Posted by: Ann Corcoran | December 6, 2011

Voter ID: Holder and Perez to weigh in shortly

Next week Attorney General Eric Holder is expected to give a speech that likely will incite cries of racism when states require identification at the voting booth.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz calls any attempts to require ID a full scale attack by Republicans on the right to vote.

From NBC Politics:

Last week Democratic National Committee chairwoman Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz launched a new mobilization effort, saying, “Republicans across the country have engaged in a full-scale attack on the right to vote, seeking ways to restrict or limit voters’ ability to cast their ballots for their own partisan advantage.”

The strategy, she contended, disproportionally affects African-Americans, Latinos, and young people and could “skew the 2012 presidential election in the Republicans’ favor.”

Then Maryland’s gift to the Justice Department, Thomas Perez (the gift that keeps on giving), is at the moment reviewing many of the newest state laws for any “discriminatory effect.”

Assistant Attorney for Civil Rights Thomas Perez said last week that Justice Department lawyers are reviewing some of the recently-enacted state laws to ensure that they comply with the Voting Rights Act and do not have “a racially discriminatory purpose or discriminatory effect.”

The ACLU’s Laura Murphy screeches “NATIONAL CRISIS!”

Advocates of broader voting rights are looking forward to a speech on voting next week by Attorney General Eric Holder. “We’ve been pushing him hard to do that because we think it is a national crisis,” said Laura Murphy, the director of the Washington Legislative Office of the American Civil Liberties Union. “The big question is what will the Justice Department do – and that’s why we’re so excited about the attorney general’s upcoming speech.”

Holder, Perez, Debbie “Blabbermouth” (for Rush fans) Schultz, and Ms. Murphy have a problem.  The Supreme Court has already ruled that photo ID’s are constitutional!

Murphy, Wasserman Shultz and the Democrats confront one big obstacle: the Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision handed down in 2008 and written by Justice John Paul Stevens, upheld Indiana’s photo identification law.

“There is no question about the legitimacy or importance of the State’s interest in counting only the votes of eligible voters,” Stevens said.

Read the whole article.  It is very interesting and it appears that early studies from states that have had photo ID for several years have not seen a diminished minority voter turnout as the Dems claim.

I don’t know if this list is up-to-date, but we all know that Maryland has NO REQUIREMENT FOR IDENTIFICATION.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: