24 Feb 2012 7:46 pm
South Carolina has passed one of the most restrictive voter I.D. laws in the country that could potentially disenfranchise thousands of voters. The Justice Dep't has blocked the law, and the state of South Carolina has filed a lawsuit challenging the DOJ.The lawsuit could cost the state upward of a million dollars or more.And another blatantly political case by the radical Obama Justice Dept. will be slapped down by the Supreme Court, maybe 9-0 like the last two.Say, isn't Obama supposed to be a Constitutional expert?Say, why is the Justice Dept. challenging this law, if it's almost identical to those already upheld by SCOTUS, other than for corrupt partisan electoral purpose?South Carolina passed a voter ID law that is almost identical to those implemented by Georgia and Indiana six years ago. It requires a voter to present a South Carolina driver's license or other photo IDa passport, military ID, or a voter registration card with a photo issued by South Carolina election officials. Even if a voter shows up at a polling place without an acceptable ID, he can still vote a provisional ballot that will be counted if he brings an ID to election officials before the results are certified. South Carolina's law is more lenient than either Georgia's or Indiana's. If a voter has a religious objection or a "reasonable impediment" that prevents him from getting a free photo ID, then the voter can simply fill out an affidavit in which he outlines his objection or impediment and swears that he is who he says he is. His provisional ballot will then be automatically counted unless local election officials have evidence that "the affidavit is false." This new ID requirement is a common-sense reform that can easily be met by voters regardless of their race, ethnicity, or economic status. However, South Carolina is one of the few states still covered under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, a civil rights-era law that requires the state to get "preclearance" of any voting change from the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division at the U.S. Justice Department or a federal court in the District of Columbia. Section 5 was originally passed in 1965 as a five-year emergency provision to remedy widespread, systematic discrimination in the South. Yet it has been frequently renewedmost recently in 2006even though the official discrimination it was intended to stop has long since disappeared except for isolated incidents.....DOJ's objection is no surprise. Because they have consistently lost in court, radical organizations have been counting on the Civil Rights Division to abuse its authority to stop these voter ID laws. Since almost all of Obama's political appointees in the division have come from these organizations, there was no question that they would ignore the facts and the law to come out with this unlawful result. As is detailed in a series at Pajamas Media, DOJ has also illegally applied a political litmus test in its hiring of lawyers for civil service positions within the division. Two of the deputy chiefs hired in the Voting Section, which reviewed South Carolina's law, came from the ACLU's Voting Rights Project and were heavily involved in unsuccessfully fighting voter ID requirements in court. Other career hires came from the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and the ACLU. One co-drafted the NAACP's losing amicus brief in Crawford v. Marion County, the Supreme Court case upholding Indiana's voter ID law. Holder even tolerates perjury and leaks of confidential legal documents by liberal staffers in the unit that reviews Section 5 submissions.http://blog.heritage...aw-enforcement/