Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Justice Department rejects discriminatory South Carolina voter ID law
http://link.email.washingtonpost.com/r/E5QODK/C5F1I5/SLYB2G/1N5OMO/V11Z8J/9A/h?a=http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/justice-dept-rejects-south-carolina-voter-id-law-calling-it-discriminatory/2011/12/23/gIQAhLJAEP_story.htmlThe 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.
Conservatives and other supporters of the tighter laws say they are needed to combat voter fraud.
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.
Conservatives and other supporters of the tighter laws say they are needed to combat voter fraud.
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/12/breaking_justice_department_blocks_south_carolinas_voter_id_law.php
DOJ’s announcement came on Friday afternoon because they were required to respond to South Carolina by Tuesday of next week and Monday is a federal holiday. It marked the third time the Justice Department weighed in on a voter ID law: officials previously blocked a voter ID law in Louisiana in 1994.
So what’s next? That’s up to South Carolina. If the state does nothing, the voter ID provisions of the law are kaput. Alternatively, they can provide new data (they told DOJ 55 days into the 60 day review period that the data they originally turned over was flawed) and ask for reconsideration, pass a new and different law (perhaps with less stringent identification requirements) or they can sue and try their luck in court. The Supreme Court upheld Indiana’s voter ID law in 2008, so South Carolina might like its chances, though the question of racial disparity wasn’t the focus of the court’s decision.
So what’s next? That’s up to South Carolina. If the state does nothing, the voter ID provisions of the law are kaput. Alternatively, they can provide new data (they told DOJ 55 days into the 60 day review period that the data they originally turned over was flawed) and ask for reconsideration, pass a new and different law (perhaps with less stringent identification requirements) or they can sue and try their luck in court. The Supreme Court upheld Indiana’s voter ID law in 2008, so South Carolina might like its chances, though the question of racial disparity wasn’t the focus of the court’s decision.
1 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
