Posted by: Ann Corcoran | December 24, 2011

Perez “the bully” again! Justice Dept throws out voter ID law in S.Carolina

Update:  A South Carolina writer says that the Obama Administration promotes “phantom voting,” here.  I thought that was a good phrase to remember.

US Asst. Attorney General for Civil Rights, Thomas Perez, announced late yesterday that the Justice Dept. is tossing out the South Carolina voter ID law because too many illegal aliens will have a hard time getting ID’s to vote.  He didn’t exactly say it that way, but that is what he is saying.

SC Governor Nikki Halley called the Obama Administration bullies.

From the Greenville News via USA Today:

The U.S.Justice Department’s decision Friday rejecting South Carolina’s voter ID law ignited outrage and celebration on opposite sides of an emotionally charged issue.

Civil rights activist and Greenville native Jesse Jackson called it a fitting Christmas present, while Gov. Nikki Haley said she is trying to improve things in South Carolina but “the president and his bullying administration are fighting us every step of the way.”

The state’s new voter ID law requires a state-issued driver’s license or ID card, a U.S. military ID, or a U.S. passport.

The Justice Department in its ruling said the law makes it harder for minorities to cast ballots. Without the right ID, tens of thousands of minorities in the state might not be able to vote, the Justice Department said.

Haley said it’s another example, along with the decision of a U.S. district judge Thursday blocking parts of the state’s new immigration law, of President Barack Obama violating states rights.

“It is outrageous, and we plan to look at every possible option to get this terrible, clearly political decision overturned so we can protect the integrity of our electoral process and our 10th amendment rights,” Haley said.

Then here is a little nugget I didn’t know.  So, does this mean that the Justice Department makes the ruling in only those states which have had problems in the past with “blacks” voting.  So, a state like Maryland (have we had problems?) could pass a Voter ID law and the feds would have no authority to step in?  I don’t know, does anyone of our readers know?

The Justice Department weighed in on the South Carolina law because it must approve changes in states that failed in the past to protect the voting rights of blacks. The Justice Department also is examining the new voter ID law in Texas.

As I said the other day, Perez has been unleashed.  I wonder if they are figuring they need to make “progress” in the likely probability that they have only another ten months or so in power.

I have written many times on Perez, see our archive here.   If you are a new reader perhaps you don’t know that two prominent Maryland Republicans (Tony O’Donnell and John Kane) actually endorsed this guy for his present job in the Justice Department—what were they thinking?   Do you realize Perez’s nomination had been successfully held up for 6 months in the Senate Judiciary Committee, here, where he is described as the “progressives dream appointment.”



  1. Here’s some info from Wikipedia on the DOJ’s authority to rule on certain states’ elections and laws, based on the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and later rulings and amendments. Maryland is not on that list of states.

    Section 5 of the Act requires that the United States Department of Justice, through an administrative procedure, or a three-judge panel of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, through a declaratory judgment action “preclear” any attempt to change “any voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting…” in any “covered jurisdiction.”[5] The Supreme Court gave a broad interpretation to the words “any voting qualification or prerequisite to voting” in Allen v. State Board of Election, 393 U.S. 544 (1969). A covered jurisdiction that seeks to obtain Section 5 Preclearance, either from the United States Attorney General or the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, must demonstrate that a proposed voting change does not have the purpose and will not have the effect of discriminating based on race or color. In some cases, they must also show that the proposed change does not have the purpose or effect of discriminating against a “language minority group.” Membership in a language minority group includes “persons who are American Indian, Asian American, Alaskan Natives or of Spanish heritage.” The burden of proof under current Section 5 jurisprudence is on the covered jurisdiction to establish that the proposed change does not have a retrogressive purpose.[14]

    Covered jurisdictions may not implement voting changes without federal Preclearance. The Justice Department has 60 days to respond to a request for a voting change. If the Justice Department or federal court rejects a request for Preclearance, the jurisdiction may continue the prior voting practice or may adopt a substitute and seek Preclearance for it. If the jurisdiction implements a voting change before the Justice Department denies Preclearance in contravention of the Act, the jurisdiction must return to the pre-existing practice or enact a different change.

    Those states which had less than 50 percent of the voting age population voting in 1960 and/or 1964 were covered in the original act. In addition, some counties and towns that have been found in violation of section 2 have been added. Some cities and counties in Virginia (see below) have since been found no longer to need Preclearance.

    • Judy, thanks for all that information!

  2. […] the Asst. US Attorney for Civil Rights filed suit against South Carolina’s new voter ID law (here), and those who support legal voting in Tennessee are worried that he will be after Tennessee […]

  3. […] up the problem are being thwarted at every turn by the Holder Justice Department and his sidekick Maryland’s Thomas Perez. Advertisement GA_googleAddAttr("AdOpt", "1"); GA_googleAddAttr("Origin", "other"); […]

  4. […] background, see my report in December 2011, when Perez threw out the South Carolina voter ID law here.  Gov. Nikki Halley called the Obama administration […]

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: