HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Justice Dept. rejects Sou...

Fri Dec 23, 2011, 04:38 PM

Justice Dept. rejects South Carolina voter ID law, calling it discriminatory

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/justice-dept-rejects-south-carolina-voter-id-law-calling-it-discriminatory/2011/12/23/gIQAhLJAEP_story.html

The Justice Department on Friday entered the divisive national debate over new state voting laws, rejecting South Carolina’s measure requiring photo-identification at the polls as discriminatory against minority voters.

The decision by Justice’s Civil Rights Division could heighten political tensions over the new laws, which critics say could depress turnout among minorities and others who helped elect President Obama in 2008. A dozen states this year passed laws requiring voters to present state-issued photo identification, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Although Democratic governors vetoed four of the measures, liberal and civil rights groups have raised alarms about the remaining laws. Opponents of the laws say they would discriminate against minorities and others, such as low-income voters, because some don’t have the necessary photo identification and lack the means to easily obtain ID cards.

(snip)

In addition to South Carolina, Wisconsin and Mississippi, more stringent voter-identification laws have been passed this year in Texas, Alabama, Kansas, Rhode Island, and Tennessee. Justice civil rights officials are currently examining the Texas law, along with electoral changes made by Florida that reduce the number of days for early voting.

(end snip)

20 replies, 2698 views

Thread informationRemove bookmarkTrash this thread

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 20 replies Author Time Post
Reply Justice Dept. rejects South Carolina voter ID law, calling it discriminatory (Original post)
deminks Dec 2011 OP
elleng Dec 2011 #1
BeaufortPenguin Dec 2011 #2
GoCubsGo Dec 2011 #3
alp227 Dec 2011 #5
Turbineguy Dec 2011 #4
Remember Me Dec 2011 #6
Corruption Winz Dec 2011 #7
groundloop Dec 2011 #8
Gothmog Dec 2011 #9
Deep13 Dec 2011 #10
Scuba Dec 2011 #11
melm00se Dec 2011 #12
nxylas Dec 2011 #13
24601 Dec 2011 #14
GoCubsGo Dec 2011 #15
northoftheborder Dec 2011 #16
oldhippydude Dec 2011 #19
northoftheborder Dec 2011 #20
Monty22001 Dec 2011 #17
Scurrilous Dec 2011 #18

Response to deminks (Original post)

Fri Dec 23, 2011, 04:56 PM

1. BRAVO!

Happy New Year!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to deminks (Original post)

Fri Dec 23, 2011, 05:38 PM

2. Another great day in the Palmetto State today

 

Yesterday it was our unconstitutional immigration law sceduled to drive SC back to 1930s Nazi Germany, and today, the mighty whities get slapped down for attempting to fix a non-existant problem by suppressing the votes of the less fortunate. I can actually say that I am proud to be a South Carolinian once more. Now I call for charges to be filed against these legislative criminals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to deminks (Original post)

Fri Dec 23, 2011, 05:45 PM

3. Good!

The only bad thing about this is that we have to listen to all the lies and pissing and moaning from the nutters here as a result of this ruling.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GoCubsGo (Reply #3)

Fri Dec 23, 2011, 07:42 PM

5. An example of a lie, from Savage right now

Last edited Fri Dec 23, 2011, 07:45 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

he made a slippery slope complaint that soon people won't need IDs to get drivers' license (which the legislature in his native California declared is a prima facie form of ID anyway) and called a voter ID law "common sense" and expressed fear that Holder would rig the election for Democrats. Savage even claimed that some women in NYC voted twice in NY and "Boca Raton, Fla." under their deceased husbands' names. (Hmm, Ann Coulter was accused of doing something like that...) I'm only listening to the Savage Weiner because Norman Goldman is on a rerun, and I've listened to enough prog talk not to get brain damage from someone like Savage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to deminks (Original post)

Fri Dec 23, 2011, 07:35 PM

4. "Discriminatory"?

I thought that was the whole point of the ID law!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to deminks (Original post)

Fri Dec 23, 2011, 07:47 PM

6. Wait. Wut?

 

Last edited Fri Dec 23, 2011, 07:48 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

OUR Justice Department found something to object to??? OURS? The U.S. DoJ, right?

Well, will wonders never cease. Is that their one good deed this decade, or what?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to deminks (Original post)

Fri Dec 23, 2011, 08:35 PM

7. In a way, this would have meant that you need to perhaps pay to vote...

Which obviously makes no damn sense. You register, you get to vote. That's how it works. This isn't a transaction.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to deminks (Original post)

Fri Dec 23, 2011, 11:11 PM

8. GEORGIA - THEY FORGOT GEORGIA!!!!

We've had voter ID laws for a few years now, and early voting is being cut back. So far the far right has gotten away with this voter suppression agenda, I certainly hope the Justice Department takes a look at our laws as well.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to groundloop (Reply #8)

Fri Dec 23, 2011, 11:37 PM

9. Bush appointees overruled DOJ professionals

The Georgia voter id law was approved by the DOJ over the objections of the professional staff in the voting rights section by bush appointees.

The state of Texas cited the Georgia act in its application for pre-clearance of the Texas voter ID act

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to deminks (Original post)

Sat Dec 24, 2011, 12:57 AM

10. Do yah think? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to deminks (Original post)

Sat Dec 24, 2011, 05:27 AM

11. Hip, hip, hoooray! Now on to Wisconsin, etc. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to deminks (Original post)

Sat Dec 24, 2011, 05:46 AM

12. if the law

(which I haven't read) mirrors the Indiana law, the law will be upheld.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24351798/ns/politics/t/supreme-court-upholds-voter-id-law/#.TvWtWtQV3BY

which is unfortunate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to deminks (Original post)

Sat Dec 24, 2011, 07:44 AM

13. It's a great day in South Carolina

Hee hee.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to deminks (Original post)

Sat Dec 24, 2011, 08:40 AM

14. Not as simple as it may seem on the surface. It's no longer just what DOJ wants since the USSC

upheld the Indiana voter ID law (opinion written by Stevens). With that case providing the precedent, unless the SC law differs significantly, the courts likely will uphold the SC law and cut back DOJ's powers in voter ID cases. Highly unlikely that the courts will allow different constitutional standards acruss the US.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 24601 (Reply #14)

Sat Dec 24, 2011, 10:26 AM

15. One would assume the DOJ took that ruling into consideration.

I can't see them ruling this way if they knew the courts would uphold the law. It's apparent that the South Carolina law is different enough that they decided it is worth the money and effort to fight it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to deminks (Original post)

Sat Dec 24, 2011, 11:09 AM

16. Why S.C. ID law declared unconst. and not Texas and other similar state ID voter laws???????

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to northoftheborder (Reply #16)

Sat Dec 24, 2011, 02:41 PM

19. the reason that it can fly in some states and not in others

is that in the voting rights act, going back to the Johnson administration, a number of states had problems with voting rights.. to pass any changes, required approval by the DOJ.. the justice department is persuing some of these laws as we speak..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oldhippydude (Reply #19)

Sat Dec 24, 2011, 03:13 PM

20. Texas is one of those states that have to have voting districts approved; they went around the....

Last edited Sat Dec 24, 2011, 03:15 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

....Justice Dept. I think, and that's why they're headed for the Supreme Court. But, that's a separate issue, not having to do with the ID law. It should have to be approved also by Justice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to deminks (Original post)

Sat Dec 24, 2011, 12:26 PM

17. They need this for flying too

 

No ID needed. It's pretty racist to demand an ID ever. It clearly discriminates against those that can not or are unwilling to get one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to deminks (Original post)

Sat Dec 24, 2011, 12:58 PM

18. Good news. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread