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.