Haley, SC to Sue Feds Over Voter ID

[DeathToTheOil]

S.C. Attorney General Alan Wilson on Tuesday said the state will file suit against the U.S. Department of Justice, which last month rejected the state's new Voter ID law requiring all voters to show a valid state-approved photo ID in order to cast a ballot.

Wilson said his office hoped to file suit within the next 10 days in the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia, as Patch first reported last week.

"Our intent is to ensure … that no voter is suppressed in their right to vote and that the integrity of the electoral process is protected," said Wilson, who appeared with S.C. Gov. Nikki Haley, state House Speaker Bobby Harrell, state Sen. Kevin Bright, and several state lawmakers at a noon press conference at the Statehouse.

It was a fear of voter suppression and disenfranchisement that prompted DOJ to reject the state's law, passed last May, in the first place. Last month, Justice’s Civil Rights Division said the state's statute is discriminatory because its registered minority voters are nearly 20 percent more likely than whites to lack a state-issued photo ID.

http://standrews.patch.com/articles/s-c-to-sue-feds-over-voter-id

[renegade000]

1. You know, I'd be OK with these voter ID laws

IF the state provided at no expense a photo voter ID to everyone who registered to vote. But that would require money... and the actual desire to have EVERYONE vote... which I suspect is not the case... heh

[Snake Alchemist]

7. That would also require verification of citizenship which can also be tricky.

Western Europe manages to get it done though so it's not impossible.

[3waygeek]

11. Exactly..

shortly after Georgia passed their voter ID law, they closed quite a few drivers license stations, and killed their mobile licensing bus. Funny how they timed that.

[BeaufortPenguin]

2. This Is Pure Voter Supression

All of the flatheads here are exploding because they're talking point is that "those minorities" have to have a photo ID to collect their welfare benefits. I live in the racist capital of the world.

[alp227]

3. During cross examination, the state attorney general will stammer

once asked for serious examples, not possible theories, of instances of voter fraud in SC, and if such instances if any adversely affected the results of elections.

[jpak]

4. Haley obviously hates America and Democracy

like the rest of the GOP

yup

[Auntie Bush]

18. NO!

They hate blacks, minorities, students and the poor ... but they love white rich folks. They are willing to disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of voters in order to prevent a couple hundred from voting illegally. But they aren't predigest!

[DeathToTheOil]

20. But, but she's a hottie!

Therefore she is always right.

[Shagman]

5. They called it politics

The state GOP called the DOJ decision "politics." Never mind that the original voter ID was a blatant attempt to disenfranchise voters who traditionally vote D, and thus purely political.

Now they're suing? More politics. They can't win, they're just grandstanding.

They'll just have to fall back on all their other dirty tricks for this year's elections.

[nxylas]

6. More Republican doublespeak

War is peace. Slavery is Freedom. "Our intent is to ensure … that no voter is suppressed in their right to vote".

[baldguy]

8. Set up to repeal the Voting Rights Act?

[Doctor_J]

9. Start arresting these people for Voting Rights Act violations

put them in real federal prison for a couple years and run documentaries on them every couple months. We need strong deterrents to violations of civil rights.

[SnakeEyes]

10. this is one issue where i break with yall

If one has to provide ID to buy beer does that mean beer/ID laws are discriminatory too?

[babylonsister]

12. Not even the same. Voting is supposed to be an inalienable right, and has nothing to

do with drinking, possibly getting shitfaced, and killing someone.

[SnakeEyes]

17. drinking, possibly getting shitfaced, and killing someone

has nothing to do with ID requirements being discriminatory either. Thanks for the unrelated comment. However, both situations require ID to be provided which is the actual topic of discussion here.

[Doctor_J]

14. I don't remember anything about the right to buy beer in the Constitution

what a post

[SnakeEyes]

16. So what

At issue is not whether buying beer is a Constitutional right.

What is at issue is the requirement to provide ID. It's being called discriminatory. There is no good explanation for why it's discriminatory in one situation but not another. If one cannot provide ID due to circumstance then any ID requirement should be called discriminatory if one is being intellectually honest and consistent in their beliefs.

[immoderate]

19. I would say you can't prevent a US citizen from voting.

Late the state prove the fraud.

I don't think access to beer should set the standard.

--imm

[boppers]

21. If you looked too young to vote, yeah, you might get asked for an ID.

Nobody's actually going to card a 70 year old man when he's buying beer.

[surrealAmerican]

22. Of course they're discriminatory, ...

... that's the whole intention of having laws to limit drinking age.

Discrimination as it relates to buying alcohol has been deemed acceptable in this country. Voting rights are a completely different matter.

[babylonsister]

13. Good. This whole upending of the voting process the rethugs are trying to

change (to help their numbers and disenfranchise people who aren't rethugs) needs LOTS more attention.

[EC]

15. Well, good.

When the court rules that it is disinfranchisement, it'll set precedent.