I’m sure by now you have heard that Eric Holder’s DoJ struck down the Texas voter ID law. His reasoning? The usual. While it isn’t too much of a burden to have to show an ID to buy liquor, cash a check, rent a hotel room, rent a car, rent an apartment, buy a house, board a plane, buy cigarettes, or any of myriad other daily requirements, it is apparently too much of a burden when it comes to voting.
Of course, most reasoning people understand that all of that is a load of nonsense. Laws very similar to the Texas law are and have been operating in states like Georgia and Indiana, with no problems noted. And they’ve been upheld by the Supreme Court.
In fact, a little history is in order. First, how about liberal stalwart and self-described voting expert, former President Jimmy Carter?
Requiring an ID to vote was one of the proposals in 2005 of the Commission on Federal Election Reform, chaired by Jimmy Carter and James Baker, neither of whom had previously been noted for his hostility to minorities or the poor.
Indeed. And the mentioned Supreme Court 6-3 okay of the Indiana voter ID law?
The liberal Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the majority opinion. The Court held that “there is no question about the legitimacy or importance of the State’s interest in counting only the votes of eligible voters,” and “we cannot conclude that the statute imposes ‘excessively burdensome requirements’ on any class of voters.” The decision cited the finding of a district judge that plaintiffs had “not introduced evidence of a single, individual Indiana resident who will be unable to vote as a result of the law.”
In essence the Texas law is no different than the Indiana law, but the chief law enforcement officer of the United States has decided that he will force the state of Texas to go to court—meaning, of course, that the law won’t be in effect until after the 2012 election. And it most likely will be settled in court in the state’s favor.
This is simply an Administration pandering to a demographic that it wants on its side on election day, pure and simple. Holder also struck down a similar South Carolina law.
The NAACP, on the other hand, is an organization struggling for relevancy. It has decided this is the hill it wants to die on. Somehow, as the NAACP and DoJ’s reasoning goes, “minorities” have more difficulty than others obtaining proper ID for voting (that has not proven to be true in Georgia, where minority participation has been greater since the law’s passage than it was before). The contention is that minorities manage all the other chores that require proper identification, but somehow can’t manage voting. In Texas, minorities can get to the voting booth, but apparently aren’t able to make it to the offices where the state will provide them an approved ID for free.
If you’re having a hard time swallowing the “reasoning,” don’t feel like the Lone Ranger. It’s nonsense on a stick.
That said, the NAACP thinks it has a winner here. And to help in their struggle, they’ve enlisted . . . what body?
The U.N. Human Rights Council. That makes three laughingstocks (DoJ, NAACP, and UNHRC) working on this “problem.”
Why is the UNHCR a laughing stock? Well, take a look at this: for an example of the Council’s bona fides—or lack thereof—one only has to look at its latest action:
A United Nations panel has adopted a report praising Qaddafi-era Libya for its human rights record, a year after the report was sidelined amid international objection.
The report initially came before the U.N. Human Rights Council in the middle of the uprising against the Muammar Qaddafi regime. At the time, the U.N. had just voted to suspend Libya from the rights council, so—under pressure to maintain a consistent message toward Libya—the council later postponed consideration of the report.
But the Human Rights Council on Wednesday returned to the document—and approved it.
That’s right—yesterday. This is the organization that will be “investigating” what the NAACP likes to call “voter suppression.” Or what other, more rational actors call “ensuring the integrity of the voting system.”
But the NAACP? Listen to the “reasoning” for asking the UNHRC to “investigate”:
“This really is a tactic that undercuts the growth of your democracy,” said Hillary Shelton, the NAACP’s senior vice president for advocacy, about voter photo ID requirements.
In a Fox News interview prior to his trip, Shelton said the message from the NAACP delegation to the Human Rights Council is that the photo ID law “undercuts the integrity of our government, if you allow it to happen. It’s trickery, it’s a sleight-of-hand. We’re seeing it happen here, and we don’t want it to happen to you, and we are utilizing the U.N. as a tool to make sure that we are able to share that with those countries all over the world.”
If you’ve ever wondered what word salad looks like, feast your eyes.
Of course the U.N. has no jurisdiction here. Instead, this is an opportunity for the U.N., or—as I like to call it—the “Third World Debating Club”—to try to embarrass the U.S., which is something it loves to do. And, of course, the NAACP will be its enabler.
What are the examples the NAACP plans to present to the U.N., in order to bolster its case? Well, first we go to the lifeboat:
The NAACP had scheduled two American citizens to present their claims at the U.N. panel who, the group says, worry they will be disenfranchised by the requirement to present a photo ID to vote. The civil rights group says one, Kemba Smith Pradia, was convicted of a drug-related offense and is concerned that if she moves back to Virginia from the Midwest, state law will block her voting because of her record, even though she was granted clemency by President Bill Clinton.
So we have a convicted drug offender who is “concerned” that if she moves she may have problems voting. “Concerned.” She has not been denied, but she’s “concerned.” That ought to wow them.
And number two?
A second American, Austin Alex, is a Texas Christian University student. The NAACP says he is worried that he will be barred from voting because he only holds an out-of-state driver’s license, and a non-government student ID—not a Texas-issued photo ID.
Of course Texas offers the ID necessary to vote for free. You just have to get off your fat ass and go apply. And again—he’s “worried.” Not denied, but just “worried” that he may be denied. That ought to impress them in Cuba.
The NAACP plans on presenting this little dog and pony show to the UNHRC, which is composed of countries very familiar with voting rights—having rock-solid credentials in enabling free and open elections:
The U.N. Human Rights Council members include communist China and Cuba. In addition, several Arab nations are on the council that have only granted the right to vote to women in recent years, such as Kuwait in 2005 and Qatar in 2003. Women in the Republic of Moldova have had the right to vote for less than 20 years.
Council member Saudi Arabia announced six months ago that women will be granted the right to vote, but that change does not go into effect until 2015.
And, until recently, it also included Libya.
This would be a joke if it weren’t so serious. If you can’t be assured of the integrity of your voting system, then you’re likely not to hold its results in high regard, and you may feel that those who are “elected” are not legitimate. The integrity of the system is both critical and in question. Common sense reforms are being obstructed by organizations that should be working for them. Actions like those of the DoJ and NAACP are counter to ensuring the voting system’s integrity—despite their tortured rhetoric to the contrary.
The fact that DoJ, the NAACP, and the UNHRC are involved in this farce should be all that’s necessary to determine that it is all about politics, and not at all concerned with the integrity of our voting system. The Democrats need votes, and they really don’t care whence they get them. In graveyards or from across the border—it’s all the same to them, if the numbers come out to their advantage.