As the new year approaches, Politico predicts more voter ID laws and more battles in 2012:

Even as the feds move to block South Carolina from requiring voters to show a photo ID, a handful of other states are set to ring in 2012 with new laws mandating that voters produce picture identification cards before they are permitted to cast ballots. Beginning on Jan. 1, new laws will take effect in Kansas, Rhode Island, Tennessee and Texas requiring residents present a certified government-issued ID if they want to vote, according to a list of new 2012 laws compiled by the National Conference of State Legislatures. 

Both the Supreme Court and the Carter-Baker Commission on Federal Election Reform tried to take the politics out of reasonable requirements for photo ID verification.  However, the Holder Department of Justice has now poisoned the well with racial politics, trying to use voter ID as a political issue to energize the political base of the Democratic Party. 

Holder’s abuse of the preclearance process under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) may very well backfire in both political and legal terms.  The issue has certainly galvanized conservative Republicans and some commentators believe that the voter ID fight may well serve as the vehicle for the Supreme Court ending the invasive nature of Section 5.  When something so reasonable as photo ID can become a special punching bag for race under Section 5, it may be time for a change.

Because the administrative review at DOJ has shown itself susceptible to politicization, another potential result is that the Supreme Court finds that Section 2 of the VRA would adequately serve as a less invasive protection for any racially discriminatory voting laws (i.e. witness the numerous eager plaintiffs in the Texas redistricting litigation).

It seems nearly everyone in Texas realizes that if Texas continues to allow the Justice Department to review Voter ID, and then ultimately object to it, Voter ID will not be in place for Texas primaries.  Time to go to court.  Every day Texas doesn’t withdraw the objection and go to court means one more day before it is approved by a federal court.

Here.

Uh huh.

WSJ: The Obama Administration’s re-election mobilization continues: Witness Eric Holder’s attempt to play the race card and perhaps twist the law in a campaign against voter identification laws. 

Powerlineblog.com: Eric Holder announced at a speech at the Lyndon Johnson Library in Austin that the Department of Justice would take a hostile view of the various statutes that states have enacted to protect ballot integrity.

Thus, it was no surprise when DOJ announced today that it has rejected South Carolina’s voter identification law. Under Eric Holder, the Department of Justice has become a political arm of the Democratic Party. South Carolina officials said that they would fight DOJ’s ruling in court, pointing out that the Department was relying on grotesquely inaccurate data.

Thanks for the opinion.

The Wall Street Journal had the must-read article on DOJ’s refusal to permit South Carolina to implement a photo ID law.  Below is an excerpt from Assistant Attorney General Perez’s letter to South Carolina objecting on behalf of Attorney General Holder.

“Although the state has a legitimate interest in preventing voter fraud and safeguarding voter confidence,” it didn’t provide “any evidence or instance of either in-person voter impersonation or any other type of fraud that is not already addressed by the state’s existing voter identification requirement,” said Thomas Perez, assistant attorney for civil rights, in a letter to state officials.

In its letter, DOJ rejected South Carolina’s voter ID law, in large part because the state failed to provide “any evidence or instance of either in-person voter impersonation or any other type of fraud…”  Requiring a state to provide evidence of extensive fraud sets an elevated standard specifically rejected by the Supreme Court and in direct contradiction to the Court’s opinion endorsing photo identification and previous precedent. 

The Supreme Court cited to the Baker-Carter Commission which also acknowledged that voter fraud in close elections would dilute the valid votes of legitimate voters, sway close elections, and negatively impact voter confidence.  In Crawford v. Marion, the Supreme Court specifically noted that the fact that no evidence of impersonation fraud had been placed in the record was irrevelant to the analysis; In fact, no evidence was necessary to justify the legitimacy of the state interest in requiring ID. The Court found that photo ID legislation was perfectly acceptable to deter potential voter fraud. 

Also in its letter to South Carolina, DOJ asserted that requiring a voter to obtain a photo ID might burden voters to obtain the necessary documentation and prevent them from voting.  The Supreme Court had previously disposed of that argument by essentially stating that the burden to travel to an elections office with proof of identity or to a drivers license agency to obtain the appropriate identification is no more a burden that traveling to a polling place to cast a ballot.  The Supreme Court found the law was not discriminatory.  DOJ failed to take into account that voter turnout had increased in voter ID states thus speculating that voter ID would decrease turnout had no evidentiary basis and counter to existing statistics since implementation of the law. 

 Breaking: Eric Holder Blocks SC Voter ID, Texas Next

Eric Holder Makes NAACP Happy: Blocks SC Voter ID

Arizona to Texas: Please Withdraw Voter ID from DOJ

More on How to Beat Eric Holder: Georgia Shows the Way

From his Twitter site, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott laments DOJ’s objection to South Carolina voter ID law and predicts that Texas will be next in the coming offensive against voting integrity measures.  He tweets:  “We’ll fight to the end for ballot integrity.”