From the Obama File
Or, why Eric Holder will remain in office until 2013 at least.
DrJohn says a pair of articles from the Washington Times make clear that the White House has a plan for the 2012 election, and that is to guarantee victory for Obama regardless of the outcome of the vote. A large part of it depends on Eric Holder and his continual bastardization of the law.
The first comes from Robert Knight and his account of why democrats despise voter id laws:
Assistant AG Thomas Perez, the same official who terminated the Black Panther voter intimidation case, ordered South Carolina to stop enforcing its voter photo ID law. South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson explained precisely why the law is necessary:
The state Department of Motor Vehicles audited a state Election Commission report that said 239,333 people were registered to vote but had no photo ID. The DMV found that 37,000 were deceased, more than 90,000 had moved to other states, and others had names not matched to IDs. That left only 27,000 people registered without a photo ID, but who could vote by signing an affidavit as to their identity.
Contrary to left wing claims, requiring photo ID has not been shown to suppress voter ID:
A bipartisan Commission on Federal Election Reform in 2005 chaired by former President Jimmy Carter and former U.S. Secretary of State James A. Baker III found no evidence that requiring photo IDs would suppress the minority vote. The panel recommended a national photo ID system and a campaign to register voters.
The second article comes from Jeffrey Kuhner. Against the backdrop of the Carter/Baker report (of which Holder appears to be completely ignorant) Eric Holder plays the race card for South Carolina:
Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. claims Jim Crow is returning. In a recent speech, Mr. Holder said that attempts by states to pass voter identification laws will disenfranchise minorities, rolling back the clock to the evil days of segregation. He said that a growing number of minorities fear that "the same disparities, divisions and problems" now afflict America as they did in 1965 prior to the Voting Rights Act. According to the Obama administration, our democracy is being threatened by racist Republicans. Hence, the Justice Department must prevent laws requiring a photo ID to vote from being enacted.
Holder’s argument has no foothold in reality.
Kuhner points out that Holder’s real problem is that photo ID laws will impair ACORN’s ability to conduct fraud:
Mr. Holder evidently wants to scuttle ID laws because he knows which organization will be hurt most: ACORN. For years, community activist groups, such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, have engaged in massive electoral fraud -- registering illegal aliens, offering bribes to numerous politically disinterested people in the inner cities as inducements to vote and pushing underage and multiple voting. Election reform, therefore, is a stake aimed at the heart of Democratic corruption and ACORN’s power. Clean up the voter rolls and Obama’s re-election is in serious jeopardy.
Free photo ID cards are made available to anyone who needs one in South Carolina as are absentee votes for those who would trouble getting to the polls. Additionally, in blocking the South Carolina law Holder runs afoul of stare decisis:
Moreover, the Supreme Court already has ruled on the issue -- upholding state voter ID laws. In the 2008 Crawford v. Marion County Election Board decision, the high court held that an Indiana law mandating photo identification at the voting booth was indeed constitutional. If it is good enough for the Supreme Court and the overwhelming majority of the states, then it should be for Holder as well.
Holder claims that requiring a photo ID is tatamount to a poll tax but that is laughable:
"He has a particularly hard time explaining how the South Carolina requirement of government-issued photo identification amounts to a 'poll tax' when the state has also made provisions to provide that identification, free of charge. Hear that, Mr. Attorney General? The only thing the voter has to do is show up and get his or her photo taken. And if that’s too much darn trouble well, then, that person can do something else on election day."
Why is too burdensome to show up and obtain a photo ID but not too burdensome to show up to vote?
The ducks are aligning in a row. Blocking the South Carolina law will allow ACORN and other left wing operations to run amuck with voter fraud. The problem is that election fraud is a Federal offense, and that’s where Holder becomes critical. I fully expect no end to election chicanery on the part of the ACORN and the left, whether it involves "finding" lost votes as in Minnesota, printing out enough democrat ballots to guarantee a victory, forging signatures, or forging more signatures. I also expect that Holder would dismiss out of hand all claims beneficial to Obama and democrats and pursue only those in which the outcomes favored Republicans.
Ultimately the job of the Attorney General of the United States is protect the law from abuse but it is painfully clear that Eric Holder was appointed to protect abuse from the law.
Justice John Paul Stevens wrote:
”There is no question about legitimacy or importance of a state ‘s interest in counting only eligible voters.”
The integrity of the vote means nothing to Holder. Eric Holder would not know integrity if it bit him in the ass.
And that’s exactly why he was appointed.