Attorney General Eric “My People” Holder demonstrates once again that the Obama administration will continue its war against the historic American nation by any means necessary.
In the latest outrage, AG Holder, who didn’t like a Supreme Court decision, has announced he’ll fight it by using a lower court to make an end run around it.
Now just let that sink in a minute. The Obama/Holder regime has no problem with overreaching judicial tyranny from the Supreme Court, as long as the court is upholding Obamacare or same-sex marriage or such. But when the court rules against something the administration supports, that just can’t stand. So Holder is off to get a lower court to stymie the Supreme Court decision.
On the other hand, it’s not surprising. After all, the goal here is not to uphold the rule of law, but to further the Agenda. And the Agenda does not respect the historic American nation and its traditions.
The issue here: the 1965 Voting Rights Act, passed at the height of the Civil Rights era. It included “preclearance” provisions, restricting seven southern states, Arizona and Alaska, plus some smaller entities in other states (see map) in regards to future changes to their election laws.
What it means is that these states can’t change election laws without the permission of the U.S. Department of Justice (how convenient for Holder) or the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. These provisions were last renewed in 2006, during the Bush administration.
That situation, though, has just been altered by Shelby County v. Holder, a Supreme Court decision handed down June 25th, 2013. The Court struck down Section 4(b) and made Section 5 inoperable. (Shelby County is in Alabama).
Shelby County v. Holder was yet another of these 5-4 decisions, supported by Chief Justice Roberts, and by Justices Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Kennedy and opposed by Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan and Wise Latina Sotomayor. (Thomas however, wanted to take it even farther and completely strike down Section 5).
Disparate treatment of states, ruled the majority, was “based on 40 year-old facts having no logical relationship to the present day. ” The United States, said the court, “has changed, and while any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions.”
Where though, is the evidence that black voters, or any citizens, for that matter, are being denied the vote today, in 2013?
Wouldn’t any such action be immediately noised abroad by the MSM?
In 2012, five southern states had higher voting percentages among blacks than whites, and much-maligned Mississippi had higher black turnout than Massachusetts.
By the way, I’m not a Neo-Confederate. My ancestors lived in the Midwest during the Civil War. One of my relatives was in the Union Army and received a Congressional Medal of Honor for capturing a Confederate general.
However, as an American I’m tired of the Southerner-bashing which is being used as a tool to delegitimize and deconstruct the historical American nation.
Obviously, the goal of those who want to maintain “preclearance” is to keep the South, especially Southern whites, restricted, as if it were still 1965. Bashing white Southerners is still in fashion and is a powerful tool to further the left-wing multicultural Agenda.
It even makes it hard to oppose illegal immigration in southern states because the open border supporters bring up their knee-jerk “it’s like Jim Crow” response. It’s not just Democrats either. Plenty of Republicans do it too. For just one example, click here to read how Governor (and now professional pundit) Hucksterbee used the past treatment of black Americans to justify coddling today’s illegal aliens.
When the Supreme Court handed down Shelby County v. Holder , President Obama was “deeply disappointed” and called on Congress to basically revive preclearance with legislation. AG Eric “My People” Holder called it “a serious setback for voting rights”. (You mean like having the Black Panthers intimidate white voters?)
Georgia Democratic Representative John Lewis was “shocked, dismayed and disappointed” at the decision.
John Lewis has a lot invested in this issue. As a young man he was a major civil rights leader who was physically attacked and jailed several times. Lewis still has the scars on his head from a beating by Alabama state troopers on a bridge in Selma, Alabama, and was personally present when President Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act.
Certainly, Lewis did exhibit courage and leadership in fighting for his cause as a young man. But in 2013, he seems to be still living in 1965. Why, for example, does he have such an abysmal record on immigration and why does he oppose voter ID, as both positions harm grassroots black Americans?
On July 25th, speaking to the Urban League, Eric “My People” Holder announced his plan to go after the state of Texas. [Transcript: Attorney General Eric Holder Delivers Remarks at the National Urban League Annual Conference] Hmm, that wouldn’t’ have anything to do with the Democrats’ plan to “turn Texas blue” now, would it?
Holder’s supposed legal basis for going after Texas is Section 3 of the Voting Rights act, which provides for a state to be returned to pre-clearance status if “violations of the fourteenth or fifteenth amendment justifying equitable relief have occurred within the territory of such State or political subdivision.” BREAKING: Justice Department Will Ask Court To Reinstate Voting Rights Act In Texas, By Ian Millhiser, ThinkProgress, July 25, 2013
Holder’s plan has two parts:
(1) Get the federal government mixed up in the ongoing Texas dispute over redistricting, in a federal court in San Antonio, and
(2) Prevent the enactment of a Texas voter ID law heretofore blocked by the DOJ, but which Texas AG Greg Abbott thought would be legitimate after the Shelby v. Holder decision.
Voter ID utilizing photographs has been strongly attacked by Democrats, under the argument that it disenfranchises poor/minority voters, some of whom don’t have photo ID. I really find that hard to believe, given the current inexpensive photo technology. But, for the sake of quelling that argument, states could just issue photo ID at government expense—which is what the Texas law did.
The Texas voter ID law only calls for ID checks at polling stations, utilizing a driver’s license or other form of photo ID. But if any voter doesn’t have such identification, he will be issued one by the state of Texas, specifically by the DPS (Department of Public Safety). Furthermore, the law is similar to one in Indiana which was upheld by the Supreme Court.
Well, the naysayers say that Texas is so big and there aren’t DPS offices in every part of the state.
So there you go, there’s always some excuse for those who don’t want secure voter ID.
As longtime readers of VDARE.COM may know, for years I have held up the example of Mexico’s voter registration system, as an example of how states could run their own voter registration system. (See archive here).
Every registered Mexican voter has a Voter ID card complete with photograph, fingerprint, and a holographic image to prevent counterfeiting. Furthermore, at the Mexican polling station there is a book containing the photograph of every voter in the precinct. This book is available to the poll workers and observers from various parties. If there's a doubt as to someone’s identity, the poll workers can simply look up the person's name and see if the photo matches up.
Also, the Mexican voter's thumb is smudged with ink. That way, if he shows up at another polling site to vote, they know he's already voted elsewhere. (The ink wears off after a few days.)
It's a good system. Sure, Mexico has many problems. But they solved that one!
Local and state elections were held July 7th in about half of Mexico, and while there were other sorts of problems with the elections, voter registration wasn’t one of them. (See here, here and here).
One problem we have here in the U.S. is the Motor Voter regime, established twenty years ago during the Clinton administration, which makes it hard to have serious verification of citizenship and even identity. (See How Come Mexico Can Require Voters to Prove Citizenship and Arizona Can’t?)
Ted Cruz, the junior Texas senator, has filed a bill, S. 1336, that would amend Motor Voter to permit States to require proof of citizenship to vote in Federal elections.
Now wouldn’t that be something? Actually permitting states to require proof of citizenship!
Is that discriminatory? Well, yes, it’s discriminatory against noncitizens. Is that bad?
American citizen Allan Wall (email him) moved back to the U.S.A. after many years residing in Mexico. Allan's wife is Mexican, and their two sons are bilingual. In 2005, Allan served a tour of duty in Iraq with the Texas Army National Guard. His VDARE.COM articles are archived here; his Mexidata.info articles are archived here; his News With Views columns are archived here; and his website is here.