Holder’s double standard on New Hampshire and South Carolina photo ID laws

This week we got a glimpse of the double standard in place with the Holder DOJ.  A bias and different standard are certainly being used with southern states like Texas and South Carolina and northern states like New Hampshire and Rhode Island (no section 2 case).

For example, the New Hampshire photo ID law was administratively precleared and yet that law has fewer acceptable forms of photo ID for use at the polls than the Texas photo ID law.  For those voters in New Hampshire that may have not been able to obtain a photo ID, the voter is required to sign an affidavit and have his or her picture taken at the polls for future use. 

Similarly, South Carolina has a photo ID law with more acceptable forms of ID than the New Hampshire law and a reasonable impediment affidavit for voters that may have had an obstacle to obtaining a photo ID.  Yet in the South Carolina preclearance submission, DOJ delayed, obstructed, and eventually objected not once, but twice administratively. 

DOJ simply ignored the safety valve mechanism of the South Carolina reasonable impediment affidavit during its administrative review.  It took a full trial on the merits before the federal judge panel in Washington DC asked in shock why they had not heard of the affidavit provision of the law earlier.

DOJ has now precleared the New Hampshire photo ID law, primarily to keep that state eligible for bailout as the Left hopes to use the New Hampshire bailout to argue that Section 5 is still operable.  In a nutshell, “lookey here Supremes, New Hampshire bailed out, so can South Carolina one day.” 

When the District of Columbia federal panel finally approves the South Carolina ID law after numerous baseless DOJ objections, it will reveal once and for all that the Holder DOJ can not be entrusted with the power to review voter ID laws under the nation’s civil rights laws. 

Politics, legal strategy and ulterior motives have infected the neutral review required under the law. 

3 thoughts on “Holder’s double standard on New Hampshire and South Carolina photo ID laws”

  1. Federale

    I don’t see the real benefit Holder thinks he has by approving NH but denying Texas. The fact that NH is more restrictive than TX would tend to help TX in its appeal. It might be a short term tactic, but long term it sets the foundation for Section 5 to be overturned.

  2. Christian Adams

    You have it perfectly backwards Federale.  Pefectly.  Preclearing NH is designed to facilitate a statewide bailout in New Hampshire.  Facilitating a statewide bailout will be used to demonstrate that Section 5 is not very burdensome, and good behavior gets you out of it.  I wrote about this at length here http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/09/05/eric-holder-approves-voter-id-in-new-hampshire/ and also at the link called “Granite State Free Ride” in the story I just linked to.  Preclearing NH voter ID was done SOLELY to preserve Section 5, not the other way around.

  3. Erica Holder

    My firm belief is that the states cleared (Virginia/NH) allow for easy provisional ballots to be cast and counted, meaning vote fraud efforts will continue to work in those states without any real obstruction. Obama and Holder are thinking only about THIS election and how to ensure that Democrat-led vote fraud efforts are not blocked. If voter ID laws lack real teeth via many exceptions and loopholes, then vote fraud can proceed unimpeded. But when vote ID laws are strict, Democrat vote-fraud efforts are completely derailed. I believe THIS is the true standard being examined by Holder and DOJ. Texas and other states had airtight voter ID laws, and so the Dems were forced to shop for activist judges to block them for November in key swing states.

Comments are closed.

Holder’s double standard on New Hampshire and South Carolina photo ID laws

This week we got a glimpse of the double standard in place with the Holder DOJ.  A bias and different standard are certainly being used with southern states like Texas and South Carolina and northern states like New Hampshire and Rhode Island (no section 2 case).

For example, the New Hampshire photo ID law was administratively precleared and yet that law has fewer acceptable forms of photo ID for use at the polls than the Texas photo ID law.  For those voters in New Hampshire that may have not been able to obtain a photo ID, the voter is required to sign an affidavit and have his or her picture taken at the polls for future use. 

Similarly, South Carolina has a photo ID law with more acceptable forms of ID than the New Hampshire law and a reasonable impediment affidavit for voters that may have had an obstacle to obtaining a photo ID.  Yet in the South Carolina preclearance submission, DOJ delayed, obstructed, and eventually objected not once, but twice administratively. 

DOJ simply ignored the safety valve mechanism of the South Carolina reasonable impediment affidavit during its administrative review.  It took a full trial on the merits before the federal judge panel in Washington DC asked in shock why they had not heard of the affidavit provision of the law earlier.

DOJ has now precleared the New Hampshire photo ID law, primarily to keep that state eligible for bailout as the Left hopes to use the New Hampshire bailout to argue that Section 5 is still operable.  In a nutshell, “lookey here Supremes, New Hampshire bailed out, so can South Carolina one day.” 

When the District of Columbia federal panel finally approves the South Carolina ID law after numerous baseless DOJ objections, it will reveal once and for all that the Holder DOJ can not be entrusted with the power to review voter ID laws under the nation’s civil rights laws. 

Politics, legal strategy and ulterior motives have infected the neutral review required under the law. 

3 thoughts on “Holder’s double standard on New Hampshire and South Carolina photo ID laws”

  1. Federale

    I don’t see the real benefit Holder thinks he has by approving NH but denying Texas. The fact that NH is more restrictive than TX would tend to help TX in its appeal. It might be a short term tactic, but long term it sets the foundation for Section 5 to be overturned.

  2. Christian Adams

    You have it perfectly backwards Federale.  Pefectly.  Preclearing NH is designed to facilitate a statewide bailout in New Hampshire.  Facilitating a statewide bailout will be used to demonstrate that Section 5 is not very burdensome, and good behavior gets you out of it.  I wrote about this at length here http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/09/05/eric-holder-approves-voter-id-in-new-hampshire/ and also at the link called “Granite State Free Ride” in the story I just linked to.  Preclearing NH voter ID was done SOLELY to preserve Section 5, not the other way around.

  3. Erica Holder

    My firm belief is that the states cleared (Virginia/NH) allow for easy provisional ballots to be cast and counted, meaning vote fraud efforts will continue to work in those states without any real obstruction. Obama and Holder are thinking only about THIS election and how to ensure that Democrat-led vote fraud efforts are not blocked. If voter ID laws lack real teeth via many exceptions and loopholes, then vote fraud can proceed unimpeded. But when vote ID laws are strict, Democrat vote-fraud efforts are completely derailed. I believe THIS is the true standard being examined by Holder and DOJ. Texas and other states had airtight voter ID laws, and so the Dems were forced to shop for activist judges to block them for November in key swing states.

Comments are closed.