Monday for Martin Luther King Jr Day, US Attorney General Eric Holder spoke with NAACP leaders on the steps of the statehouse in South Carolina. Holder took the opportunity to tell the audience that he intends to fight against any and all attempts by states to pass laws requiring some form of photo ID.
South Carolina is one of those states in the voter ID fray and Holder told residents,
“After a thorough and fair review, we concluded that the state had failed to meet its burden of proving that the voting change would not have a racially discriminatory affect.”
How is this a racial issue? Is the Attorney General of the United States saying that blacks, Hispanics or American Indians are less capable of obtaining a photo ID than are whites?
In earlier reports, Holder seemed to indicate that the voter ID laws discriminate against poor people. If that is so are there no poor whites in South Carolina or any other state?
The statement Holder used is the type of racial rhetoric that helps to fuel the racial issues still raging through American society.
What would have happened if a white official made the same type of statement? In all likelihood, that white official would be publically chastised for making such a racist comment. If a white official said the same thing, I would not be surprised to see Holder and his Department of Justice going after them for racial profiling.
Take the case of what Holder is doing to Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio. The DOJ has filed racial profiling charges against Arpaio for his efforts to fight illegal immigration and drug trafficking in his Arizona county. The vast majority of illegals and drug runners are Hispanic, so yes, he and his department have to focus their attention more on that ethnic group than any other. What’s the difference between racial profiling and efficient police work?
But Holder turns around and using the same racial profiling tactic as Arpaio uses for his law enforcement activities, trys to justify his personal fight to block voter ID laws. The hypocrisy of the actions screams injustice in both instances.
If that poor black or Hispanic person needed to buy any over the counter allergy medication that contains pseudoephedrine, they would have to show a driver’s license or some form of ID in order to purchase it. If they have a car, they have to have a state driver’s license AND proof of insurance. If they are that poor and need to receive state or government aid, they have to have some form of ID in order to request and receive that aid. Some form of ID, often a photo ID is required for anyone to fly on a commercial airline, to open a bank account, buy a house, cash a check and the list goes on and on and on.
If Mr Holder does not believe that any of these other ID requirements are racially discriminatory, then on what grounds does he believe requiring a photo ID to vote is a form of racial discrimination?
My question to Eric Holder would be, ‘what makes a poor black or Hispanic person less capable of obtaining a photo ID than a poor white person or a poor Asian person?
Clearly this cannot be the real reason that Holder and the DOJ are fighting against voter ID laws. In light of the revelation of what happened with dead people voting in the New Hampshire primary, the only possible explanation for Holder’s opposition to voter ID has to involve the possibility of widespread voter fraud in the November election. If the Democrats can’t win back the House and keep the Senate and presidency through legal voting methods, that only leaves them desperate measures which could very well include voter fraud.
Could there be any other reason for his Hypocritic actions?
