DOJ Rejects S.C. Voter ID Law

The Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department has rejected South Carolina's Voter ID law on the grounds that it discriminates against minorities.

The law, passed in May and signed by Gov. Nikki Haley ®, requires voters to show a driver’s license or one of several other forms of photo identification.

....The rejection leaves the state with the option of trying to get the law approved by a federal court or passing another law and submitting it to the Justice Department.

It's good to see the Justice Department stepping up to the plate.

< Friday Open Thread | Friday Night Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Great news (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by andgarden on Fri Dec 23, 2011 at 05:10:11 PM EST
    I suspect it's not an accident that they made the announcement on the Friday evening before Christmas.

    The President will not be campaigning on this issue, but it's yet another example of how elections have consequences.

    Just another of many (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by Lacy on Fri Dec 23, 2011 at 06:46:42 PM EST
    major and significant lies of the year that PolitiFact chose to ignore was the claim that "voter fraud" was the justification for efforts to "purify" the voting process by Republicans.

    Of course (none / 0) (#3)
    by lentinel on Sat Dec 24, 2011 at 02:37:03 AM EST
    it's good to see the Justice department on the right side of things for once instead of spending its time busting pot clinics.

    But, I suspect an ulterior motive. I see it as a move that it expects will benefit Democratic candidates... I don't see this Justice department acting on principle very often.

    Perhaps (none / 0) (#4)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sat Dec 24, 2011 at 09:02:27 AM EST
    Holder's next target is the racist requirement that those same minorities show ID to buy a gun, or travel by air, or cash a check.  If you can't cash a check, life can be pretty hard.

    This law (none / 0) (#5)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Dec 24, 2011 at 09:42:34 AM EST
    doesn't just require ID, it requires a GOVERNMENT ISSUED ID. So much for all the conservatives who whine about "too much government".

    So, (none / 0) (#6)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sat Dec 24, 2011 at 09:53:07 AM EST
    is that the same kind of ID you need to board a plane, or cash a check, or buy a gun?

    BTW, holding elections is inescapably a government function if you have noticed.


    Actually (none / 0) (#7)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Dec 24, 2011 at 09:59:17 AM EST
    picture IDs that are not government issued can be used to cash a check. So it just shows that conservatives LOVE BIG GOVERNMENT if it keeps people from voting apparently.

    red herring (none / 0) (#8)
    by diogenes on Mon Dec 26, 2011 at 09:59:48 PM EST

    If the government gave out free ID cards to all comers, would you all agree to have voter ID?  Who exactly would be disenfranchised except for those who are ineligible to get the free ID cards...perhaps because they were not citizens???

    SC (5.00 / 0) (#9)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Dec 27, 2011 at 10:22:03 AM EST
    is not giving out FREE IDs. They are making people pay for them.

    speaking of red herrings (5.00 / 0) (#11)
    by sj on Tue Dec 27, 2011 at 02:05:45 PM EST
    Your whole comment is based on a conjecture.  A big ole red herring.

    There's nothing wrong (none / 0) (#10)
    by MyLeftMind on Tue Dec 27, 2011 at 11:19:09 AM EST
    with the government demanding proof of who you are if you're participating in a public forum as important as voting, as long as legal citizens are not disenfranchised.

    Many states give out free IDs to the poor, and the federal government already has an expensive process to provide free Social Security cards. Why not just convert the SS cards to a federal photo ID card, keep it free so everyone has access, and use it as an election ID?

    Sure, these laws are a Rethug ploy to negatively impact the Democratic vote, but in the end, we'll all benefit from a more rigorous electoral system. Democrats should be leading the way on this issue so it can't be used against us by being fast tracked in states right before an important election (e.g.: the 2012 presidential election).