Eric Holder's Speech Demonstrates Radicalism of DOJ

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 ID.

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 obligation.

Holder tries 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.

Holder asserts 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 military voters.

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.