ERIC HOLDER goes to war to save vote for Texas Minorites

[kwc57]

Holder and DOJ Press War Against Voter Suppression in Southern States


The Washington Post reports that Eric Holder plans to file voting-rights challenges not only against Texas, which the DOJ did last week, but against a number of other states, too. These challenges are part of a crusade to, as Holder says, “use every tool” at the Obama administration’s disposal to continue federal oversight of the states in this area, despite the Supreme Court’s decision last month in Shelby County v. Holder.


More Voting-Rights Challenges from Holder | National Review Online

Here is what will kill Holder and Obama's plan for trying to allow for voting fraud to stay in power.

From the article.

"Certainly, preclearance requirements are, in general, an extraordinary intrusion on state sovereignty. Under Section 3, Holder will have to prove that Texas has engaged in deliberate, intentional racially discriminatory conduct that violates the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendment rights of Texas voters. And he will have to convince the court that Texas has such a history and pattern of discriminatory conduct that it is likely to repeat this behavior in the future unless it is placed under federal supervision."

Times have changed. Obama and Holder need to change along with them.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Holder and DOJ Press War Against Voter Suppression in Southern States


The Washington Post reports that Eric Holder plans to file voting-rights challenges not only against Texas, which the DOJ did last week, but against a number of other states, too. These challenges are part of a crusade to, as Holder says, “use every tool” at the Obama administration’s disposal to continue federal oversight of the states in this area, despite the Supreme Court’s decision last month in Shelby County v. Holder.


More Voting-Rights Challenges from Holder | National Review Online

Here is what will kill Holder and Obama's plan for trying to allow for voting fraud to stay in power.

From the article.

"Certainly, preclearance requirements are, in general, an extraordinary intrusion on state sovereignty. Under Section 3, Holder will have to prove that Texas has engaged in deliberate, intentional racially discriminatory conduct that violates the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendment rights of Texas voters. And he will have to convince the court that Texas has such a history and pattern of discriminatory conduct that it is likely to repeat this behavior in the future unless it is placed under federal supervision."

Times have changed. Obama and Holder need to change along with them.

No amount of reason will change their hatred of the white man.

 

[GHook93]

It's insulting to minorities to think they can't get a valid form of identification to meet the requirement needed to prove you are who you say you are. Of the 1% that are TOO STUPID to figure out how to obtain identification, maybe you are too STUPID to vote then.

Honestly if your such a dumbass, regardless of race or religion, that you can't figure out how to get identification, then does someone really believe you understand or even care about the issues to really vote?

Interesting holder can go after states for the voting identification laws, but he can't go after sanctuary cities that take jobs that minorities can and will do!

Holder is the worst, most corrupt, most morally bankrupt AG the country has ever seen. He deserves a jail-term, not a continued employment.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

It only took Texas two hours to prove that the courts decision was incorrect. Furthermore it is not an "end run", as the article say the DOJ is "not directly intervening but was filing what's known as a statement of interest in support of the private groups that have filed suit."

Which is where is needs to start until Congress can undo what the court has done.

The ruling was that the states no longer had to get pre-approval to change. Nothing about the remedy when they change their voting ID laws to discriminate against minorities.

so you think "pre-approval" from Holder's office is the American way......

Has been for nearly 50 years for States or localities that have record of discrimination in the past. The DOJ, not who-ever is running it at the time.

In regard to the allegations of voter fraud, the United States Supreme Court rendered their opinion on the matter in 2008.

"It remains true, however, that flagrant examples of such fraud in other parts of the country have been documented throughout this Nation's history by respected historians and journalists, that occasional examples have surfaced in recent years, and that Indiana's own experience with fraudulent voting in the 2003 Democratic primary for East Chicago Mayor - though perpetrated using absentee ballots and not in-person fraud - demonstrate that not only is the risk of voter fraud real but that it could affect the outcome of a close election."

- Justice Scalia

With respect to this "claim" that there is some form of discrimination in association with voter ID or such requirements represents an unjust burden upon the right to vote, the United States Supreme Court already settled that issue.

"But if a nondiscriminatory law is supported by valid neutral justifications, those justifications should not be disregarded simply because partisan interests may have provided one motivation for the votes of individual legislators.


The lead opinion assumes petitioners' premise that the voter-identification law "may have imposed a special burden on" some voters, ... but holds that petitioners have not assembled evidence to show that the special burden is severe enough to warrant strict scrutiny.... That is true enough, but for the sake of clarity and finality (as well as adherence to precedent), I prefer to decide these cases on the grounds that petitioners' premise is irrelevant and that the burden at issue is minimal and justified.

The universally applicable requirements of Indiana's voter-identification law are eminently reasonable. The burden of acquiring, possessing, and showing a free photo identification is simply not severe, because it does not "even represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting." ... And the State's interests ... are sufficient to sustain that minimal burden. That should end the matter."

- Justice Scalia

 

[ScienceRocks]

How about each state issue id's? This would end this debate.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Of course they do.

"But the judges said there was clear evidence in the record that, at least in Texas, the law is so restrictive that many individuals among the “working poor” would not be able to obtain an acceptable ID, or could not afford to do so. While poor people, as such, are not protected by the Voting Rights Act, the court noted, they are when their numbers are greatest among minorities, like blacks and Hispanics."

Texas voter ID law can?t take effect : SCOTUSblog

Which is why they couldn't pass it before the SC decision.

Fort Worth congressman files suit to stop Texas voter ID law | Dallasnews.com - News for Dallas, Texas - The Dallas Morning News

How many of those working poor really have no ID? I have to have two forms of ID to get hired in the first place, I have to have at least one form to get a bank account or to cash my check, and if I'm poor enough to apply for assistance programs I have to have ID to do that. Unless I'm working under the table or an illegal, and not paying taxes in either case, I have to have ID to be working poor.

You're forgetting about people who don't work, wives, elderly.....

That issue was brought up and ruled as well, by the United States Supreme Court

Both evidence in the record and facts of which we may take judicial notice, however, indicate that a somewhat heavier burden may be placed on a limited number of persons. They include elderly persons born out-of-state, who may have difficulty obtaining a birth certificate; persons who because of economic or other personal limitations may find it difficult either to secure a copy of their birth certificate or to assemble the other required documentation to obtain a state-issued identification; homeless persons; and persons with a religious objection to being photographed. If we assume, as the evidence suggests, that some members of these classes were registered voters when SEA 483 was enacted, the new identification requirement may have imposed a special burden on their right to vote.

The severity of that burden is, of course, mitigated by the fact that, if eligible, voters without photo identification may cast provisional ballots that will ultimately be counted. To do so, however, they must travel to the circuit court clerk’s office within 10 days to execute the required affidavit. It is unlikely that such a requirement would pose a constitutional problem unless it is wholly unjustified. And 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 in this litigation.

- Justice Stevens

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

First a drivers license is NOT required a state ID can be used and cost much less than a DL. The underlying document required is a birth certificate and it's not expensive to get a certified copy from a states vital stastics office. I had to do just that to get my mother-in-law's ID, the ID and the BC together was less than $15.00.

The problem the commiecrats have is the proof of citizenship to get the ID because they have no problem with non-citizens voting.

The fee is now $16.00

TxDPS - Identification Requirements

1.Bring one item listed in the “Primary Identity Documents” category or
2.Bring two items listed in the “Secondary Identity Documents” category or
3.Bring one item listed in the “Secondary Identity Documents” category and two documents listed in the “Supporting Identity Documents” category

A birth certificate is not considered a "Primary Identifying Document".

$16.00???? Every black and WHITE Hispanic can't afford fucking 16 bucks???? You think we actually buy that line of rat crap?! I have an idea.. let's use block grants (per state) to approve a one time 16.00 tax credit for every fucking minority.. Not so difficult is it??? NOW WHAT??? What's your next fucking excuse?

Well the federal government DOES provide free cell phones, and is now willing to spend BILLIONS to ensure every individual has access to health care, even resorting to fingerprints and background checks for those desiring to follow their Constitutional right to bear arms, but requiring a photo ID for voting.............. we just can't have that.

 

[Locke11_21]

Interesting how Democrats don't want voter ID required to vote, but you sure need that ID to attend a Democrat Party convention. Does this mean the Democrat party discriminates against certain people from attending their convention? By their standards...yes!

What red states should do is pass state legislation banning the Democrat party from asking for ID to attend any of their conventions, fundraisers or Democrat sponsored event.

The Democrats war on voter ID is all about keeping voter fraud alive and well, and Democrats need voter fraud and very soon...amnesty as well to win

 

[drivebymedia]

Interesting how Democrats don't want voter ID required to vote, but you sure need that ID to attend a Democrat Party convention. Does this mean the Democrat party discriminates against certain people from attending their convention? By their standards...yes!

What red states should do is pass state legislation banning the Democrat party from asking for ID to attend any of their conventions, fundraisers or Democrat sponsored event.

The Democrats war on voter ID is all about keeping voter fraud alive and well, and Democrats need voter fraud and very soon...amnesty as well to win

Democrats have declared war on Republican attempts to suppress minority voting.

Most of the Republican efforts to cover their attempts to reduce minority voters have been, or will be knocked down by the Courts.

These efforts include: excessive gerrymandering (nicely called 'redistricting'), and oppressive attempts to block minorities from obtaining a a voter ID, including: excessive cost for a card and unreasonable long distances to travel and unreasonable hours available - for working class people.

Then of course, Republican efforts to severely restrict early voting days and voting hours is laughably Unconstitutional.

...While tax payers are footing the bills for lawyers to fight the Courts as they smack down these attempts to block minority voting.

And you likely can't name ONE case in the South that involved voter fraud by working class people.

 

[kwc57]

The fee is now $16.00

TxDPS - Identification Requirements

1.Bring one item listed in the “Primary Identity Documents” category or
2.Bring two items listed in the “Secondary Identity Documents” category or
3.Bring one item listed in the “Secondary Identity Documents” category and two documents listed in the “Supporting Identity Documents” category

A birth certificate is not considered a "Primary Identifying Document".

$16.00???? Every black and WHITE Hispanic can't afford fucking 16 bucks???? You think we actually buy that line of rat crap?! I have an idea.. let's use block grants (per state) to approve a one time 16.00 tax credit for every fucking minority.. Not so difficult is it??? NOW WHAT??? What's your next fucking excuse?

Well the federal government DOES provide free cell phones, and is now willing to spend BILLIONS to ensure every individual has access to health care, even resorting to fingerprints and background checks for those desiring to follow their Constitutional right to bear arms, but requiring a photo ID for voting.............. we just can't have that.

Truth

 

[Claudette]

The fee is now $16.00

TxDPS - Identification Requirements

1.Bring one item listed in the “Primary Identity Documents” category or
2.Bring two items listed in the “Secondary Identity Documents” category or
3.Bring one item listed in the “Secondary Identity Documents” category and two documents listed in the “Supporting Identity Documents” category

A birth certificate is not considered a "Primary Identifying Document".

$16.00???? Every black and WHITE Hispanic can't afford fucking 16 bucks???? You think we actually buy that line of rat crap?! I have an idea.. let's use block grants (per state) to approve a one time 16.00 tax credit for every fucking minority.. Not so difficult is it??? NOW WHAT??? What's your next fucking excuse?

Well the federal government DOES provide free cell phones, and is now willing to spend BILLIONS to ensure every individual has access to health care, even resorting to fingerprints and background checks for those desiring to follow their Constitutional right to bear arms, but requiring a photo ID for voting.............. we just can't have that.

Bingo.

 

[drivebymedia]

Quote:
"It remains true, however, that flagrant examples of such fraud in other parts of the country have been documented throughout this Nation's history by respected historians and journalists, that occasional examples have surfaced in recent years, and that Indiana's own experience with fraudulent voting in the 2003 Democratic primary for East Chicago Mayor - though perpetrated using absentee ballots and not in-person fraud - demonstrate that not only is the risk of voter fraud real but that it could affect the outcome of a close election."

- Justice Scalia

"Occasional examples" Toni?

A "2003 Democratic primary in East Chicago"?

The voting scandal that rocked the country?

Even Scalia's lawn jockey hadn't heard about that one!

 

[M14 Shooter]

How about each state issue id's? This would end this debate.

Every state issues IDs.

 

[regent]

I think every state should give its people a voter id card. Don't you?

And just let any voter vote, are you crazy? True, it seems the South has almost lost it's battle to keep you know who from voting but there are still other ways. The voter ID thing will help until new methods are created. At one time there was the poll tax, the literacy test, the property test, the grandfather clause, and so on. Some of these may make a comeback and there is still intimidation, closing the polls early, cut back on absentee ballots and the voter ID thing.
This is America and as fast as the government makes new laws, people can create new ways to get around the laws.

 

[kwc57]

Quote:
"It remains true, however, that flagrant examples of such fraud in other parts of the country have been documented throughout this Nation's history by respected historians and journalists, that occasional examples have surfaced in recent years, and that Indiana's own experience with fraudulent voting in the 2003 Democratic primary for East Chicago Mayor - though perpetrated using absentee ballots and not in-person fraud - demonstrate that not only is the risk of voter fraud real but that it could affect the outcome of a close election."

- Justice Scalia

"Occasional examples" Toni?

A "2003 Democratic primary in East Chicago"?

The voting scandal that rocked the country?

Even Scalia's lawn jockey hadn't heard about that one!

Well, when you're only news source is MSNBC, you tend to not hear what is really happening in America like everyone else.

 

[numan]

'

Funny how this matter draws so much attention here, while the widespread hacking of computer voting machines in Ohio in 2008 is ignored.

But then, it's the American Way.

.

 

[M14 Shooter]

'
Funny how this matter draws so much attention here, while the widespread hacking of computer voting machines in Ohio in 2008 is ignored.

Actually, no...
It's the way of the ignorant, partisan bigot.

 

[drivebymedia]

'

Funny how this matter draws so much attention here, while the widespread hacking of computer voting machines in Ohio in 2008 is ignored.

But then, it's the American Way

You have something against John Diebold?

Fixing of thousands of votes by Diebold's programmers was not "voter fraud"

Copying a name from a tombstone is "voter fraud"

Get up to date!

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Quote:
"It remains true, however, that flagrant examples of such fraud in other parts of the country have been documented throughout this Nation's history by respected historians and journalists, that occasional examples have surfaced in recent years, and that Indiana's own experience with fraudulent voting in the 2003 Democratic primary for East Chicago Mayor - though perpetrated using absentee ballots and not in-person fraud - demonstrate that not only is the risk of voter fraud real but that it could affect the outcome of a close election."

- Justice Scalia

"Occasional examples" Toni?

A "2003 Democratic primary in East Chicago"?

The voting scandal that rocked the country?

Even Scalia's lawn jockey hadn't heard about that one!

Well, when you're only news source is MSNBC, you tend to not hear what is really happening in America like everyone else.

Here is good example for ya....

Generally, if you are going to willfully and intentionally commit voter fraud, it's best that you don't run for political office where such activities have a good shot of later being uncovered. Leave it to a Democrat to try and manipulate the system to their advantage. Yet, since this went on dating back to 2006.... just how many other cases have yet to be uncovered? Here is a classic example through Wendy Rosen, who will most likely not see any serious legal repercussions as a result.

Wendy Rosen, the Democratic challenger to Republican Rep. Andy Harris in the 1st Congressional District, withdrew from the race Monday amid allegations that she voted in elections in both Maryland and Florida in 2006 and 2008.

Rosen said she was able to register in Florida because she owned property there.

Under Maryland law, a voter here may not maintain registration in a second state if it allows the voter to participate in state or federal elections there, according to Jared DeMarinis, director of candidacy and campaign finance at the State Board of Elections.

State Democratic Chairwoman Yvette Lewis said an examination of voting records in Maryland and Florida showed that Rosen participated in the 2006 general election and the 2008 primaries in both states.

Maryland and Florida both held gubernatorial and congressional contests in 2006 and presidential primaries in 2008, when Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton competed for the Democratic nomination.

Asked by The Sun on Monday if she had voted in both states in the same elections, Rosen said she did not remember how she voted. Asked if she had voted twice in the 2008 presidential primaries, she declined to comment "due to possible litigation."

Wendy Rosen drops challenge to Andy Harris after allegations she voted in two states - Baltimore Sun

 

[drivebymedia]

Quote:
"It remains true, however, that flagrant examples of such fraud in other parts of the country have been documented throughout this Nation's history by respected historians and journalists, that occasional examples have surfaced in recent years, and that Indiana's own experience with fraudulent voting in the 2003 Democratic primary for East Chicago Mayor - though perpetrated using absentee ballots and not in-person fraud - demonstrate that not only is the risk of voter fraud real but that it could affect the outcome of a close election."

- Justice Scalia

"Occasional examples" Toni?

A "2003 Democratic primary in East Chicago"?

The voting scandal that rocked the country?

Even Scalia's lawn jockey hadn't heard about that one!

Well, when you're only news source is MSNBC, you tend to not hear what is really happening in America like everyone else.

I know, Clarence Thomas has just got to expand his sphere of knowledge outside of MSNBC!

I'll tell him....