Holder Saves An Oppressed Minority

Having gotten all of America’s other legal problems firmly taken care of (including Fast and Furious), Attorney General Eric Holder has moved on to fixing one of the most egregious civil rights violations in all of American history. Holder saw the horrendous wrong in requiring valid photo ID in order to vote, and is using his executive powers to block the current Texas law.

The Texas law is almost identical to photo ID laws which have been upheld in other states. But Holder has a slight advantage in the Texas matter. Texas is among those states directly impacted by the 1965 Voting Rights Act (VRA) designed to end discrimination against black voters in the formerly segregated South. Any change to voting rules, regulations, and even districting must be first approved by the Civil Rights Division of the Attorney General’s office. The consent decree did not include any northern state which did not have a record of de jure and de facto discrimination against blacks.

Holder only cares about pandering to Hispanic votes at election time, while exhibiting benign neglect the rest of the time. But it is election time, and Texas has a lot of Hispanic votes to pander to. Blacks in Texas are registered to vote and have valid photo ID at nearly the same rate as whites, so Holder needed a different stalking horse to misuse the Voting Rights Act for his own nefarious purposes.

Therefore, Holder’s surrogate at the Justice Department, Tom Perez, sent a six page demand letter to the Texas Director of Elections informing him that “Texas has not sustained its burden under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act to show that the new law will not have a discriminatory effect on minority (in this case, read “Hispanic”) voters." Now if that burden of proof sounds backwards, it is. And here’s why.

Under regular rules, the Attorney General would have the burden of proof to show that there is intentional discrimination rather than the state proving there is not. But the VRA and the consent decree turn the burden of proof on its head. There is good reason why the Democrats have managed to extend the Act multiple times rather than let it die a natural death some time in the late 80s or early 90s. It prevents logical redistricting based on current realities rather than 60s realities, and it prevents conscientious elections boards from verifying their voting rolls and preventing voter fraud.

Holder and his legal storm troopers based their ridiculous decision on one lousy set of statistics. An estimated 11% of Hispanics in Texas do not have state-issued photo ID. And of the total estimated three-quarters of a million eligible Texas voters who don’t have state-issued photo ID, the estimates also show that somewhere between 29% and 38% are Hispanic. Well, so what? Upsetting a reasonable state law using estimates of estimates is hardly sound legal reasoning.

In his letter to the Director, Perez also wrote: “While the state law says the new photo ID requirement is to ensure electoral integrity and deter ineligible voters from voting, the state did not include evidence of significant in-person voter impersonation not already addressed by existing state law.” Since when does the federal government object to “redundant” legislation? God knows, during the Obama administration multiple redundant and even self-contradictory laws have been passed. Furthermore, where is the rule that says that the Attorney General can substitute his wisdom for that of the state? Even the consent decree doesn't distort burden of proof that much.

The state actually did conduct extensive investigations into voter fraud, and found that there was a sufficient number to justify the new law. On the other hand, Perez’s statement is what lawyers call a “naked allegation” without supporting evidence. Should we not have laws against violent murders because they are somewhat rare? And how does Holder explain the ACORN and SEIU investigations which showed thousands of attempts to register dead people, people who don't exist, people in more than one precinct, and cartoon characters? Next to the right to live, the right to protect the sanctity of the ballot box stands out as nearly equal in importance in a free, self-governing society.

Because of the consent decree, Holder felt safe about not proving that there was any actual discrimination, and if there was, that it was intentional. Concurrence is not causation, and the fact that an unusually large percentage of the population lacking state-issued photo ID is Hispanic is not in any way proof that the state legislature was targeting Hispanics and only Hispanics for “voter suppression.” Furthermore, Texas is among the states which make obtaining state-issued photo ID easy and cheap (free, if necessary). The only group that the law discriminates against is those too lazy or too devious to obtain one of those ID’s.

Perez didn’t even bother with the argument about “poor people,” or the elderly, or even other “oppressed minorities.” That wouldn’t gain Obama any votes in Texas. But striking down a law that is disingenuously described as anti-Hispanic is top-notch demagoguery.

The Holder/Obama decision to interfere with the Texas law demonstrates just how low this race-baiting administration will go to use the law to perpetuate racial and ethnic division at the expense of the Constitution and the integrity of the voting booth. Equally importantly, it demonstrates just how much harm a once-good law can do when it is extended well beyond its useful and realistic life.

Except for the sole guiding principle of guaranteeing the right of American citizens to vote in a fair and honest election, the entirety of the 1965 Voting Rights Act should be repealed. Thinking people have known that for over two decades, but Congress just keeps extending it. Democrats claim to be “progressive,” but in fact they are still living their imaginary lives back in their heydays of the 60s.