Most of you have probably heard this already, but here’s a couple links to pass along. Retro being very “in” this season, Attorny General Eric Holder “vows to aggressively challenge voter ID laws“:
Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. on Tuesday vowed to be “aggressive” in challenging voting laws that restrict minority rights, using a speech in Texas to make his case on the same day a federal court was considering the legality of the state’s new voter ID legislation.
“Let me be clear: We will not allow political pretexts to disenfranchise American citizens of their most precious rights,” Holder said in the speech to the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. “I can assure you that the Justice Department’s efforts to uphold and enforce voting rights will remain aggressive.”…
TPMuckraker adds:
Attorney General Eric Holder deviated from his prepared remarks during a speech before the NAACP on Tuesday and called voter ID laws “poll taxes.”
“Under the proposed law, concealed handgun licenses would be acceptable forms of photo ID, but student IDs would not,” Holder said, referring specifically to the voter ID law passed in Texas. “Many of those without IDs would have to travel great distances to get them, and some would struggle to pay for the documents they might need to obtain them. We call those poll taxes.”
That last line was not part of Holder’s prepared remarks released to the press…
There’s video at the link — “embedding disabled by request”.
I agree with Ed Kilgore at the Washington Monthly:
… I personally wish Holder would conduct a high-profile—made higher by the notoriety House Republicans have granted him—refutation of the idea that there is any evidence for the voter fraud that voter ID laws claim to address. Maybe he did some of that in his NAACP address (I haven’t found the full text yet), but he really does need to do it fully, particularly now that he’s been anathematized by Republicans and has no particular need to project any sort of insincere bipartisanship beyond the requirements of his job.
***********
What else is on the agenda today?
amk
mittbot Preps for NAACP Address
JPL
Luckovich cartoon today shows how diverse the GOP is..link
Nasty storms overnight in the Atlanta area with power outages. My power came back on about 4.
c u n d gulag
Voter suppression, as many have noted, is a solution in search of a problem.
This often happens now in the world of pharmaceuticals.
They often seem to discover/create some drug that they can’t find any real use for.
On example may be – they appear to have created “Restless Leg Syndrome” in order to sell whatever recent drug they had created.
Maybe it’s me, and I’m 54, but I’d never in my life had ever heard of Restless Leg Syndrome until those commercials came out.
I had a few girlfriend who moved their legs a few time at night – but then, so do I. I always thought it was normal. Maybe it isn’t?
Now, maybe it’s real, and maybe the sh*t created to stop it helps, but it’s not something that seems to be any sort of priority – like cancer, heart disease, diabetes, and a whole plethora of children’s diseases.
And beside, taking a pill for a restless legs doesn’t mean it hacks your legs off, which is the equivalent of what voter suppression does to poorer, darker, and younger voters.
I say, describe voter suppression is the same as having your state come and hack-off your legs because they hear you might get Restless Leg Syndrome in the future.
Cue the people who’ll tell me I have no idea how serious and painful Restless Leg Syndrome really is.
Sorry.
But it’s my analogy.
And it may be a bad one – sorry.
Mino
About time. He needs to make a major speech, not just some off the cuff remarks. He’s been practically MIA on this issue, as far as making his case goes.
And it’s the inability to get to sleep that is the nuisance. But I don’t think I’d drug myself for it.
TheMightyTrowel
@c u n d gulag: my dog got addicted to oxy contin because of restless leg syndrome. Don’t mock. [ /snark]
TheMightyTrowel
@c u n d gulag: my dog got addicted to oxy contin because of restless leg syndrome. Don’t mock. [ /snark]
TheMightyTrowel
FYWP for the double post. In other news, going back to the office after 6weeks travel and fieldwork sucks.
Buck Batard
@c u n d gulag: I had “restless leg syndrome”: My legs (esp. one of them) twitched and moved so that falling asleep was impossible, and exhaustion was overtaking me. I didn’t know anything about RLS—had never heard of it.
I complained to my internist, and she ran some blood tests that showed my B12 levels were very low. B12 supplements solved my problem.
That’s all I know about restless leg syndrome, but let me assure you that it’s very real. It’s also more debilitating than many diseases with more sophisticated labels.
c u n d gulag
@TheMightyTrowel:
LOL!
Next up from Big Pharma:
“Balzoff!”
For men who are suffer from chafing after licking their own balls too often.
And “coming” soon: “KnobZoff,” for men who go one step further.
This wouldn’t be a solution in search of a problem, but for a ‘Yeah, we could only wish!’
c u n d gulag
@Buck Batard:
Yeah, sorry about that.
Like I said, I’d never heard about it ’til the commercials.
But then, I’ve been taking B-complex vitamins my whole adult life, so maybe that’s why I never experienced it.
I didn’t mean to diminish anyone’s suffering.
So sorry about that.
Maybe someone smarter than me can come up with a better analogy than RLS.
TR
Holder’s exactly right. This is a poll tax — same intent, same mechanism, same assholes.
Congratulations, 2012 GOP. Someday high school students will read about you alongside your brothers in arms like Selma Alabama Sheriff Jim Clark and Gov George Wallace. They’re just like you. Hope your grand kids are proud.
Ivan Ivanovich Renko
@c u n d gulag: The thing is, these marketing campaigns aren’t actually designed to help people, or even to educate them– they exist to sell a product.
That is, they’re an example of free-market healthcare at its finest.
kay
@Mino:
Election lawyers won’t approve, even liberal election lawyers. There’s a ton of “both sides do it” in voting rights circles. The aspirational goal is for voting to be nonpartisan. It’s a great goal, and I agree with them. But they’re essentially asking voting rights advocates to disarm, in the hope that those who wish to restrict voting rights will see the error of their ways and relent, and that way we’ll reach the lofty heights of nonpartisan agreement on voting, where everything is analyzed on a purely legal and technical plane. No nasty politics.
I don’t think that will happen. I think we’ll get rolled, politically and then substantively and lose everything. I know we will.
Joey Maloney
So what’s he going to do about it? 4 months and counting…
Snarki, child of Loki
Time for a RICO prosecution, for violating citizen’s rights “under color of law”.
Mino
@kay: Two possible reasons for his hesitancy. Afraid of the SCOTUS. He’s blackety.(Wonder why he didn’t use Clarence Thomas’s comeback at Issa–it’s a high tech lynching–which at least had the merit of being true in his case.
Solutions:
There’s no time for SCOTUS to rule before the election, now, so get those injunctions out there. If we lose this election, it probably won’t matter, as only marrieds will be able to vote in the next presidential elections.
Get your damn case before the public, idiot.
kay
@Joey Maloney:
It’s complicated. I’ll use Texas as an example. The Texas state law is at hearing right now. Three judge panel. The elite opinion is that Texas will lose on their voter ID law. But Texas has a two-track agenda. They want to uphold their state law, AND they want to get the Voting Rights Act (certain sections) before the SCOTUS, fast track, because the elite opinion is that parts of the VRA are going down as soon as they reach the Roberts court.
The one and only reason Holder could challenge the Texas law was the sections of the VRA that require preclearance. So what does he do? Does he NOT challenge the Texas law to avoid the VRA getting fast-tracked to the Roberts court, where he will lose on the MUCH bigger issue, which is the VRA, or does he challenge the Texas law, take the immediate win on the state law voter ID issue, and put the VRA at risk? He chose the riskier option, he challenged the Texas law, but that’s a tough call.
He’s the first AA AG and the VRA could go down on his watch. I don’t envy him these choices.
rikyrah
and THIS is why they hate the Attorney General.
Mino
@Snarki, child of Loki: Ooh, I like it.
NotMax
Part of the problem rarely discussed with voting in general is the media-driven pressure to report results nearly instantaneously after polls close.
That has led in too many cases to implementation of iffy technology to speed the counting process, though not necessarily accurately nor necessarily in a manner which can be verified by alternate means.
For example, where I am, we have ballots with teeny ovals which must be filled in with black ink. But if the ink marks go too far over the edges of the oval or enough of the oval is uninked, that vote may be dismissed by the electronic ballot readers.
What’s the bloody rush? A day, two days, even more after an election to have a certified hand count (and corroborative recount) of good old-fashioned paper ballots with big boxes next to each name which are marked with an ‘X’ with a grease pencil would suit me just fine.
So three cheers for Ireland’s decision to scrap and recycle its e-voting system.
Sometimes Luddite-ism has its place.
Mino
@NotMax: Maybe they want to be sure that the idiots that broke them were actually elected by the people who got broken.
JPL
The original founding fathers were clear on this issue. White men only! Will Scalia decide that poll taxes are legal?
ugh
kay
@Mino:
I disagree with this. Holder, and the Obama Administration generally, are taking their case to those parts of the public who care deeply about voting rights, specifically, AA’s and Latinos, and (lately) other recent immigrant communities ( primarily Asians, which is a new front for voting rights advocates). Voting rights are not a majority issue. I wish they were, but they aren’t. I have to accept that reality. They’re taking their case to the people that care about this. As a practical matter, I think that’s most productive.
TR
@Joey Maloney:
“What’s he going to do about it?”
Well, his DOJ has already filed suits against the practices where VRA pre-clearance applies, like Texas and SC, and now he’s using the bully pulpit to call attention to northern states where he’s otherwise unable to act.
Do you have any other suggestions?
gene108
@JPL:
Doesn’t matter, if he thinks poll taxes are legal. The Constitution prohibits them via a Constitutional amendment.
He may not agree that forcing people to get ID’s equals a poll tax, but that is a different issue about what constitutes a poll tax in the modern age.
Bobby Thomson
@kay:
A lot of pronouns and generalities here. I’d be interested in specifics and links when you get the chance.
I can understand the viewpoint that criticisms shouldn’t focus on the adverse effect to Democratic voters because then the totebaggers will get the heebie jeebies. But is anyone actually making a Naderesque argument that voting rights advocates should roll over and not challenge the restriction of voting rights on the theory that once in power, the people who benefit from those restrictions will suddenly eliminate them? Because those people need to be identified and pointed to less challenging work, like casino greeting.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
@JPL: That would be interesting, since the 24th amendment prohibits poll taxes. Now, what he could do, is say that since everyone should have a birth certificate, having to pay for one to get an ID does not count toward poll taxes.
Joey Maloney
@TR: What about the states not subject to preclearance? Can he, for example, take Pa. to court NOT under VRA? Can he try for an injunction there? He just told the NAACP it was unconstitutional , what can he do to enforce that?
JPL
@Belafon (formerly anonevent): Yup.. If you need to provide money in order to secure a voting ID, then I call it a poll tax.
Mnemosyne (iPhone)
@c u n d gulag:
I think the comparison to RLS is more that the commercials are designed to make people watching them think, “Gosh, do I have that?”
Similarly, the voter ID laws are supposed to make citizens think that in-person voter fraud is much more common that it actually is — after all, if it wasn’t happening in huge numbers in every election, the government wouldn’t have to pass all of these laws to prevent it!
It’s a law that’s supposed to create fear, just like the commercials for RLS.
NotMax
@Belafon (formerly anonevent)
Not everyone born in the U.S. necessarily has a birth certificate, valid or otherwsie.
And among naturalized citizens, the percentage without one is greater.
And then there are run-arounds like this in Mississippi:
JPL
The purple finger group that showed up at the last Rep. convention, care more about Iraqi’s voting then they do their fellow compatriots.
Mino
@Belafon (formerly anonevent): Birth certificate is not a photo ID.
Glidwrith
@NotMax: Head over to the brad blog to see all the stuff concerning voter suppression and election fraud. They do good work.
kay
@Joey Maloney:
The other way to look at it is Holder is challenging these state laws under the VRA for two reasons. The state laws will disenfranchise people AND he is creating a recent history of cases that show the need for the VRA, knowing that it’s going to get to the SCOTUS. He can argue we STILL need the VRA now, today, because he just relied on it in Texas in South Carolina. Of course, he would not have been able to argue that had Texas and SC not put in laws that he could then sue on.
Both sides have really aggressive postures. Texas and SC are daring him to sue them, but what if the fact that Texas and SC put in laws that violate the VRA is the reason the VRA is upheld? There’s risk on both sides. IMO, conservatives must be really, really confident that the Roberts court will gut the VRA, because they are really pushing noncompliance with federal law.
El Cid
Eric Holder is a criminal and racist who wants to let black and Latino people vote any time and any where they want, just because they might be eligible to vote, and his anti-white hatred is such that he doesn’t think it’s fair for whites to stop black and Latinos from voting, even though they may have very good reasoning, especially if those blacks and Latinos intend to vote incorrectly.
Mino
@kay: Fine, as far as getting them registered. But they will not provide a big enough bloc to get legislation to protect the vote passed. I just looked at a map of the states that passed the 23rd amendment, and we don’t need any southern states to pass another one to put an end to this shit. But you do need a wider audience on the issue and right now, I’d bet not 10% even know what’s happening. Maybe they’d care/ maybe not.
Joey Maloney
@kay: I asked this already but the comment is in moderation for some reason. What about the states not subject to preclearance? What, if anything, can be done to prevent Pennsylvania from disenfranchising their estimated 750K voters this election?
PeakVT
@Joey Maloney: Apart from whatever the DoJ might do, there’s a private suit against the law.
kay
@Mino:
You’ll hate this answer, but I think it takes a long time. I will just give you my experience. I got no traction, none, on voting rights here locally until SB5 (Ohio’s collective bargaining law). People who have not been disenfranchised historically simply don’t have that history. They don’t see it as “a problem”. This is “no traction with Democrats”, mind you. We’re not even talking about Republicans, who are probably a lost cause.
During the SB5 fight, the state Party and OFA pushed a petition to get voting rights on the ballot. They were successful in that, but ONLY because they were passing that petition along with the SB5 petition. This is what I said: “sign this voting rights petition, because if we don’t get the voter suppression law stayed, the voters you need to stop the collective bargaining law are not going to be able to vote”. That “worked”. They saw the problem. But that’s what it took. Usually, they completely ignore and dismiss my constant haranguing on voter ID laws, they treat it like some eccentricity on my part, they’re willing to indulge me, but, really, they don’t see the problem, because they all have ID.
Mino
@kay: Phew, sorry to hear that. Not much imagination, eh?
kay
@Joey Maloney:
There’s a state law action that might work, I think it gets heard on July 25th, I don’t know anything about the PA constitution. The Wisconsin state law action was successful, so there’s that. They’re basing these on STATE constitutions, because most election law is state law.
I myself think they should explore the issues with provisional ballots, and maybe take those to federal court. Ohio has a 6 year history with provisional ballots, and they have one federal decision that is just killer on how provisional ballots are a mess.
Provisional balloting is my new obsession. I wish someone would attack on those grounds, although I don’t know how to do it. The rules aren’t applied consistently, and that is a HUGE problem. That’s a no-no.
c u n d gulag
@Mnemosyne (iPhone):
That makes perfect sense.
Chris
@kay:
As a practical matter, most of the things that democracy is built on aren’t majority issues – civil liberties are another key issue that most voters don’t give two shits about (if there were any doubt, the last decade should’ve clarified it for us).
Bubblegum Tate
Wingnut response thus far:
“Holder is racist!”
b/w
“There’s no Constitutional right to vote, so shut the fuck up, Holder!”
Neo
Last week, a penalty was a “tax,” but then it wasn’t .. or something.
This week, showing a photo ID is a “tax.”
Does anybody have a valuation on showing a photo ID ?
I want to deduct it on my taxes next year.
Jebediah
@Neo:
Willful idiot is willfully idiotic.
Shanell Witherspoon
Ahmed, the Cavs are trying NOT to hold onto him long term. They only want a 1 year deal, he wants four. So there’s that.