iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

South Carolina Voter ID Law: Justice Department Blocks Controversial Legislation

South Carolina Voter Id

MEG KINNARD   12/23/11 07:44 PM ET  AP

COLUMBIA, S.C. — The Justice Department on Friday rejected South Carolina's law requiring voters to show photo identification at the polls, saying it makes it harder for minorities to cast ballots. It was the first voter ID law to be refused by the federal agency in nearly 20 years.

The Obama administration said South Carolina's law didn't meet the burden under the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which outlawed discriminatory practices preventing blacks from voting. Tens of thousands of minorities in South Carolina might not be able to cast ballots under South Carolina's law because they don't have the right photo ID, Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez said.

South Carolina's law was passed by a Republican-controlled Legislature and signed by GOP Gov. Nikki Haley. The state's attorney general vowed to fight the federal agency in court.

"Nothing in this act stops people from voting," said Attorney General Alan Wilson, who is also a Republican.

South Carolina's new voter ID law requires voters to show poll workers a state-issued driver's license or several other alternative forms of photo identification.

"The U.S. Department of Justice today blocked implementation of a new law that would require South Carolina voters to present a photo ID in order to vote," the state Election Commission said in a statement late Friday. "Therefore, ID requirements for voting will not change at this time.'

South Carolina is among five states that passed laws this year requiring some form of ID at the polls, while such laws were already on the books in Indiana and Georgia, whose law received approval from President George W. Bush's Justice Department. Indiana's law, passed in 2005, was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2008.

Those new laws also allow voters without the required photo ID to cast provisional ballots, but the voters must return to a specific location with that ID within a certain time limit for their ballots to count.

Most of the laws have been promoted and approved by Republicans, who argue they are needed to avert voter fraud. Democrats say the measures are actually aimed at reducing minority votes for their candidates.

The Justice Department must approve changes to South Carolina's election laws under the federal Voting Rights Act because of the state's past failure to protect the voting rights of blacks. It is one of nine states that require the agency's approval.

The last time the Justice Department rejected a voter ID law was in 1994 when Louisiana passed a measure requiring a picture ID. After changes were made, it was approved by the agency.

Justice officials are reviewing Texas' new law. Kansas, Tennessee and Wisconsin also passed laws this year, but they are not under the agency's review.

South Carolina's law also required the state to determine how many voters lack state-issued IDs so that the Election Commission can work to make sure they know of law changes. The Department of Motor Vehicles will issue free state photo identification cards to those voters.

"Minority registered voters were nearly 20 percent more likely to lack DMV-issued ID than white registered voters, and thus to be effectively disenfranchised," Perez wrote, noting that the numbers could be even higher since the data submitted by the state doesn't include inactive voters.

The number of active and inactive voters that should be used to determine how many people would be affected by the law has been in dispute. Department of Motor Vehicles executive director Kevin Shwedo said the state Election Commission knew it was using inaccurate data when it released reports showing nearly 240,000 active and inactive voters lacked driver's licenses or ID cards.

Shwedo sent the state's attorney general an analysis showing that 207,000 of those voters live in other states, allowed their ID cards to expire, probably have licenses with names that didn't match voter records or were dead. He said the commission created "artificially high numbers to excite the masses."

Earlier in the week, commission officials said the agency will eliminate nearly 60,000 deceased people and individuals whose names didn't match DMV records.

Haley said the decision was more proof President Barack Obama is fighting conservative ideas like voter ID laws or immigration reform.

"The president and his bullish administration are fighting us every step of the way. It is outrageous, and we plan to look at every possible option to get this terrible, clearly political decision overturned so we can protect the integrity of our electoral process and our 10th amendment rights," Haley said in a statement.

South Carolina ACLU executive director Victoria Middleton applauded the Justice Department's decision, saying the "misguided" law represented "a dramatic setback to voting rights in our state and we are pleased to see it stopped in its tracks."

The decision also was welcomed by civil rights activist Jesse Jackson, who planned to talk about how voter ID laws are an effort by conservatives to keep blacks from voting in his hometown of Greenville, S.C., next week. He said the laws are like modern day poll taxes, targeting elderly people that can't afford to get IDs and students.

"We're fighting wars for democracy overseas and we're fighting democracy at home," Jackson said. "What a contradiction."

___

Associated Press writers Jim Davenport and Jeffrey Collins contributed to this report.

___

Kinnard can be reached at http://twitter.com/MegKinnardAP

Also on HuffPost:

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
COLUMBIA, S.C. — The Justice Department on Friday rejected South Carolina's law requiring voters to show photo identification at the polls, saying it makes it harder for minorities to cast ballo...
COLUMBIA, S.C. — The Justice Department on Friday rejected South Carolina's law requiring voters to show photo identification at the polls, saying it makes it harder for minorities to cast ballo...
Filed by Luke Johnson  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 26,890
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (325 total)
  1 of 1  
COMMUNITY PUNDITS
photo
Nonpartay 05:25 PM on 12/23/2011
Excellent! This is terrific news! This sets a precedent so other courts looking at other states' voter suppression laws may just come to the same conclusion. We should all be up in arms about these phony laws ostensibly designed to prevent a phony problem that essentially does not exist except in the minutest numbers imaginable. These laws are obviously designed for one true purpose: to  Read More...
photo
RepublicanDepression
Of the1% by the1% for the Gerrymandering One% =GOP
05:25 PM on 01/04/2012
The Myth of Voter Fraud

There is almost no voting fraud in America. And none of the lawmakers who claim there is have ever been able to document any but the most isolated cases. The only reason Republicans are passing these laws is to give themselves a political edge by suppressing Democratic votes.

The most widespread hurdle has been the demand for photo identification at the polls, a departure from the longstanding practice of using voters’ signatures or household identification like a utility bill. Seven states this year have passed laws requiring strict photo ID to vote, and similar measures were introduced in 27 other states. More than 21 million citizens — 11 percent of the population — do not have government ID cards. Many of them are poor, or elderly, or black and Hispanic and could have a hard time navigating the bureaucracy to get a card.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/10/opinion/the-myth-of-voter-fraud.html
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
nasknit
Freedom isn't free.
12:35 AM on 01/09/2012
Try reading the article printed by the Greeley Gazette- Colorado investigation into 2010 election -> 12,000 non -citizens registered to vote -> 5,000 did vote! CO legislature wanted to investigate further- Dem's killed the bill!
photo
RepublicanDepression
Of the1% by the1% for the Gerrymandering One% =GOP
12:53 AM on 01/09/2012
1) Link?

No? nasknit FAIL!

2) Name of person making accusaton?

No? nasknit FAIL!

3) Truth to the 12000 claim?

No? nasknit FAIL!

The Greely Gazette dropped a massive load of truth on this clown:

http://www.greeleygazette.com/press/?p=9922

"Following Congressional testimony that 5,000 illegals may have voted in the last election, a spokesman for Colorado Secretary of State Scott Gessler contacted the Gazette to explain his remarks.
The Gazette reported that Gessler told Congress nearly 12,000 illegal aliens were registered to vote and up to 5,000 may have cast votes in the last general election.

Andrew Cole, a spokesman with Gessler's office, said he was attempting to make a point that our current system does not have the capability to effectively confirm with certainty the eligibility of voters in the state.

In his statement before Congress, Gessler was able to say they were only "nearly certain that 106 individuals are improperly registered to vote." Cole explained the 5,000 number arose from individuals who were identified as being ineligible to vote at the time they obtained their driver's license..."

"nearly certain 106?"

LOL!

106 = 12000 in GOP (Greedy One Percent) math!

nasknit FAIL!

4) Where do you get your news?
photo
RepublicanDepression
Of the1% by the1% for the Gerrymandering One% =GOP
12:54 AM on 01/09/2012
Debunked here:

http://www.greeleygazette.com/press/?p=9922

Read it and weep, nasknit!
photo
RepublicanDepression
Of the1% by the1% for the Gerrymandering One% =GOP
05:16 PM on 01/04/2012
It's a great day for minority voter suppression in South Carolina!
photo
RepublicanDepression
Of the1% by the1% for the Gerrymandering One% =GOP
05:13 PM on 01/04/2012
“"The Justice Department must approve changes to South Carolina's election laws under the federal Voting Rights Act because of the state's past failure to protect the voting rights of blacks."

South Carolina.

Trying to drag 19th Century failures into the 21st Century.”
01:13 AM on 12/30/2011
The states that want voters to have photo IDs have provided all kinds of remedies and accommodations for those who have difficulty getting IDs, such as using state vehicles to pick people up and taking them to license bureaus, etc., at the state's expense. Short of getting these people dressed and feeding them breakfast on voting day, there's not much else that should be done. Common sense should be the rule of law, but when a reasonable law is passed, seems those who want a way around it will always find ridiculous and/or corrupt means of doing so.
reciprocat
On November 6, 2012...God blessed America
02:39 PM on 12/30/2011
That's right and SC will have to ramp-up their voter ID law (the most restrictive ever made) to match up with those remedies other states made in order to compensate for their past as a government that tends to make bad voter laws.

Louisiana made the changes to get approved under Clinton. No reason SC can't do the same. It's the LAW, susieq.
photo
RepublicanDepression
Of the1% by the1% for the Gerrymandering One% =GOP
05:15 PM on 01/04/2012
"Common sense" says that where there is no evidence of a voter fraud problem, this is just more Republican Big Government.

LOL! GOP (Greedy One Percent ) FAIL!
photo
Donnat
Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned
06:26 PM on 12/29/2011
Guess I should have added "It's a great day in South Carolina"
photo
Donnat
Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned
06:24 PM on 12/29/2011
Right on!!! Now do the same for Texas, Obama, they're trying to enact the same kind of law. Thank you for fighting back against voter suppression.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
JPETERB
01:09 PM on 12/29/2011
"Tens of thousands of minorities in South Carolina might not be able to cast ballots under South Carolina's law because they don't have the right photo ID, Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez said."
Snark, that was the whole idea. Get it? Let freedom ring. Somewhere else.
09:56 AM on 12/29/2011
I thought the Tea Party was the Party of no regulation. Disenfranchising voters is an assault on Democracy. So is the scaling back of early voting. So is redistricting so it is virtually impossible to lose. So is allowing corporations to spend as much as they want on political contributions. They have made a mockery of the constitution and our democracy which legions of soldiers have died to defend. www.politico2.blogspot.com read my Iowa picks
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Don Giovanni
Woody's guitar says it all.
12:49 PM on 12/28/2011
Unfortunately there won't be enough time to do anything about the voter suppression before the 2012 election. The DNC and Eric Holder's Justice Dept. have really dropped the ball. The courts that the case will be argued in(because there will be a counter suit) are packed with Republican operatives in judges' robes as part of a long-term plan on the part of the Koch's and Rove. How do you think that they will rule? The only thing that can be done is to mount a grass-roots effort to register voters-to spend campaign money on that.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dtairtime
It is what it is
11:43 PM on 12/27/2011
Heck in my state (WA) all that is needed to vote is to certify when you get your dirvers license that you can legally vote.

Not a big thing right?

Except we are one of two states who OPENLY give drivers licenses to illegals.

Heck we even have illegals openly campaignin­g for some politician­s "as illegal immigrants­". http://cns­news.com/n­ews/articl­e/illegal-­immigrants­-canvassin­g-votes-wa­shington-s­tate

So the issue is how many vote? Likely not a huge amount but as we have had two recent close governor elections they very well could have picked the winner. That is beyond scary.

There has to be a way to get ID from voters to insure the fraud is as little as possible without interferin­g with peoples legal right to vote.
photo
RepublicanDepression
Of the1% by the1% for the Gerrymandering One% =GOP
05:20 PM on 01/04/2012
Right. Illegal aliens are really going to risk their entire life in the US, fact jail, a $10,000 fine a deportation to cast ONE vote.

LOL! GOP (Greedy One Percent) reality FAIL!
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Maezeppa
Happy-Happy Joy-Joy
10:42 AM on 01/31/2012
Find one such case.   Just one.  The kind of voter fraud that can be remedied by a photo ID is nonexistent.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
phrogge prince
06:11 PM on 12/27/2011
Time for a new headline?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
yeti7
don't need no stink'n badges
06:22 PM on 12/27/2011
Really it is like beating a dead horse now.
I am for voter ID I am not for voter ID,
back and forth.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
yeti7
don't need no stink'n badges
05:05 PM on 12/27/2011
I don't understand that the pick out SC but not the other states that have even stronger laws?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
KaAp
05:22 PM on 12/27/2011
South Carolina is one of 12 States that come under the aegis of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Do you understand what that is? Why it was adopted? Why it has been reauthorized (even President Bush reauthorized it for another 25 years)? And, why the language of the law in SC makes it specific to their law.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
yeti7
don't need no stink'n badges
05:42 PM on 12/27/2011
I know what it is and I am saying there are several other states that have the same or sticker law. So another case going to the US Sumpreme Court I guess .
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
yeti7
don't need no stink'n badges
07:09 PM on 12/27/2011
Back to Maezeppa KaPA

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/State_by_State_Voter_ID_Laws

I provide a link that shows the laws in various state that show this is already going and therefore maybe approved. Then you post the below message. So if you don't read the various news events and try to verify them and only go by some study from 2008. Then... it is beating a dead horse like you posted earlier.
"Maezeppa You aren't helping yourself by pulling stuff willy-nilly out of the internet apprently without trying to read or understand it first."
photo
CelticMajic
The answer lies in each of us individually
03:55 PM on 12/27/2011
In other news, the DOJ also rules that citizens are no longer required to provide an ID to purchase a firearm. The DOJ spokesman offered the following: "Minorities, the disabled, elderly and other disadvantaged persons are precluded from exercising their second amendment rights when we require an ID. Henceforth, none is required."
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
KaAp
05:00 PM on 12/27/2011
There are huge differences and you know that let me repeat to you again as I did in your last post about it. Different states require different things to BUY a gun. Nowhere in the 2nd Amendment does it say the right to BUY but rather it says the RIGHT to bear. And, that is a huge difference.
Nobody is precluded from their right to bear (because bearing means you could inherit, you could buy at a show, you can buy in a place where you just give fingerprints, and on and on ....) you do not need photo ID to bear.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
yeti7
don't need no stink'n badges
05:06 PM on 12/27/2011
Oh god you are getting hilarious KaAp
photo
CelticMajic
The answer lies in each of us individually
05:09 PM on 12/27/2011
We must agree to disagree as we will not come to agreement on this. I believe the ID requirement burdens the right to bear in common circumstances just as it burdens the right to vote. The question is does it burden it unduly. I do see the ID requirement as perfectly acceptable in both circumstances and an acceptable burden. Others see it only unacceptable when it comes to specific rights and not to others. I do wish to thank you for a civil discussion as many times on HP that is not the case. And here is to a Happy New Year to you and yours.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
JudgeMoonbox
05:55 PM on 12/27/2011
"In other news, the DOJ also rules that citizens are no longer required to provide an ID to purchase a firearm."

The 14th, 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th Amendments don't justify themselves with words on how society needs the two mainstream parties. The Second Amendment begins: "A Well Regulated Militial" I should assume that there is a mandate that the militia be well-regulated.
photo
CelticMajic
The answer lies in each of us individually
08:54 AM on 12/28/2011
After you do a little research on the meaning of "well regulated" in the time of the founders then get back to me. You may wish to start with this: http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf Please note that all the justices, including those in the dissent, find the RTKABA an individual right unconnected to the militia. So even if your assumption concerning "well regulated" were correct, it has little to do with the basic individual civil/political right. And hence requiring an ID to purchase an arm from a commercial dealer is a burden. I find that burden to be acceptable just as I find that burden to be acceptable when it comes to voting.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
pinknlynn
I Am My Brother's Keeper
02:50 PM on 12/27/2011
"The state's attorney general vowed to fight the federal agency in court." I'm sure that money could be better used for social services. Republicans are trying to avert voter fraud? What voter fraud!? Bush's own Justice Department found miniscule incidences of voter fraud. This is about surpressing the minority vote. And why/how in the world did South Carolina vote in a tea party governor?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Viper1st
multi quasi faceted
03:26 PM on 12/27/2011
If this is about suppressing the minority vote ~

Please cite the voter suppression convictions

Just as there are minimal voter fraud convictions ~ there are even less voter suppression convictions

a none issue, either way
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
KaAp
03:32 PM on 12/27/2011
This is about South Carolina. And, since this law which is exclusionary is now BLOCKED then we cannot say what it would have been if it had not been blocked but I can go back into history and find out why the Voting Rights Act was implemented and continually reauthorized (the latest as you informed me and thanks for that was by President Bush).
I do not know why she was elected and that is the outcome and it was a fair election. And, that is the way it is, Gov. Haley is the Governor of South Carolina. The point is not your right or my right but everyone's right to vote as citizens.
reciprocat
On November 6, 2012...God blessed America
12:02 PM on 12/28/2011
This isn't JUST about suppressing the minority vote...of course.

"...convictions"? I think you mean: "Cite the voter suppression lawsuits where the plaintiff/s seeking relief from restrictive voting conditions have won out."

or maybe you meant:

"Cite the laws/rulings that were enacted after effective voter suppression was proven."

Yeah...you must have meant one of those.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
yeti7
don't need no stink'n badges
05:38 PM on 12/27/2011
Try to Google Voter and Election fraud in the USA and start reading, you will get an education. SC voted for their Governor because she made a good impression I guess.
BTW there is no TeaParty. Yet anyway
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
KaAp
05:53 PM on 12/27/2011
Google has nothing to do with election fraud. You know that is a problem with the internet. Nobody has taught people how to do a critical reading of the internet. Anyone can write anything they want on the net and the placement often goes with payment to the search engine or other factors and/or a whole host of factors. But, you must understand just because you read something on the Internet does not make it true. There are people who study election fraud. Heck the Bush administration studied it and found precisely the same thing found by the Brenner center for Justice (NYU law school) there is no voter fraud. 125 million votes .000002 percent (give or take a zero). It is a statistical anomaly. It is not a problem. Please be very clear there is a huge difference between voter fraud and registration fraud which is invariably caught ... I never said there was now did I?
02:19 PM on 12/27/2011
Is a picture ID required for voting early by mail or sending in an absentee ballot?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
yeti7
don't need no stink'n badges
05:09 PM on 12/27/2011
In our state it is required for early voting too but I don't know how they deal with absentee voters?
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Maezeppa
Happy-Happy Joy-Joy
05:12 PM on 12/27/2011
I don’t know what the delay is in the system posting your other message time-stamped 16:21:09 with the links to the  two articles but I want to thank you for producing two examples that perfectly illustrate my point and undercut yours.  Again, voter fraud is rare and photo IDs are not warranted.

Do you realize that in the case written up in your first link to the National Review, Voter ID has nothing to do with it? Nothing?  Having voter photo IDs would not have stopped the internal problem that was described.

As to the “maciverinstitute” (whoever they are) article, yes.  I mentioned those already.  Two ex-felons didn’t realize their right to vote had been taken away from them (rules vary by state) and accidentally registered and voted.   Big freak of a deal.
09:12 PM on 12/27/2011
What state is your state? In my state the Bd of Elections sends a ballot to registered voters and gives them the option mailing it in early.

Who do you show your photo ID and where when you vote early in your state? The Post Office attendant?