Attorney General Eric
Holder delivered a disturbing speech
last night on voting laws at the Lyndon B. Johnson Library & Museum. His
comments are indicative of the radical elites at the Department of Justice
under President Obama. There’s much to
say about a number of voting rights topics.
Let’s start with voter
Holder specifically mentioned that “Texas and South Carolina, for example, have enacted laws
establishing new photo identification requirements that we’re reviewing.” Then, why did Holder feel the need to
“assure” the audience that there will be a “thorough” review of laws that have
been found constitutional? (Did the
Supreme Court, in an opinion written by Justice Stevens no less, not undertake
a thorough review already?) The DOJ has
the requirement by law to ensure that states clean their voter rolls. There was absolutely no mention of that
to claim credit for “filing a lawsuit in Rhode Island.” Why mention the state but not Rhode Island's
voter ID law passed by a legislature composed of a majority of Democrats? Although not a Section 5 state requiring
preclearance by the DOJ, it is an example of a voter ID law that the Left
conveniently tries to ignore.
Also, Holder praises
the result of the same day registration referendum in Maine because “the
ability to shape our laws remains in the hands of the American people.” Dear Mr. Holder, as the American people overwhelmingly support
voter ID, why have you taken an “aggressive” stance against voter ID?
Next, the related issue
of vote fraud.
Holder said that “voting
fraud is uncommon.” But if you read
carefully, he only refers to “in-person voting fraud.” Like the vote fraud deniers on the Left, he
tries to conveniently ignore the many other forms of vote fraud: noncitizen
voting, double voting, absentee ballot fraud, voting with a fictitious
registration, voting from a place where you do not reside, etc.
that “making voter registration easier is simply not likely, by itself, to make
our elections more susceptible to fraud.”
Does he really believe that a system such as “vouching” in a
same-day registration state does not make elections susceptible to
fraud? Let’s not forget fraud involving vouching in 2010 in Minnesota.
Then, let’s move to
Holder makes the claim
that the DOJ has “worked successfully and comprehensively to protect the voting
rights of U.S. service members and veterans.”
Really? The RNLA was one of the
many who demanded
that the DOJ ensure that military voters could vote in the fall of 2010 after
the Obama administration’s poor record of defending the rights of veterans.
Finally, what election
reform did Holder actually propose we institute?
Holder used this speech
to relaunch Obama’s Senate bill on election practices. Holder said
the bill is “an effort to deter and punish …harmful practices” in elections. Holder’s administration is aimed at punishing
someone: his political opponents, and they will seek to punish whether or not
their opponents’ practices are harmful.
And this man leads the
Department of Justice? Hardly.