of Information Act request that the White House and the Justice Department have been consulting with — and getting recommendations on new hires from — current and former officials of ACORN, dozens of whose employees have been convicted of voter fraud.
Holder’s attitude should concern all Americans who want next year’s elections to be fair, secure, and overseen by an impartial and professional Department of Justice.
If voter ID is Jim Crow, then requiring an elderly black person to produce identification to sign up for and/or receive social security benefits is Jim Crow.
The elderly (white or black) must have identification in order to sign up for and/or receive social security benefits. This isn't discriminatory, nor does it suppress their right to receive said benefits.
When union members vote on specific things pertaining to their union, they are required to have ID. Is that voter suppression? Uh oh...better tell Holder!
This is precisely what we have come to expect from a man who has proven time and again that he allows politics and ideology to influence his job performance. Eric Holder is the Attorney General of the liberal wing of the Democratic Party, not of the United States of America. From his first day in office he drew a line in the sand and made it perfectly clear that he stood on one side of that line and all those Americans with whom he disagreed stood on the other. He has accused his fellow, law-abiding citizens of being cowards, bigots, civil rights violators and violent extremists and apparently feels no remorse or shame for doing so.
The man who barely noticed members of the New Black Panthers Party dressed for combat carrying night sticks outside a Philadelphia polling place claims it's racist to require voters to show I.D. to prove they are the voters they claim to be. Is it racist to ask an African American for I.D. to prove he's old enough to drive, to purchase alcohol or to use a credit card? Americans, regardless of the color of our skin, are required to show I.D. in order to do many of the things we do in life every day, so why the big debate over voter I.D.? When cheating is the only way to win, Mr. Holder appears to be fighting for his party's ability to continue cheating.
Holder is only trying to distract his buddies in the media from the fact he is heading to the slammer for contempt of congress.
Just wait for the comparisins to Jim Crow when that happens!!
In a stunning display of talking point synchronization, every single politician and pundit, from Debbie Wasserman Schultz on down, who opposes photo IDs, leads off by assuring us that voter fraud is essentially a myth, that only a tiny fraction of votes cast are found to be fraudulent. This is like being a little bit pregnant. Voter fraud of any degree is unacceptable, and when a reasonable deterrent such as photo IDs can minimize it even further, both sides should embrace it. I'm shocked that it's not already a requirement everywhere. But the Dems desperately need to keep that door wide open. That's their ace in the hole for winning elections.
Eric Holder is a thug, cheat, & liar! He has no interest in upholding the laws of the land, only the ones he deems legitimate. He's filed lawsuits against states for prosecuting federal statutes that he does not care to.His only concern is that "his people" are protected. He's nothing more than a political hack who has defiled his office.
The state I reside in has always had a voter ID law and still, the ballot boxes were stuffed in the 2010 elections. I shudder to think of how much worse it would be without the ID statutes.
I can not believe that this Republic has sagged this far. I knew Democrats had no shame, but to see it up close and personal just infuriates me. At least with the Mafia you knew the true intent of the organization. These Democrats are a criminal organization that has the power of taxes and growing numbers of dependent voters to keep looting us. They make Nixon look saintly by comparison.
Eric Holder has endlessly displayed his contempt for white America [e.g., calling us a nation of cowards] and his looking aside of black thuggery {the "New Black Panther Party incident}, his filing suit against states that are desperately trying to slow the flood of ILLEGAL ALIENS [and no, they are not 'undocumented immigrants'] and now his open lying to Congress about his involvement with Fast & Furious. As an earlier comment noted, he is a liar, thug and cheat...but so is his boss...so unless Congress votes to impeach him, Holder isn't going anywhere. We have The Chicago Way in the White House and Nov 2012 can't come a day too soon.
Instead of couching this as a way of defeating voter fraud----which I believe is a greater problem than is acknowledged----photo ids are necessary to ensure that the laws regarding voter eligibility are enforced. How can you ensure that the person voting is legally eligible to vote without a photo id?
In his speech Holder also proposed a system in which residents of a community would be automatically registered to vote. Were such a system implemented, the inability to check the identification of voters would result in massive vote fraud with people being bussed from community to community to vote in the name of residents who were automatically registered to vote but who did not. This coming from the chief law enforcement officer of the United States. Disgraceful!
Anyone who has hard video evidence of REAL voter intimidation, IE: black panthers with bats at polling stations, and chooses to ignore that - has absolutely no credibility to be giving speaches about protecting voter's rights.
I abhor the notion of a national ID card, but if every elligible citizen of voting age could have access to a federal picture ID, falsification of such could be elevated to the status of a federal felony.
It's all about setting the stage for trying to steal the election. Holders motto is If you can't win fairly win at any cost.....Vote as often as you can if your eligible or not......
This could have been the headline on seemingly every decision Eric Holder has made as the AG.
I'm thinking that considering how TIME magazine and the editorial boards of the major newspapers just love to make anti-heroes their "PERSON of the YEAR' that they could have made Eric Holder the "Person" this year, and they could have run his photo on the cover under a sub-heading banner: "Eric Holder Gets It Wrong.
"Perry also renewed his attack on U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder for his handling of the "Fast and Furious" gun-trafficking investigation and called for tougher safeguards on the U.S.-Mexican border, warning that national security is "in jeopardy" from criminal elements and potential terrorists crossing into the U.S. from Mexico."
No one disputes the rationale for ensuring elimination of "voter fraud". The issue immediately becomes controversal however, when these talking points come up when one side or another wants to win the White House and when the population most effected by the issue generally votes one way. It would be a bit less controversial if there were actual hard facts that supported a case for voter fraud, and if these issues were raised by either side. Why we never made an issue of voter fraud during Bush years for example ..
Voters who vote "one way" are affected most by a voter ID law? Explain please. Oh, all people are affected since all have to show ID.
Controversial statement alert.
If people aren't motivated enough to vote that a requirement to show ID prevents them from voting, then they have no business voting. Period!
