SCOTUS, in a 2008 6-3 decision, upheld voter ID laws in Indiana. That resulted in a noticeable increase of both black and Hispanic voter turnout. GA Sec of State listed black turnout up 42% and Hispanic up 140% in 2008 and continued in 2010 as 44% and 67% respectively. The figures indicate nothing as to ID requirements deterring voter turnout. Even so, Holder is in Florida, a major swing state, to protect illegal voter rights.
Miami Herald: “The Justice Department told Florida election officials that they must stop their non-citizen voters purge. Florida argues it is not violating any law.”
Spokesman for Sec of State: “We are firmly committed to doing the right thing and preventing ineligible voters from being able to cast a ballot.”
Obama once taught the Constitution yet is fighting the constitutionality of ObamaCare. Arizona will probably get a decision from the Supreme Court later this month. Here we go again with Florida, why isn’t Holder enforcing the law?
.
.
Follow
.
drugsandotherthings
June 2, 2012
of course you ignore that the SCOTUS majority decision in the Indianna case clearly stated that the ruling ONLY applied to Indianna- and that future cases in other states may in fact result in a different decision.
burstupdates
June 2, 2012
The nut of this post highlights our liberal’s incessant effort to overcome the rule of law while conservatives fight for nothing more than it’s enforcement.
drugsandotherthings
June 2, 2012
really? Please provide some FACTS then? Because the majority opinion of the SCOTUS in the Indianna case stated that there was no intent of disenfranchisement- that while requiring voter ID the state took great measures (providing free id, extending hours, etc etc) to ensure that all could obtain ID.
This has NOT been the case, in florida, wisconsin, texas, or the myriad of other states that have been part of the republican push to enact voter ID lawssince Obama took office WITHOUT providing any real ability for the disenfranchised to obtain ID- and in many cases (wisconsin famoulsy closing DMV’s in democratic areas while extending hours or opening new offices in repulican areas) openly placing obstacles to democratic voters obtaining the required id.
burstupdates
June 4, 2012
Stevens wrote the majority opinion, upholding the decision of the Seventh Circuit, which found: “Showing a free photo identification is not a significant increase over the usual voting burdens, and the State’s stated interests are sufficient to sustain that minimal burden.”
Referring to a small sector of voters and the inclusion of provisional ballots Stevens wrote: And even assuming that the burden may not be justified as to a few voters, that conclusion is by no means sufficient to establish petitioners’ right to the relief they seek in this litigation.
The petitioners did not dispute the validity of Indiana’s interest in protecting the integrity of their voting process, they argued the law to be partisan to the benefit of the GOP by restricting voters.
Continuing: “While the most effective method of preventing election fraud may well be debatable, the propriety of doing so is perfectly clear. …the ‘precise interests’ advanced by the State are therefore sufficient to defeat petitioners’ facial challenge.” Examples of voter fraud in the state were only partially linked to the decision, incidents have been documented throughout the country. The possibility that they can happen as well as the fact that they do throughout America was sufficient for the ruling.
Crawford v Marion, look it up.
Again, it’s difficult to understand what it is that you are saying so I revert back to the case.
As before: “The nut of this post highlights our liberal’s incessant effort to overcome the rule of law while conservatives fight for nothing more than it’s enforcement.”
jonolan
June 4, 2012
Holder wasn’t hired to enforce the law; it was hired by that subhuman piece of excrement, Obama to suborn the law.