State Files Suit Over Voter I.D. Law
Rejected by the U.S. Department of Justice, the state's suit argues its controversial law is not discriminatory.
Photos
Following through on his threat last month, S.C. Attorney General Alan Wilson on Tuesday filed suit against the U.S. Justice Department in a bid to overturn the department's December decision to prohibit several controversial provisions of the state's Voter I.D. law from taking effect.
"The DOJ has refused to allow South Carolina to enact its Voter I.D. law, claiming it does not adequately protect voters from discrimination, per the 1965 Voting Rights Act," Wilson said in a release. "However, very similar laws have been upheld by the United States Supreme Court (in the case of Indiana), and even pre-cleared by the DOJ itself (in the case of Georgia)."
The state's Voter I.D. law was passed in 2011, and requires voters to show photo identification. The identification can be obtained free of charge from the S.C. Department of Motor Vehicles.
Presently, voters are required to show either their voter registration card, a valid state driver's license, or state-issued I.D. card. Opponents of the law argue that the elderly, and especially minorities, are less apt to have a required photo I.D., potentially disenfranchising otherwise legitimate voters.
Under the 1965 Voting Rights Act, South Carolina is one of a number of states that are required to receive federal "pre-clearance" on voting changes to ensure that they don’t hurt minorities’ political power. That mandate is a vestige of the state's Jim Crow era, and earlier, when grandfather clauses, poll taxes, and literacy tests were used to suppress minority voting.
"The absolute number of minority citizens whose exercise of the franchise could be adversely affected by the proposed requirements runs into the tens of thousands," U.S. Assistant Attorney General Thomas E. Perez said in a letter to South Carolina officials following DOJ's ruling last December.
Last summer, at Gov. Nikki Haley's direction, the state offered free rides to local DMV's so that voters could obtain the proper identification required by the law. Few took up the offer, which Haley, Wilson and other proponents have used to bolster their assertions that the law would not be burdensome.
Opponents, however, widely ridiculed the invitation as a stunt. The ride offer was good for one day, and to get the appropriate I.D card, people would have needed numerous other forms of I.D. To obtain an identification card, citizens are required to produce a birth certificate, Social Security card, and proof of residency.
Further, if they have had a name change since birth, they must also produce legal documentation (marriage license, divorce decree or adoption records) to support the name change.
In its complaint, the state explains: "The covered voting changes in Act R54 [Voter I.D. law] do not and will not prohibit any voter in South Carolina from voting for or electing his or her preferred candidate of choice."
In fact, it continues, "South Carolina's photo identification law does not bar anyone from voting, but merely imposes on voters a responsibility to obtain an approved photo identification card and to bring it to the polls unless one of the exemptions in Section 5 of Act R54 applies."
Said Attorney General Wilson: "The DOJ has denied citizens in South Carolina protection of a law that the U.S. Supreme Court upheld in Indiana, and the DOJ itself pre-cleared for Georgia."
Citing the provisions in Section 5 of the Voter I.D. law that provide voters with an ability to vote after swearing an affidavit, Wilson added: "Nothing in this law prevents anyone from voting if they cannot immediately show a valid photo identification."
Wilson's suit, against the DOJ and U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. It is unclear when the court may take up the matter.
Click here to read the state's complaint.
Ken
10:22 pm on Tuesday, February 7, 2012
Leave it to our government officials to continue wasting time and money fighting this instead of actually doing something productive to help this state and it's people.
stanley seigler
10:05 am on Thursday, February 9, 2012
@Ken: "...continue wasting time and money fighting this [voterID] instead of actually doing something productive..."
COMMENT
not to mention (but i will) the time energy spent pushing the koch bros legislation through the legislative process...
bet if legs had spent their time working on job creation they could have created 1000 jobs...well what ever the number; their time better spent than on a koch voterID law.
J Lawson
9:38 am on Thursday, February 9, 2012
I see nothing wrong with requiring ID to vote, especially since the ID is provided free of charge by the state.
stanley seigler
10:23 am on Thursday, February 9, 2012
@J Lawson: "I see nothing wrong with requiring ID to vote, especially since the ID is provided free of charge by the state.."
COMMENT
what do you see right with the koch bros voterID law...what condition has it corrected...how has it improved life for the people of SC...
free of charge by the state?? not hardly! the whole useless koch bro law is a waste of taxpayers money.
sad SC legs felt it necessary to suck up to the kocks...at the expense of SC citizens...think they may have gotten campaign funds from the kocks...
noo, they wouldnt do that..."for they are all honorable men..."
stanley seigler
6:56 pm on Thursday, February 9, 2012
FYI: http://www.thenation.com/blog/164453/why-koch-brothers-and-alec-dont-want-you-vote
[CLIP] A key component of the GOP’s campaign has been orchestrated by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), which receives substantial funding from the Koch brothers. ALEC drafted mock photo ID legislation after the 2008 election and in five states that passed ID laws in the past year—Kansas, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Wisconsin—the measures were sponsored by legislators who are members of ALEC... at least a dozen states controlled by Republicans have approved new obstacles to voting—mandating government-issued IDs, curtailing early voting, restricting voter registration... Five million voters could be negatively impacted by the new laws, according to the Brennan Center for Justice, which found that “these new restrictions fall most heavily on those most likely to vote for Democrats.
[CLIP]
A key component of the GOP’s campaign has been orchestrated by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), which receives substantial funding from the Koch brothers. ALEC drafted mock photo ID legislation after the 2008 election and in five states that passed ID laws in the past year—Kansas, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Wisconsin—the measures were sponsored by legislators who are members of ALEC.
[END CLIPS]
to repeat: is there any doubt the purpose of koch bros anti voter laws...
J Lawson
11:45 am on Friday, February 10, 2012
So political affiliations aside, what's wrong with requiring an ID to vote? You have to prove your identity in so many other less important areas... I would think that everyone would want to insure that their vote was being cast by them -not someone claiming to be them. Fraud is identity theft and when it comes to the Presidential election, I want my vote to count. It's not a hardship - it's common sense.
stanley seigler
12:53 pm on Friday, February 10, 2012
@J Lawson: "... requiring an ID to vote...insure their vote was cast by them -not someone claiming to be them...I want my vote to count. It's not a hardship...it's common sense."
COMMENTS
around the bush again...but what the hay...maybe it will help both sides understand the issue.
re: "insure their vote was cast by them, etc"
"them" are insured NOW, TODAY...and were in all past elections.
re: "common sense"
sounds like the red queen's common sense...hardly common sense for legs to waste taxpayers time and money on KOCH BRO BLOCK BO (KBBB) voter law which addresses nothing: THERE IS NO INDIVIUAL FRAUD at the ballot box...
if you know of any, pls advise...otherwise perhaps you should not call KBBB common sense...or explain why you see it as common (any) sense.
re: what's wrong
its wrong because it is voter suppression...you may as well ask whats wrong with jim crow laws, poll tax, IQ test (how many beans in a jar)...
now your turn:
whats right about KBBB law...
so much to do, so little time...why waste it nonsensical legislation...
Dee Marie
6:05 pm on Thursday, March 22, 2012
First of all...besides the obvious, another problem is that this is a LOW priority. It is only a political plot that works to rally the base of people who don't know better. There are so many other priorities in this state! That's the problem! The mere transparency of intent is so obvious!