Perez is Thomas Perez of course— Maryland’s gift to the Obama Administration. A few days before Christmas, 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 next.
By the way, readers, this isn’t about disenfranchising black voters as the Justice Department claims. As we see in this article from WBIR in Knoxville, TN, black voters reported that they had IDs of some sort. What American citizen doesn’t have some sort of ID to present at a polling place to confirm they are who they say they are?
This is really about Perez wanting to be sure illegal immigrants could continue to vote (and LOL! maybe more than once). Keep in mind, Perez, a socialist, is a staunch advocate of illegal alien rights and comes from the Maryland town, Takoma Park, which permits illegals to vote in local elections. You can bet all those Salvadorans I reported on in the last post, with TPS and drivers licenses, are voting (and do have ID!) even though TPS has no formal path to citizenship.
Many readers may not know that Tennessee is a huge immigrant state. Catholic Charities has been pouring refugees into the state for years—many of them Somali Muslims—and it’s an illegal alien magnet especially around Nashville. Although refugees are legally here they do not automatically become citizens with voting rights.
So back to Tennessee’s new Voter ID law and the story at WBIR (Knoxville):
Civil rights attorneys in Nashville and Washington, D.C., appear to be laying the groundwork for legal challenges to Tennessee’s new voter identification law.
A top official says the U.S. Department of Justice is reviewing recent laws that require voters to show photo identification at the polls, and Nashville attorneys are putting together a lawsuit that could challenge the law unless legislators reconsider when they convene Jan. 10.
But the state’s top election official and the law’s main backer in the legislature say they do not expect any changes to the measure. They say they are more worried that the lawsuits will confuse voters about the status of the law, which officially went into effect Sunday and will be noticed the first time by most Tennesseans when they go to the polls in March to vote in the Republican presidential primary.
“Going into this, we knew there were going to be distractions,” Mark Goins, the state’s coordinator of elections, said of the lawsuits. “We fully anticipate that voters will be required to show photo ID when they go to vote. … It is the law until the legislature says it’s not the law or a court says it’s not going to be the law.”
History: US Supreme Court has already said Voter ID laws are Constitutional
The current round of debate over voter ID laws began in 2005, when Indiana passed legislation requiring photo identification after allegations of fraudulent voting during the Democratic primary for mayor of a Chicago suburb. Responding to complaints that not everyone carries a picture ID, lawmakers in Indiana set up a procedure for issuing IDs free of charge through the state’s Bureau of Motor Vehicles.
The Indiana Civil Liberties Union, a Democratic state lawmaker, the Indiana Democratic Party and other opponents of the law nonetheless filed lawsuits in which they argued that the photo ID requirement violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. But in 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected that argument, saying state officials’ interest in protecting the integrity of elections outweighed any inconvenience presented to voters.
“There is no question about the legitimacy or importance of the State’s interest in counting only the votes of eligible voters,” then-Justice John Paul Stevens wrote. “While the most effective method of preventing election fraud may well be debatable, the propriety of doing so is perfectly clear.”
Tennessee, South Carolina and three other states passed laws in 2011 modeled after Indiana’s. Proponents of Tennessee’s voter ID have dismissed any variation from Indiana’s blueprint, saying it would open the law to new court challenges.
Perez: we have a “team of people” snooping around your state now!
Without naming any other state, Justice officials said in recent weeks that they are looking at other voter ID laws. Thomas Perez, the head of the department’s civil rights division, said that because facts vary from state to state, the Supreme Court’s decision in Indiana cannot be taken as a blanket endorsement of all voter ID laws.
“We have a team of people that are carefully reviewing laws that have been passed throughout the country,” Perez said in the address to the American Constitution Society’s annual symposium in Washington. “One thing we’ve learned already is that every law in this context is different.”
This is a long article with lots of interesting information and it is worth reading the whole thing.
In case you are wondering, Maryland has NO requirement to present an ID at the voting booth! I guess you are not surprised!
Update: Cecil Calvert points us to a story from Arizona—further confirmation that Holder/Perez are more interested in illegal aliens being able to vote then whether American blacks might not have IDs.