Who
knew that Progressives thought that Jimmy Carter was a racist?
The
21-member bipartisan Commission on Federal Election Reform, co-chaired by
former President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker, advocated voted identification laws in 2005.
The
commission called voter identification one of “five pillars” that would “build
confidence” in the integrity of federal elections. Only three of the 21
commission members voted against requiring photo identification of voters.
2.5: VOTER IDENTIFICATION
A good registration list will ensure
that citizens are only registered in one place, but election officials still
need to make sure that the person arriving at a polling site is the same one
that is named on the registration list. In the old days and in small towns
where everyone knows each other, voters did not need to identify themselves.
But in the United States, where 40 million people move each year, and in urban
areas where some people do not even know the people living in their own
apartment building let alone their precinct, some form of identification is
needed.
There is no evidence of extensive fraud
in U.S. elections or of multiple voting, but both occur, and it could affect
the outcome of a close election. The electoral system cannot inspire public
confidence if no safeguards exist to deter or detect fraud or to confirm the
identity of voters. Photo IDs currently are needed to board a plane, enter
federal buildings, and cash a check. Voting is equally important.
The voter identification requirements
introduced by HAVA are modest. HAVA requires only first-time voters who
register by mail to show an ID, and they can choose from a number of different
types of identification. States are encouraged to allow an expansive list of
acceptable IDs, including those without a photograph, such as utility bills or
government checks. These requirements were not implemented in a uniform manner
and, in some cases, not at all. After HAVA was enacted, efforts grew in the
states to strengthen voter identification requirements. While 11 states
required voter ID in 2001, 24 states now require voters to present an ID at the
polls. In addition, bills to introduce or strengthen voter ID requirements are
under consideration in 12 other states.
Our Commission is concerned that the
different approaches to identification cards might prove to be a serious
impediment to voting. There are two broad alternatives to this decentralized
and unequal approach to identification cards. First, we could recommend
eliminating any requirements for an ID because the evidence of multiple voting
is thin, and ID requirements, as some have argued, are "a solution in
search of a problem." Alternatively, we could recommend a single national
voting identification card. We considered but rejected both alternatives.
We rejected the first option —
eliminating any requirements — because we believe that citizens should identify
themselves as the correct person on the registration list when they vote. While
the Commission is divided on the magnitude of voter fraud — with some believing
the problem is widespread and others believing that it is minor — there is no
doubt that it occurs. The problem, however, is not the magnitude of the fraud.
In close or disputed elections, and there are many, a small amount of fraud
could make the margin of difference. And second, the perception of possible
fraud contributes to low confidence in the system. A good ID system could
deter, detect, or eliminate several potential avenues of fraud— such as
multiple voting or voting by individuals using the identities of others or
those who are deceased — and thus it can enhance confidence. We view the other
concerns about IDs — that they could disenfranchise eligible voters, have an
adverse effect on minorities, or be used to monitor behavior — as serious and
legitimate, and our proposal below aims to address each concern.
We rejected the second option of a
national voting identification card because of the expense and our judgment
that if these cards were only used for each election, voters would forget or
lose them.
We therefore propose an alternative
path. Instead of creating a new card, the Commission recommends that states use
"REAL ID" cards for voting purposes. The REAL ID Act, signed into law
in May 2005, requires states to verify each individual’s full legal name, date
of birth, address, Social Security number, and U.S. citizenship before the
individual is issued a driver’s license or personal ID card. The REAL ID is a logical
vehicle because the National Voter Registration Act established a connection
between obtaining a driver’s license and registering to vote. The REAL ID card
adds two critical elements for voting — proof of citizenship and verification
by using the full Social Security number.
The REAL ID Act does not require that
the card indicates citizenship, but that would need to be done if the card is
to be used for voting purposes. In addition, state bureaus of motor vehicles
should automatically send the information to the state’s bureau of elections.
(With the National Voter Registration Act, state bureaus of motor vehicles ask
drivers if they want to register to vote and send the information only if the
answer is affirmative.)
Reliance on REAL ID, however, is not
enough. Voters, who do not drive, including older citizens, should have the
opportunity to register to vote and receive a voter ID. Where they will need
identification for voting, IDs should be easily available and issued free of
charge. States would make their own decision whether to use REAL ID for voting
purposes or instead to rely on a template form of voter ID. Each state would
also decide whether to require voters to present an ID at the polls, but our
Commission recommends that states use the REAL ID and/or an EAC template for
voting, which would be a REAL ID card without reference to a driver’s license.
For the next two federal elections,
until January 1, 2010, in states that require voters to present ID at the
polls, voters who fail to do so should nonetheless be allowed to cast a
provisional ballot, and their ballot would count if their signature is
verified. After the REAL ID is phased in, i.e., after January 1, 2010, voters
without a valid photo ID, meaning a REAL ID or an EAC-template ID, could cast a
provisional ballot, but they would have to return personally to the appropriate
election office within 48 hours with a valid photo ID for their vote to be
counted.
To verify the identity of voters who
cast absentee ballots, the voter’s signature on the absentee ballot can be
matched with a digitized version of the signature that the election
administrator maintains. While such signature matches are usually done, they
should be done consistently in all cases, so that election officials can verify
the identity of every new registrant who casts an absentee ballot.
The introduction of voter ID
requirements has raised concerns that they may present a barrier to voting,
particularly by traditionally marginalized groups, such as the poor and minorities,
some of whom lack a government-issued photo ID. They may also create obstacles
for highly mobile groups of citizens. Part of these concerns are addressed by
assuring that government-issued photo identification is available without
expense to any citizen and, second, by government efforts to ensure that all
voters are provided convenient opportunities to obtain a REAL ID or
EAC-template ID card. As explained in Section 4.1, the Commission recommends
that states play an affirmative role in reaching out with mobile offices to
individuals who do not have a driver’s license or other government-issued photo
ID to help them register to vote and obtain an ID card.
There are also longstanding concerns
voiced by some Americans that national identification cards might be a step
toward a police state. On that note, it is worth recalling that most advanced
democracies have fraud-proof voting or national ID cards, and their democracies
remain strong. Still, these concerns about the privacy and security of the card
require additional steps to protect against potential abuse. We propose two
approaches. First, new institutional and procedural safeguards should be
established to assure people that their privacy, security, and identity will
not be compromised by ID cards. The cards should not become instruments for
monitoring behavior. Second, certain groups may see the ID cards as an obstacle
to voting, so the government needs to take additional measures to register
voters and provide ID cards.
The needed measures would consist of
legal protections, strict procedures for managing voter data, and creation of
ombudsman institutions. The legal protections would prohibit any commercial use
of voter data and impose penalties for abuse. The data-management procedures
would include background checks on all officials with access to voter data and
requirements to notify individuals who are removed from the voter registration
list. The establishment of ombudsman institutions at the state level would
assist individuals to redress any cases of abuse. The ombudsman would be
charged with assisting voters to overcome bureaucratic mistakes and hurdles and
respond to citizen complaints about the misuse of data.
The Commission’s recommended approach
to voter ID may need to adapt to changes in national policy in the future.
Since the attacks of September 11, 2001, concerns about homeland security have
led to new policies on personal identification. Under a presidential directive,
about 40 million Americans who work for or contract with the federal government
are being issued ID cards with biometrics, and the REAL ID card may very well
become the principal identification card in the country. Driven by security
concerns, our country may already be headed toward a national identity card. In
the event that a national identity card is introduced, our Commission
recommends that it be used for voting purposes as well.
RECOMMENDATIONS ON VOTER
IDENTIFICATION
2.5.1 To ensure that persons presenting
themselves at the polling place are the ones on the registration list, the
Commission recommends that states require voters to use the REAL ID card, which
was mandated in a law signed by the President in May 2005. The card includes a
person’s full legal name, date of birth, a signature (captured as a digital
image), a photograph, and the person’s Social Security number. This card
should be modestly adapted for voting purposes to indicate on the front or back
whether the individual is a U.S. citizen. States should provide an EAC-template
ID with a photo to non-drivers free of charge.
2.5.2 The right to vote is a vital component
of U.S. citizenship, and all states should use their best efforts to obtain
proof of citizenship before registering voters.
2.5.3 We recommend that until January 1,
2010, states allow voters without a valid photo ID card (Real or EAC-template
ID) to vote, using a provisional ballot by signing an affidavit under penalty
of perjury. The signature would then be matched with the digital image of the
voter’s signature on file in the voter registration database, and if the match
is positive, the provisional ballot should be counted. Such a signature match
would in effect be the same procedure used to verify the identity of voters who
cast absentee ballots. After January 1, 2010, voters who do not have their
valid photo ID could vote, but their ballot would only count if they returned
to the appropriate election office within 48 hours with a valid photo ID.
2.5.4 To address concerns about the abuse of
ID cards, or the fear that it could be an obstacle to voting, states should
establish legal protections to prohibit any commercial use of voter data and
ombudsman institutions to respond expeditiously to any citizen complaints about
the misuse of data or about mistaken purges of registration lists based on
interstate matching or statewide updating.
2.5.5 In the event that Congress mandates a
national identification card, it should include information related to voting
and be connected to voter registration.
In
2008, the Supreme Court in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553
U.S. 181, held that an Indiana law requiring voters to provide photo IDs did
not violate the Constitution of the United States by a vote of 6-3. The
majority opinion was written by uber-liberal,
John Paul Stevens.
He
wrote:
'The
relevant burdens here are those imposed on eligible voters who lack photo
identification cards that comply with SEA 483. Because Indiana’s cards are free, the inconvenience of going to the
Bureau of Motor Vehicles, gathering required documents, and posing for a
photograph DOES NOT QUALIFY AS A SUBSTANTIAL BURDEN ON MOST VOTERS' RIGHT TO
VOTE, OR REPRESENT A SIGNIFICANT INCREASE OVER THE USUAL BURDENS OF VOTING.
The severity of the
somewhat heavier burden that may be placed on a limited number of persons—e.g., elderly persons
born out-of-state, who may have difficulty obtaining a birth certificate—IS MITIGATED BY THE FACT THAT ELIGIBLE VOTERS
WITHOUT PHOTO IDENTIFICATION MAY CAST PROVISIONAL BALLOTS that will be counted if they
execute the required affidavit at the circuit court clerk’s office.
Even assuming that the
burden may not be justified as to a few voters, that conclusion is by no means
sufficient to establish petitioners’ right to the relief they seek.'
- Associate Justice John Paul Stevens of the United State Supreme
Court, Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181 (2008)
A Few Polls:
- Almost three-quarters of all Americans support the idea that people should have to show photo identification to vote, even though they are nearly as concerned about voter suppression as they are about fraud in presidential elections, according to a new Washington Post poll.
- 75% of likely U.S. voters ‘believe voters should be required to show photo identification, such as a driver’s licence, before being allowed to vote.'
- While 44% of Americans perceive partisan politics at play in the support of such laws, far more, 57%, see a genuine interest in fair elections as a big motivator, per WaPo poll.
- 83% of those polled believe laws requiring voters to ‘show identification in order to vote’ is a ‘good thing, per McClatchy.’ (Only 13% see it as a ‘bad thing.’)
- 72% of Democrats see voter ID as a ‘good thing.’
- 65% of those who see themselves as ‘very liberal’ favour voter ID laws.
- 71% percent of Latinos say they support photo ID laws for voters, just 6 percentage points less than the general population’s 77 percent saying this, the poll found.
- Two-thirds of Republicans see voter fraud as a bigger problem; nearly as many Democrats are primarily concerned with denying eligible voters access to the ballot box. per WaPo poll.
Q in Marist, June 2013, poll:
‘Do you think it is a good thing or a bad thing if election laws
were changed to require voters to show identification in order to vote?’
Of those polled:
National adults: 83%
National
Registered Voters: 84%
VOTER REGISTRATION:
Democrats: 72%
Republicans:
99%
Independent:
87%
POLITICAL IDEOLOGY:
Very liberal-Liberal 65%
Moderate:
86%
Conservative-
very conservative: 94%
REGION:
Northeast: 81%
Midwest:
84%
South:
88%
West:
74%
HOUSEHOLD INCOME:
Less than $50,000: 84%
$50,000
or more: 82%
EDUCATION:
Not a college graduate: 85%
College
graduate: 91%
RACE:
White:
82%
Non-white:
83%
AGE:
18-29:
77%
30-44:
79%
45-59:
93%
60
or older: 81%
Under
45: 78%
45
or Older: 87%
GENDER:
Men:
82%
Women:
83%
Holder-approved Polling Place Pracitse
Even
before Holder lost in Shelby County v Holder,
in which the Court - allegedly -
'decimated' - the Voting Rights Act, in the view of some on the Left in
June, 2013, Holder was already losing. South Carolina had already
sued Holder for blocking its Voter ID laws.
From Heritage Foundation:
'South Carolina Attorney General Alan
Wilson has beaten U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder once again in the voter ID
litigation bowl, this time in a dispute over costs.
On Friday, January 4, a three-judge panel of the District of
Columbia federal court declared that South Carolina was the “prevailing party”
under an applicable federal statute that allows the state to obtain
reimbursement for its litigation costs from not only the Justice Department
(DOJ), but the so-called civil rights organizations like the NAACP and the South
Carolina Progressive Network that intervened in the lawsuit to stop the state’s
voter ID statute.
The court considered South Carolina the
prevailing party because although it “did not obtain everything it sought,”
South Carolina did achieve its main objective: “[I]t obtained preclearance of
Act R54 for elections in 2013 and subsequent years.”
The expenses for which South Carolina
was seeking reimbursement are relatively minor in comparison to the overall
expenses that the state incurred successfully fighting the DOJ. The court
awarded South Carolina the costs of various transcripts of depositions,
hearings, the trial, and the audio recordings of the legislative history of the
voter ID law. According to Wilson, the state spent $3.5 million in total on costs and
attorneys’ fees.
The civil rights organizations tried to
persuade the court to not award costs against them because “their participation
should be encouraged and because they cannot afford to pay.” But such costs are
“routinely” awarded against losing parties in civil rights litigation, and the
court questioned the credibility of the organizations’ claims, saying that they
had “failed to establish an inability to pay costs given their hefty
expenditures throughout the litigation.”
In fact, the NAACP independent auditors’ report for 2011 shows almost $14 million in total
assets, so the organization’s claim made to a federal court that it cannot pay
such costs was highly questionable.
On October 10, 2012, Holder’s Justice
Department lost the original lawsuit that Wilson filed to overturn the DOJ’s spurious
objection to South Carolina’s voter ID law. The objection was raised by the
DOJ’s Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, Thomas Perez, with the
approval of Attorney General Holder.
Under an “emergency” provision of the
Voting Rights Act of 1965 that was supposed to expire in 1970 (but has been
extended several times since then), such an objection from the DOJ can
automatically block a state law unless the state files suit in a court in Washington,
D.C., and prevails.
Given South Carolina’s sensible
law—which expanded the kinds of photo IDs that could be used to vote and made
it easier to obtain a free ID—the same three-judge panel that ruled in favor of
South Carolina regarding reimbursement ruled that voter ID was not
discriminatory under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act as the DOJ had claimed.
But by then it was too late to implement the lawful state voter ID law in time
for the November election.
This case illustrates two things. One is
how expensive it can be to take on the U.S. Justice Department, even when the
DOJ is wrong. Two is how additional facts show that ideology and politics drive
the Holder Justice Department rather than the rule of law. This was aptly
illustrated not just by the DOJ losing a very weak case where the facts and
legal precedent were squarely against it, but by the Civil Rights Division then
giving one of its highest awards, the Walter W. Barnett Memorial Award, on
November 28 to the leading DOJ trial lawyer after he lost the
South Carolina voter ID case.
So while taxpayers are stuck
reimbursing South Carolina for the Justice Department’s share of its costs, the
DOJ lawyers responsible for losing the case and pushing the DOJ’s unwarranted
objection are rewarded.
One suspects the award was just another
way for the Holder Justice Department to signal its employees and liberal
activist allies that it does not care what the rule of law requires. It will
continue to use the levers of power for its own ideological or partisan
ends—unless and until the people or the courts stop them.'
….
And,
if that wasn't enough salt in the race-baiters' wounds!!!
Federal Court: DOJ Must Reimburse South Carolina for Voter ID
Folly
(Former, now Secretary of LaRaza Labour) AAG Tom Perez
'A federal court has ruled that South
Carolina was the prevailing party in the unnecessary Voter ID litigation, and
therefore the Justice Department is liable for paying the state’s costs. South
Carolina spent $3,500,000 to obtain federal court approval of the state’s
Voter ID law as non-discriminatory under the Voting Rights Act. The lawsuit was
made necessary only because of the political and ideological radicalism of
Assistant Attorney General Tom Perez and his deputy Matthew Colangelo.
PJ Media had this exclusive report
detailing that career Voting Section employees, including Voting Section Chief
Chris Herren, recommended that the Voter ID law be approved in the first place
by DOJ after a careful written analysis inside the Voting Section.
Documents prepared by the career staff urged Perez and Colangelo to grant
administrative approval to the South Carolina Voter ID law — but they refused.
Their refusal was, in part, designed to energize a moribund political base heading
into the 2012 election. The cost to the American taxpayers for their stunt will
be significant.
South Carolina Attorney General Alan
Wilson’s office was quick to respond to the court’s ruling late yesterday:
“The state Attorney
General’s Office blamed the U.S. Department of Justice for the high cost of the
case. They accused the federal government of delaying the case by 120 days by
filing numerous frivolous motions, including challenging the 12-point font size
on a document the state filed.
“The Department of
Justice in Washington, D.C., bears responsibility for the litigation costs,”
said Mark Powell, Wilson’s spokesman. “The decision was so emphatic, even the
Department of Justice and Interveners did not appeal it. South Carolina was
forced to pay a hefty price because a handful of Washington insiders refused to
do the right thing.”
Whether Congress will hold Perez and
Colangelo accountable remains to be seen.
Members of Congress, including Senator
Lindsey Graham, have already demanded that Perez turn over the documents about
which PJ Media first reported on September 11, 2012. So far, sources tell me
that Graham has not received what he has asked for, though he may already
possess the documents from other sources.
Tellingly, DOJ has not denied that such
internal approval memos exist. They can’t.
All of this raises the question — will
Perez and Colangelo be held accountable for what amounted to an expensive use
of the Justice Department to energize President Obama’s political base? As we
now know, there was no merit to the objection. A federal court approved the
law. The many career staff who looked at it said the South Carolina law did not
discriminate.
Congress might get answers if they haul
DOJ Voting Section Chief Christopher Herren before the House Judiciary
Committee for answers. The Democrats could hardly object — after all, they
dragged Bush-era Voting Section Chief John Tanner before the Democrat-run House
Judiciary Committee to answer questions about Georgia Voter ID. There is precedent.
Democrats could hardly object when the Voting Section Chief during the Bush
administration was made to dance the dance before the Committee.
And the pure
Schadenfreude doesn't stop there: The NAACP and the South Carolina Progressive
Network were ALSO forced to reimburse the State of South Carolina!
And, it's not fair!
From
John Fund:
Attorney General Eric Holder is a
staunch opponent of laws requiring voters to show photo ID at the polls to
improve ballot security. He calls them “unnecessary” and has blocked their
implementation in Texas and South Carolina, citing the fear they would
discriminate against minorities.
I wonder what Holder will think when he
learns just how easy it was for someone to be offered his ballot just by
mentioning his name in a Washington, D.C., polling place in Tuesday’s
primaries.
Holder’s opposition to ID laws comes in
spite of the Supreme Court’s 6–3 decision in 2008, authored by liberal Justice
John Paul Stevens, which upheld the constitutionality of Indiana’s tough ID
requirement. When groups sue to block photo-ID laws in court, they can’t seem
to produce real-world examples of people who have actually been denied the
right to vote.
According to opinion
polls, over 75 percent of Americans — including majorities of Hispanics and
African-Americans — routinely support such laws.
MRCtv asks minorities if voter ID laws are racist:
Selma Commemorative March, 2007
No
mention of the 2007 Selma march would be complete without Senator Barack
Obama's faerie tale:
'What happened in Selma,
Alabama and Birmingham also stirred the conscience of the nation...This young
man named Barack Obama...came over to this country. He met this woman...(who)
had a good idea there was some craziness going on because they looked at each
other and they decided...it might...be possible for us to get together and have
a child. There was something stirring across the country because of what HAPPENED
(Note: PAST TENSE) in Selma, Alabama... So they got together and Barack
Obama Jr. was born. So don't tell me I don't have a claim on Selma, Alabama.
Don't tell me I'm not coming home to Selma, Alabama.'
-
Senator Barack
Obama, 4 March 2007
But...
4 August 1961: Barack
Obama’s birthday
7 March 1965: First Selma
March
Holder amongst 'His People' at the Selma Commemorative
March
Sophie:
Add
this to "The Heights of Hypocrisy Award" nominations' list. H/T New
York Sun:
As you may know, the New
York chapter of the ACLU is suing the city for random bag checks in the subway
system. But guess who’s checking bags in their own offices? You got it, the
NYCLU. The sign outside the office says, quote, “Please have photo ID ready for
inspection. All packages are subject to inspection upon entering and leaving
the premises.”
Whoa!
Got to love that NYCLU. To not do so would be ridiculous. It’s great. I
mean, like, um, seriously, how will all of those "disenfranchised
voters" be able to get into the NYCLU offices to file complaints about
their disenfranchisement without photo ID?
At
the foot of the infamous Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama, where
then-Senator Obama, John Lewis, other dignitaries, and various riff-raff like
the ‘New Black Panther Party, recreated their march on 4 March 2007 is located
the National Voting Rights Museum and has become the nation’s preeminent voting
right museum. Undoubtedly, it was noble
in its intent, but, over the years, it has become both a veritable monument to
every rightful hero and huckster (Tawana, really?) and symbol of the
degeneration in the civil rights movement encompassed with a patina of Social
Justice. A Detroit that caught up in a
Snarknado and was plopped down in Selma.
Your tax dollars at work at revisionist history
‘Its outlook is neatly captured in ten words
that begin its timeline display of the civil rights movement. There, we find a
replica of John Trumball’s iconic depiction of the signing of the Declaration
of Independence with the caption, “1776. The Declaration of Independence signed
by wealthy white men.”
The original civil rights giants would never
have tolerated this historically false assertion. They were patriots, driven by
love for their fellow countrymen and a burning desire to make America a better
place for all its citizens. They repeatedly and vehemently rejected hatred. But
the nasty caption captures the bitter spirit of much of the civil rights
movement today and of numerous race-based activist groups around the country.’
- J Christian Adams
If you want to study an egregious case of racial suppression and oppression then look NO FURTHER than Ike Brown, the Chairman of the Democrat Party in Noxubee County, Mississippi.
The Ike Brown Case:
Is the DOJ About to Fail Another Race-Based Test? Will the DOJ once again
show hostility towards race-neutral protection of voting rights?
'Coming soon: An
Unavoidable Decision About Race-Neutral Enforcement of Voting Laws.
By
Christian Adams, court records are available), 11 July, 2010
Last week, I testified under oath that
pervasive and open hostility exists within the Justice Department towards
race-neutral enforcement of voting rights laws. This week, we will all learn a
great deal more about the Justice Department’s unwillingness to enforce voting
laws equally and in a racially fair way.
To the many who know firsthand of the
existence of this hostility, the Department’s current denials seem absurd, if
not deceitful. I have urged the advocates of these positions — of which there
are many inside and outside the DOJ — to come forward and openly engage in this
debate so millions of Americans can hear their arguments for why all Americans
should not be protected under the Voting Rights Act by the Justice Department.
So far, silence. Even the NAACP registered a “no comment” to a Philadelphia
Inquirer columnist last week. We know what that usually means.
But this week we should get some
clarity. And I’ll wager that Americans aren’t going to like what they hear.
This story hails from rural east
Mississippi: majority black Noxubee County is home to Ike Brown, one of the
most lawless purveyors of racial discrimination the nation has seen in decades.
(I have
written in greater detail about the racially motivated lawlessness
Brown used to victimize minority white voters in the county.) Brown canceled
ballots cast by white voters. He stuffed the ballot box with illegal ballots
supporting his preferred black candidates. He deployed teams of notaries to
roam the countryside and mark absentee ballots instead of voters. He allowed
forced assistance in the voting booth, to the detriment of white voters. He
threatened 174 white voters by declaring that if they tried to participate in
an election, he might challenge them and not let them vote. He publicized the
174 names.
Brown ran the primary elections because
he is the Democratic Party chairman. At the trial, a woman on Brown’s list
testified that she was too afraid to vote because she thought she might be
arrested.
The federal court found that the
publication of the list of 174 names was an illegal form of intentional racial
discrimination. The United States district court held:
The question is whether Brown’s action
with respect to this list of 174 voters was actuated by these party loyalty
concerns or whether this was pretext for a true purpose to discourage white
voters from coming to the polls, or some combination of the two. The court has
carefully weighed the evidence and finds that while party concerns were a
factor in Brown’s actions, race played a role as well. … In sum, the court is
of the opinion that Brown had the names of these white voters published in part
because of party loyalty concerns, but also as an attempt to discourage white
voters from voting in the 2003 Democratic primary.
Brown’s overall behavior was so
outrageous that the court stripped him of all authority to run elections until
2012, and gave the power to a former justice of the Mississippi Supreme Court
as a special administrator. The remedy was unprecedented, but upheld on appeal
because of the brazen lawlessness of Ike Brown.
Fast forward to 2010, to the Eric
Holder Justice Department.
Every change in voting in Mississippi
must be submitted for approval to the DOJ voting section — where I worked for
five years — under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Section 5 gives the DOJ
power to object to any change motivated by a discriminatory racial intent or
with a discriminatory racial effect in nine states and portions of seven.
Changes to the law in 2006 made it clear that any discrimination would
suffice to trigger an objection under the act.
Right now, the Holder Justice
Department has a submission from Ike Brown to allow him to do precisely the
same thing he tried in 2003 — prevent people from voting based on their party
loyalties.
The Department must decide this week if
white victims are worth protecting, by imposing an objection to the same
behavior a federal court has already ruled was motivated by an illegal racial
intent. If the races were reversed in this submission, there is zero doubt the
DOJ would object to the proposal.
Alas, the races aren’t reversed, and I
predict there is zero chance that the DOJ will object to Brown’s submission.
Why? For the same reasons I testified
about to the United States Civil Rights Commission: there is an open and
pervasive hostility within the DOJ towards using the voting laws to protect all
races. Instead, the laws are viewed by many in the DOJ — particularly by the
political leadership, such as Deputy Assistant Attorney General Julie Fernandes
— only as tools to protect national racial minorities and increase their voter
turnout.
I also have some inside information.
I have spoken with the victims of
Brown’s past illegal behavior in Mississippi, and the DOJ hadn’t even
bothered to contact any of them. In a Section 5 submission involving an
African-American minority, it is standard DOJ practice to make extensive
contacts with the minority community. That hasn’t happened since Brown
submitted his scheme for approval on May 14, 2010. No calls, no emails, no
nothing out of Justice. No concern, most likely.
In fact, the same white voters who were
victimized by Brown in 2003 have begged the DOJ in multiple letters to
interpose an objection to Brown’s request to bar people from voting.
Even worse for the Department, Brown
told one person last month that he explicitly chose a cutoff date (where if you
voted for a Republican before a certain date you could still vote in a
Democratic primary) because it would preserve the ability for a number of
specific black individuals to continue to participate. Does the DOJ know about
this nakedly racial motivation? No — because they didn’t even do the analysis
under Section 5.
So here are the choices the Department
has available by July 13:
They could object to the
submission, which is the right thing to do. This would demonstrate they are at
last willing to enforce Section 5 with racial fairness regardless of the race
of the victim. All this option requires is a letter.
They could officially ask
for more information, but this only extends the clock for 60 days and the same
decision will need to be made eventually.
They could make a “no
determination” ruling. This means that the matter isn’t ripe for a decision
because Brown is not running the elections until 2012. Of course this is a cop-out,
because Brown will be running elections with this scheme as a party rule once
he resumes control. A “no determination” letter would have the same effect as
approval, and leave the victims without any protection.
A final option would be
to ask the federal court judge under a different part of the law to stop Brown
from implementing the scheme to bar voters from voting. But if it isn’t ripe to
object, then it isn’t ripe to sue either. Worse — talk about cost! This would
require travel, a hearing, witnesses, and many other costs to the Department.
What about those oft-cited resource concerns? Worse yet, there is a risk the
DOJ will not win. Judge Tom Lee is a cautious jurist, and he may not wade into
a mess with so many uncertainties. Add a contentious tangle in other
Mississippi courts about challenges to party loyalty oaths, and you can see why
a lawsuit or court action seems like a bad idea. It certainly is not designed
to help the voters with a high certainty of a favorable outcome.
Bottom line, if this Justice Department
was truly interested in enforcing the law in a race neutral fashion, they could
stop Brown’s discriminatory scheme for the cost of a postage stamp. A simple
objection letter would prevent him from implementing a practice Judge Lee
already has found to violate the law. Any other choice by Holder this week,
other than an objection letter, will broadcast DOJ’s disdain toward equal
enforcement of the voting laws.
Not only has the Department never
lodged an objection under Section 5 to a plan which discriminates against a
white minority, they don’t even conduct the analysis. The DOJ will not be able
to produce a single document over the 45-year history of the Voting Rights Act
where the bureaucrats even considered this possibility.
In the now famous going-away speech of
former voting section chief Christopher Coates, he demonstrated the
danger of this policy:
'Since many minority officials are now
involved in the administration of elections in many jurisdictions, it is
imperative that they believe that the anti-discrimination and anti-intimidation
provisions of the Voting Rights Act will be enforced against them by the
Justice Department, just as it is imperative that white election officials
believe that Justice will enforce the provisions of the Voting Rights Act
against them. I fear that actions that indicate that the Justice Department is
not in the business of suing minority election officials, or not in the
business of filing suits to protect white voters from discrimination or
intimidation, will only encourage election officials, who are so inclined, to
violate the Voting Rights Act.
The third reason for race-neutral
enforcement of the Voting Rights Act so that all persons are protected from
discrimination or intimidation regardless of their race is that fair
enforcement of the VRA is important for its very survival. America is
increasingly a multiracial, multiethnic, and multicultural society. For such a
diverse group of people to be able to live and function together in a
democratic society, there have to be certain common standards that we are bound
by and that protect us all. In fact, as we become more diverse, it is even more
important that our national standards of non-discrimination are enforced by the
federal government.'
Coates mentions something important
that opponents of race-neutral enforcement of the Voting Rights Act should hear
loud and clear.
If the DOJ does not start to use
Section 5 to protect a victimized white minority, as they can this week in
Noxubee County, then the constitutionality of the law is jeopardized. If no
objection to Brown’s scheme is interposed, the three separate plaintiffs
currently suing Holder to have Section 5 declared unconstitutional in other
cases should do extensive discovery against the voting section and their
unwillingness to enforce Section 5 to protect all racial minorities, regardless
of their race. The plaintiffs should introduce this hostility into the case
record as part of their constitutional challenges to Section 5, so that
Justices Alito, Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and most importantly, Kennedy, can
learn firsthand how the voting section does not equally enforce the law to
protect all types of racial minorities.
Or, even better, the DOJ voting section
can issue an objection this week to Brown’s racially discriminatory scheme. The
DOJ lawyers defending the constitutionality of Section 5 from three separate
attacks would probably thank you.
Patriots of all races gave their lives
to enshrine racial equality in this country, via the 14th and 15th Amendments
and then during the Civil Rights movement. The beneficiaries of these
sacrifices should not be limited, either. The Department should undergo a
searching examination as to why they are unwilling to enforce voting laws in a
racially fair fashion and change course.
Let’s get one thing straight: enforcing
voting laws in a racially unfair way is not necessarily racist. Just because
some are hostile to equal enforcement of the law does not mean that racism
lurks in their hearts. Judge Alex Kozinski wrote of this distinction in a
voting rights case, Garza v. Los Angeles. Simply, one can take actions
which intentionally harm someone because of their race even if the actor does
not hold racial animus in their heart towards that race. The intentional
action, such as not equally enforcing the law, is racially discriminatory, even
if it is not motivated by racism. Thus, I have never claimed that the unequal
enforcement of these voting laws means anyone at the Justice Department is
racist, as some have lazily characterized my columns. This is obviously a
rhetorical snare laid by the defenders of the Department’s unequal enforcement
policies — a snare Judge Kozinski’s thoughtful opinion allows reasonable people
to entirely avoid.
Inside and outside the DOJ, some will
snicker at the notion that the provisions of Section 5 should be used to
protect whites and Asians when they are in the minority in a covered
jurisdiction. Please snicker so the rest of America can hear you. It’s time you
engage the debate, or else you are about to lose it badly without ever having
spoken up.
We've come a long way,
baby, from MLK's 'I have a dream that my four little children will one day
live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but
by the content of their character' to Reverend Al Sharpton's:
You also will NEVER find this in a public school history book or at the Selma Museum:
The first judicially-sanctioned slave owner, Anthony Johnson, in the Colonies that became the United States of America
Related Reading:
Every Vote Counts, But Some Votes Count More Than Others ... Especially If They Are Cast For Democrats
http://tinyurl.com/mecevnk