U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder says his agency will continue to subject states like South Carolina to decades-old restrictions on voting reform – even though the U.S. Supreme Court has struck down the heart of the law as unconstitutional.
“Even as Congress considers updates to the Voting Rights Act in light of the Court’s ruling, we plan, in the meantime, to fully utilize the law’s remaining sections to subject states to pre-clearance as necessary,” Holder said this week.
In other words, once again the administration of U.S. President Barack Obama is going to do whatever it wants – Congress, the Supreme Court and the Constitution be damned.
Also, it’s funny what this guy choose to pay attention to … and more importantly, what he chooses to ignore.
Anyway, Holder added that “my colleagues and I are determined to use every tool at our disposal to stand against such discrimination wherever it is found.”
Really? What about when there is irrefutable evidence of white voters getting disenfranchised en masse?
Ironically, while Holder ignored that discrimination … he railed on South Carolina’s recently passed voter ID law, which resulted in a swift rebuke from S.C. Attorney General Alan Wilson.
“Attorney General Holder is rewriting history to advance a political agenda,” Wilson said in a statement. “South Carolina is proud of the progress it has made in protecting the rights of its voters, and will continue to encourage full voter participation in all coming elections.”
Wilson also accused Holder of misrepresenting South Carolina’s position on the implementation of its law.
“Attorney General Holder claimed in his speech that the Voting Rights Act prompted South Carolina to change the way its new voting statute would be implemented in future elections to eliminate what would have been dramatic discriminatory effect,” he said. “That is not what happened at all. The court in no way changed the substance of South Carolina’s Voter ID law, and upheld the law based upon the ‘reasonable impediment’ provision adopted by the legislature.”
This website did not support the voter ID law. We stated repeatedly that it was a pointless reform aimed at addressing a totally nonexistent problem – wasting valuable time and resources that could have been devoted to more pressing problems. Also S.C. Gov. Nikki Haley’s administration got caught flat-out lying to the public in an effort to promote the bill’s passage.
Having said that, we don’t believe some states should be required to “pre-clear” voting reforms with the federal government – while others don’t.
Of course if it were up to us …
***
62 comments
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-case-of-zombie-voters-in-south-carolina/2013/07/24/86de3c64-f403-11e2-aa2e-4088616498b4_blog.html?tid=pm_pop
Alan Wilson got 4 Pinocchios at the Washington Post Fact Checker column today related to his lies about zombie voting and the cover-up of the SLED report for 2 months.
Gee, maybe THAT’S why he called your racist ass today to stir you up over nothing. Not saying it’s not there, but not one reporter I have seen discussing Holder’s speech, including South Carolina’s Craig Melvin, mentioned any state but Texas in their reporting today.
Oh, you sure don’t understand the SCOTUS ruling. Could it be by chance that you could not get into either of SC’s law schools and that’s why you are obsessed with the one on Charleston?
Texas and North Carolina
I wouldn’t rely too much on the Washington Post for anything but self-serving war mongering progressive rubbish. Snopes is rubbish, too. There is much more to this story. If I were Alan, I sue the crap out of the Post. Maybe he will.
The ruling by the SCOTUS impacted all states. The article states very clearly that “U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder says his agency will continue to subject states like South Carolina…”.
The operative word being ‘Like’. Similar in nature. Does anybody but a very few actually read?
Zombie voters might be an improvement, at least their vote is somewhat based on brains.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-case-of-zombie-voters-in-south-carolina/2013/07/24/86de3c64-f403-11e2-aa2e-4088616498b4_blog.html?tid=pm_pop
Alan Wilson got 4 Pinocchios at the Washington Post Fact Checker column today related to his lies about zombie voting and the cover-up of the SLED report for 2 months.
Gee, maybe THAT’S why he called your racist ass today to stir you up over nothing. Not saying it’s not there, but not one reporter I have seen discussing Holder’s speech, including South Carolina’s Craig Melvin, mentioned any state but Texas in their reporting today.
Oh, you sure don’t understand the SCOTUS ruling. Could it be by chance that you could not get into either of SC’s law schools and that’s why you are obsessed with the one on Charleston?
Texas and North Carolina
I wouldn’t rely too much on the Washington Post for anything but self-serving war mongering progressive rubbish. Snopes is rubbish, too. There is so much more to this story. If I were Alan, I’d sue the crap out of the Post. Maybe he will.
The ruling by the SCOTUS impacted all states. The article states very clearly that “U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder says his agency will continue to subject states like South Carolina…”.
The operative word being ‘Like’. Similar in nature. Does anybody but a very few here actually read?
Zombie voters might be an improvement, at least their vote is somewhat based on brains.
Ask EH if he was allowed to join the Jack and Jill club. And what is so special about paper sacks from only the Hoggly Woggly Store? That really sounds like discrimination against Winn Dixie and other grocery stores. I’m truly offended!
Ask EH if he was allowed to join the Jack and Jill club. And what is so special about paper sacks from only the Hoggly Woggly Store? That really sounds like discrimination against Winn Dixie and other grocery stores. I’m truly offended!
This post displays a misunderstanding of the various sections of the Voting Rights Act and how they work. Section 5 is the one that required preclearance for specific states with a history if discrimination. Its underlying formula was struck down by the Supreme Court.
Section 3(c), the “bail-in” provision, was not struck down by the Court, It provides a different mechanism for addressing voting rights violations. If anybody wants to understand the bail-in provision better, they can google it.
But this oversimplification of a complicated statute is, well, wrong. Section 3(c) was not affected by the Court’s ruling. At all.
Section 3 also requires proof of intentional discrimination, which I suspect will consist of a bunch of regurgitation of historical data that gave rise to the preclearance formula that was struck down. Or else he will demagogue and claim voter ID laws are facial evidence of intentional discrimination, which should be laughed out of court.
I’d suggest you not prejudge the evidence, given that you have no knowledge of it.
The point of my first comment, though, was to refute “in other words” sentence in the post. (“In other words, once again the administration of U.S. President Barack Obama is going to do whatever it wants – Congress, the Supreme Court and the Constitution be damned.”)
The administration is going to do what the statute authorizes in Section 3, whose constitutionality has never been questioned. The suggestion that the attorney general’s actions are contrary to “Congress, the Supreme Court and the Constitution” is demonstrably false.
If truth and falsity matter at all in political discussions anymore.
Please cite the evidence of intentional discrimination you would like me to consider. There is none. This is a pretty blatant attempt to resurrect the preclearance without having to deal with Congress.
For all the hand wringing about the unitary executive under Bush, Obama’s efforts to expand executive power (simply ignoring legal mandates when it suits his purposes, implementing the DREAM Act by executive fiat, etc.) have been astounding.
But Oshitforbrains is an atty, CL? I thought it was ok for him to be involved?
Holy Shit. Grahmnesty is an atty too? No reason we shouldn’t let atty run the fucking country (into the ground). Praise JD
Involved in what, exactly?
I never argued that lawyers should run the country. Far from it. That is Obama’s view where the elites centrally plan everything. I responded to your ridiculous assertion that lawyers should have no role in interpreting the law.
Yeah I addressed my error in great detail. No time to do it now your lordship. Please see my response as noted.
Only and idiot would believe these Voter ID laws and laws making it harder to register voters have any purpose other than to reduce the number of minorities registering and voting. You can yell about evidence all you want, but Republicans know why they are passing these laws and so does everyone else. There is absolutely no evidence of material voter registration fraud or voting fraud in any of the states enacting these laws. No one passes a law to stop something there is no evidence exists.
This stuff about protecting the integrity of elections is just bunk. If that were true why aren’t they doing anything about the fact that it has been proven SC voting machines can be hacked, and there is no paper trail. At least there is evidence of that possibility.
Just looking at the numbers the odds are significantly higher that SC Republicans are rigging elections than the odds SC Democrats are rigging elections; yet there are no laws being proposed in SC, Texas or North Carolina to alleviate any concerns about that.
This is partisan politics pure and simple. The Republican party fears the vote of minorities so they are taking steps to slow down the growth in minority voters. They were going to attempt it anyway. All the Supreme Court decision did was eliminate the need for them to openly lie about what they were doing. Now they don’t have to give a reason. That is why NC and Texas rushed to implement Voter suppression laws as soon as the Supreme Court decision came out. The Supreme Court decision eliminated the need to lie, so why continue to lie about the motive. Because they are afraid they will fail and that minorities, will know who tried to prevent them from voting.
There is plenty of evidence of voter fraud in this country if you care to look for it.
http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2012/09/14/7_examples_that_show_voter_fraud_is_a_huge_problem/page/full
http://www.truethevote.org/news/how-widespread-is-voter-fraud-2012-facts-figures
I happen to agree with SIC that it is not one of the most pressing issues of the day, but it is certainly a rational concern.
And where is the evidence, not your assertion disguised as fact, of discrimination? Voter ID laws are facially neutral, and serve an obvious purpose of ensuring that you are who you say you are. If a voter ID law is discriminatory, then requiring one to register at all or go to a particular polling place is discriminatory.
I don’t think you are stupid, so why do you keep changing the subject. Who cares whether these laws will ultimately have a desperate impact on minorities or not? As you say, thanks to Republican appointees to the Supreme Court, that is no longer the question. What is important for Americans to understand, particularly Hispanic and Black Americans, when it comes time to vote is that Republicans believe that these laws will have a disparate impact on minorities, and serve an obvious Republican purpose of reducing the number of minorities registering and voting. In fact that is the sole motive behind the enactment of this laws. The only evidence I need of that is that only Republicans think this is a good idea and they have no interest in fixing any other problems with the “integrity of the elections.”
I believe the racists assumption that minorities cannot comply with these laws is being made by Republicans. I am hopeful they will be proven wrong, and Hispanics and Blacks will register and vote in record numbers in response to their actions. Not because I think we should be a minority dominated country, not because I think Democrats will be better legislators, but because I find what the Republican party is doing here Un-American and reprehensible.
Also I went to your two sources of proof of voter fraud. They are a joke. There is no evidence of material voter fraud in any of the states passing these laws. It would be virtually impossible to get enough people to participate in voter fraud to effect an election without getting caught. You would have to involve hundreds, perhaps thousands of co-conspirators all of whom would have to risk being recognized by poll workers. That is not happening and by far the least likely of all voter fraud to occur. The most likely voter fraud is the hacking of voting machines. So why no concern? Oh, fixing that problem would clearly not serve any obvious Republican purpose.
Voter fraud has determined elections: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/30/west-virginia-sheriff-fal_n_1242248.html
As I said, not one of the top issues facing the country, but it is a real issue.
So it is changing the subject to ask you to support your defense of Holder’s actions with evidence? I think you are the one being evasive. Either provide evidence or admit you can’t, but stop wasting my time spinning around in circles.
Fracking atty.
Another Atty
This post displays a misunderstanding of the various sections of the Voting Rights Act and how they work. Section 5 is the one that required preclearance for specific states with a history if discrimination. Its underlying formula was struck down by the Supreme Court.
Section 3(c), the “bail-in” provision, was not struck down by the Court, It provides a different mechanism for addressing voting rights violations. If anybody wants to understand the bail-in provision better, they can google it.
But this oversimplification of a complicated statute is, well, wrong. Section 3(c) was not affected by the Court’s ruling. At all.
Section 3 also requires proof of intentional discrimination, which I suspect will consist of a bunch of regurgitation of historical data that gave rise to the preclearance formula that was struck down. Trying to make such an argument would directly contradict the findings in Shelby that times have changed and that there is no basis for presuming the preclearance jurisdictions are intentionally discriminating. Especially when it seems he is just going around to all the old preclearance jurisdictions and asking a judge to bail them in (i.e. a blanket approach to resurrect section 5 rather than anything that can remotely be characterized as a targeted response to specific instances of discrimination).
My only other hypothesis is that he will try to use voter ID laws as the “new evidence” of intentional discrimination (remember, it is not a disparate impact analysis, but intentional discrimination), which is just insane.
I’d suggest you not prejudge the evidence, given that you have no knowledge of it.
The point of my first comment, though, was to refute “in other words” sentence in the post. (“In other words, once again the administration of U.S. President Barack Obama is going to do whatever it wants – Congress, the Supreme Court and the Constitution be damned.”)
The administration is going to do what the statute authorizes in Section 3, whose constitutionality has never been questioned. The suggestion that the attorney general’s actions are contrary to “Congress, the Supreme Court and the Constitution” is demonstrably false.
If truth and falsity matter at all in political discussions anymore.
Please cite the evidence of intentional discrimination you would like me to consider. There is none. This is a pretty blatant attempt to resurrect the preclearance without having to deal with Congress.
For all the hand wringing about the unitary executive under Bush, Obama’s efforts to expand executive power (simply ignoring legal mandates when it suits his purposes, implementing the DREAM Act by executive fiat, etc.) have been astounding.
But Oshitforbrains is an atty, CL? I thought it was ok for him to be involved?
Holy Shit. Grahmnesty is an atty too? No reason we shouldn’t let atty run the fucking country (into the ground). Praise JD
Involved in what, exactly?
I never argued that lawyers should run the country. Far from it. That is Obama’s view where the elites centrally plan everything. I responded to your ridiculous assertion that lawyers should have no role in interpreting the law.
Yeah I addressed my error in great detail. No time to do it now your lordship. Please see my response as noted.
Only and idiot would believe these Voter ID laws and laws making it harder to register voters have any purpose other than to reduce the number of minorities registering and voting. You can yell about evidence all you want, but Republicans know why they are passing these laws and so does everyone else. There is absolutely no evidence of material voter registration fraud or voting fraud in any of the states enacting these laws. No one passes a law to stop something there is no evidence exists.
This stuff about protecting the integrity of elections is just bunk. If that were true why aren’t they doing anything about the fact that it has been proven SC voting machines can be hacked, and there is no paper trail. At least there is evidence of that possibility.
Just looking at the numbers the odds are significantly higher that SC Republicans are rigging elections than the odds SC Democrats are rigging elections; yet there are no laws being proposed in SC, Texas or North Carolina to alleviate any concerns about that.
This is partisan politics pure and simple. The Republican party fears the vote of minorities so they are taking steps to slow down the growth in minority voters. They were going to attempt it anyway. All the Supreme Court decision did was eliminate the need for them to openly lie about what they were doing. Now they don’t have to give a reason. That is why NC and Texas rushed to implement Voter suppression laws as soon as the Supreme Court decision came out. The Supreme Court decision eliminated the need to lie, so why continue to lie about the motive. Because they are afraid they will fail and that minorities, will know who tried to prevent them from voting.
There is plenty of evidence of voter fraud in this country if you care to look for it.
http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2012/09/14/7_examples_that_show_voter_fraud_is_a_huge_problem/page/full
http://www.truethevote.org/news/how-widespread-is-voter-fraud-2012-facts-figures
I happen to agree with SIC that it is not one of the most pressing issues of the day, but it is certainly a rational concern.
And where is the evidence, not your assertion disguised as fact, of discrimination? As Justice Roberts noted: “Census Bureau data from the most recent election indicate that African-American voter turnout exceeded white voter turnout in five of the six States originally covered by [Section 5] with a gap in the sixth State of less than one half of one percent.”
Voter ID laws are facially neutral, and serve an obvious purpose of ensuring that you are who you say you are. If a voter ID law is discriminatory, then requiring one to register at all or go to a particular polling place is discriminatory. And again, the standard is not disparate impact*, but direct evidence of intentional discrimination.
* I would also like to see your evidence of even disparate impact on minorities. I have had this discussion before, and it is amazing how quickly you get down to racist assumptions liberals make about the ability of minority voters to comply with the law.
I don’t think you are stupid, so why do you keep changing the subject. Who cares whether these laws will ultimately have a desperate impact on minorities or not? As you say, thanks to Republican appointees to the Supreme Court, that is no longer the question. What is important for Americans to understand, particularly Hispanic and Black Americans, when it comes time to vote is that Republicans believe that these laws will have a disparate impact on minorities, and serve an obvious Republican purpose of reducing the number of minorities registering and voting. In fact that is the sole motive behind the enactment of this laws. The only evidence I need of that is that only Republicans think this is a good idea and they have no interest in fixing any other problems with the “integrity of the elections.”
I believe the racists assumption that minorities cannot comply with these laws is being made by Republicans. I am hopeful they will be proven wrong, and Hispanics and Blacks will register and vote in record numbers in response to their actions. Not because I think we should be a minority dominated country, not because I think Democrats will be better legislators, but because I find what the Republican party is doing here Un-American and reprehensible.
Also I went to your two sources of proof of voter fraud. They are a joke. There is no evidence of material voter fraud in any of the states passing these laws. It would be virtually impossible to get enough people to participate in voter fraud to effect an election without getting caught. You would have to involve hundreds, perhaps thousands of co-conspirators all of whom would have to risk being recognized by poll workers. That is not happening and by far the least likely of all voter fraud to occur. The most likely voter fraud is the hacking of voting machines. So why no concern? Oh, fixing that problem would clearly not serve any obvious Republican purpose.
Voter fraud has determined elections: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/30/west-virginia-sheriff-fal_n_1242248.html
As I said, not one of the top issues facing the country, but it is a real issue.
So it is changing the subject to ask you to support your defense of Holder’s actions with evidence? I think you are the one being evasive. Either provide evidence or admit you can’t, but stop wasting my time spinning around in circles.
Fracking atty.
Another Atty
House Negro to the rescue!
House Negro to the rescue!
A few White folks having to wait in long lines over a local tax issue, seems like fairly small beans compared to minorities all over the country being forced to wait hours to vote in a Presidential election in states controlled by Republicans; and the coordinated effort of Republicans to pass laws intentionally designed suppress minority voting during federal and state elections.
I guess if it were me, I would not put Richland County on the top of my list either.
Exactly.
You’re a buffoon. Voter suppression in affluent parts of Richland County is the ONLY reason the penny sales tax passed. T-Bone and his merry band of derelict city administrators cheated the system to extract even more taxes from people that live in a county with some of the highest taxes in the state.
Voter suppression in affluent parts of Richland County is the ONLY reason the penny sales tax passed.
lol… I actually don’t think that is true. Richland County came close to passing it before, I honestly believe it could have passed without the McBride fiasco (the fact that it was a presidential election would drive far more people out of the woodwork to vote, and Richland is fairly Democratic). Maybe I’m just too pessimistic about Richland voters, though, I don’t know.
Even if you want a tax hike to fix the problems Richland County says they’ll use it for, you’d be a fool to trust Richland to actually do what they are asking. At this point, I’m just wondering when the next proposed penny tax is going to be put on the ballot, promising to fix the exact same problems, and how many of the morons who voted yes this time won’t even think twice about it.
A fool and his money are soon parted, sucks that in this case it is more than just the fool’s money.
Smirks, it was a combination of voter suppression in affluent areas of Richland County and confusion in less fortunate parts of town via a very crafty campaign with moronic mouthpieces like Jim Manning. By calling it the “Penny Tax”, many of Richland County’s intellectually bankrupt actually thought it was “just a penny” tacked on to your purchase and NOT an additional percentage. A LOT of people showed up at the polls in Richland County in 2008, 2010 and 2012 that were confused about a lot of things, including the “Penny Tax”.
A few White folks having to wait in long lines over a local tax issue, seems like fairly small beans compared to minorities all over the country being forced to wait hours to vote in a Presidential election in states controlled by Republicans; and the coordinated effort of Republicans to pass laws intentionally designed suppress minority voting during federal and state elections.
I guess if it were me, I would not put Richland County on the top of my list either.
Exactly.
You’re a buffoon. Voter suppression in affluent parts of Richland County is the ONLY reason the penny sales tax passed. T-Bone and his merry band of derelict city administrators cheated the system to extract even more taxes from people that live in a county with some of the highest taxes in the state.
Voter suppression in affluent parts of Richland County is the ONLY reason the penny sales tax passed.
lol… I actually don’t think that is true. Richland County came close to passing it before, I honestly believe it could have passed without the McBride fiasco (the fact that it was a presidential election would drive far more people out of the woodwork to vote, and Richland is fairly Democratic). Maybe I’m just too pessimistic about Richland voters, though, I don’t know.
Even if you want a tax hike to fix the problems Richland County says they’ll use it for, you’d be a fool to trust Richland to actually do what they are asking. At this point, I’m just wondering when the next proposed penny tax is going to be put on the ballot, promising to fix the exact same problems, and how many of the morons who voted yes this time won’t even think twice about it.
A fool and his money are soon parted, sucks that in this case it is more than just the fool’s money.
Smirks, I stand corrected, it was a combination of voter suppression in affluent areas of Richland County and confusion in less fortunate parts of town, via a very crafty campaign with moronic mouthpieces like Jim Manning. By calling it the “Penny Tax”, many of Richland County’s intellectually bankrupt actually thought it was “just a penny” tacked on to your purchase and NOT an additional percentage. A LOT of people showed up at the polls in Richland County in 2008, 2010 and 2012 that were confused about a lot of things, including the “Penny Tax”.
Where is the report on his investigation into the “extra rigged for Steve’s pleasure” Richland County Election Office?
Shit Jay. Didn’t you get the report. It was filed by Hold’em 5 minutes before he got the complaint.
Keep up, man. Keep up.
Where is the report on his investigation into the “extra rigged for Steve’s pleasure” Richland County Election Office?
Shit Jay. Didn’t you get the report. It was filed by Hold’em 5 minutes before he got the complaint.
Keep up, man. Keep up.
Holder needs to be investigating Alan Wilson and the public corruption surrounding the $134K campaign contributions not disclosed for over two years as well as Bobby Harrell and the City of Columbia!!
Holder needs to be investigating Alan Wilson and the public corruption surrounding the $134K campaign contributions not disclosed for over two years as well as Bobby Harrell and the City of Columbia!!
Is he trying to say that the dead people who voted in SC….the ones that weren’t really dead…..can now vote or now really be dead? Get Nikki on the phone.
Is he trying to say that the dead people who voted in SC….the ones that weren’t really dead…..can now vote or now really be dead? Get Nikki on the phone.
Hope Ol’ SC haz th’ testicuklar fortitude to resist dis heer invashun! Naw– too much fed monie at stake!
Hope Ol’ SC haz th’ testicuklar fortitude to resist dis heer invashun! Naw– too much fed monie at stake!
Holder is one raciest SOB, liar, gun runner. He makes Jessie Jackson look like a cheap piker (oops, he is). Well any way………………………………..
Holder is one raciest SOB, liar, gun runner. He makes Jessie Jackson look like a cheap piker (oops, he is). Well any way………………………………..