One of the most mystifying quests of Obama's Justice Department is its effort to stamp out any initiative designed to clean up the voting process. Isn't it the left that says it wants "fairness" and an "equal playing field?" If that is the case, then why is Attorney General Eric Holder doing everything he can to stop Voter ID laws... even to the point of insulting his and Obama's own base?
In a great write-up by Amy Payne at The Heritage Foundation, Payne notes the hypocrisy in everything Holder says:
People seemingly voting after they've been dead for years. Drug kingpins buying votes from poor people to sway elections. Non-citizens being bussed to the polls and coached on how to vote. Stories of voting fraud are shocking, and states have been taking action to make sure that elections are secure. But the Justice Department, led by Attorney General Eric Holder, has blocked states at almost every turn.
This is the same Justice Department that stopped a non-partisan election reform by arguing that if party affiliation were removed from a ballot, African-American voters wouldn't be able to identify and vote for the Democrats. Holder has continued to stoke the racial fires, calling a requirement for voters to produce photo identification a "poll tax." Heritage expert Hans von Spakovsky said this argument is merely political. "Holder continues to perpetuate the incendiary error to the public, knowing that the poll-tax assertion is a racially charged one that should not be used lightly," von Spakovsky said.
Diving into the letter written by Acting Assistant Attorney General Loretta King which forms the basis for the argument against removing party affiliation from the ballot, one can only come to the conclusion that Holder, Obama, and their entire team can only get elected if blacks are spoon fed and hand-held all the way to the voting booth.
Removing the partisan cue in municipal elections will, in all likelihood, eliminate the single factor that allows black candidates to be elected to office. In Kinston elections, voters base their choice more on the race of a candidate rather than his or her political affiliation, and without either the appeal to party loyalty or the ability to vote a straight ticket, the limited remaining support from white voters for a black Democratic candidate will diminish even more. And given that the city's electorate is overwhelmingly Democratic, while the motivating factor for this change may be partisan, the effect will be strictly racial.
In other words, Obama and Holder don't want voting reform, because they don't have confidence that blacks can figure it out by themselves. This is about the most insulting thing I've ever heard.
Then, there is the opposition to voter ID laws. Of course, Holder's argument is that it somehow disenfranchises minorities. As if minorities are incapable of picking up a free ID card. Here's what Payne writes about this:
In states that have voter ID laws, the real-world results show that minorities have not been disenfranchised by any means. States that require ID to vote have offered free IDs to anyone who does not have one already. In Kansas, which allows any of nine different forms of ID as proof of identity to vote:
Out of a total of 1.713 million registered voters in Kansas, only 32 people had requested a free photo ID as of May 4, 2012. That represents only 0.002 percent of the registered voters in the state. Of those 32 voters, 80 percent were white, 10 percent were black, and the race or ethnicity of 10 percent was unknown. Thus, there is no evidence that minority voters were disproportionately affected.
Only U.S. citizens should be allowed to vote. Having a photo ID card is a reasonable step to ensure the integrity of the process. The fact that Obama and Holder oppose such measures means that the sanctity of the ballot box is of little concern to them.