Sat Sep 1, 2012, 12:14 PM
highplainsdem (11,110 posts)
S.C. voter ID law takes some hits in court
WASHINGTON — Inside and outside a federal courtroom a few blocks from the U.S. Capitol, it appeared to be a rough week for South Carolina’s bid to obtain court approval to enact its controversial voter ID law.
During five days of often dramatic testimony on the disputed law, a three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia repeatedly upheld objections that the state’s lawyers were asking leading questions of their witnesses or prodding them to recount third-party conversations the judges struck down as hearsay.
In a case that, under the Voting Rights Act, hinges partly on whether the voter ID law was motivated by discriminatory intent, the law’s chief architect, state Rep. Alan Clemmons, was compelled to admit he’d responded sympathetically to a racist e-mail sent to him about the measure as he was crafting it.
And Marci Andino, executive director of the State Election Commission, testified that her agency lacked the legal authority to impose on county election boards and poll workers a uniform standard on how to implement some of the disputed law’s key provisions.
Read more: http://www.thestate.com/2012/09/01/2421471/sc-voter-id-law-takes-some-hits.html
Let's hope this voter ID law doesn't get court approval.
More on Andino's testimony from the Atlantic, "In South Carolina, Shockingly Candid Talk About Voter Discrimination":
On Wednesday morning, Beeney questioned Andino about the status of registered voters who come to vote on Election Day without the new form of photo identification required by the new law. Those registered voters may be permitted -- the emphasis is on the word "may" because local officials seem to have a great deal of discretion to make that call -- to cast a provisional ballot if they state they had a "reasonable impediment" to getting the new identification cards.
The Atlantic article points out that this new law "practically begs partisan poll watchers to challenge every such provisional ballot so as to place the burden on the registered voter to twice prove his or her voting rights."
The conclusion of the article notes that the law isn't Andino's fault -- she's just the poor bureaucrat left trying to explain it. But that doesn't change the fact that this new law "isn't about protecting against voter fraud" but instead is "all about taking away the vote from minorities, the poor, and the ill -- taking it away from people who have voted without incident for decades."
2 replies, 1353 views
Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
S.C. voter ID law takes some hits in court (Original post)
Response to highplainsdem (Original post)
Sat Sep 1, 2012, 01:39 PM
Iliyah (2,359 posts)
2. The GOPpers will try and implement all the ID laws they want
and once the American voters comply with said laws, the GOPpers will try and implement another voter suppression to counter the ID law cause we all should know actually what the GOP party really want is no voting whatsoever. Dictatorship, simple fact.