Legal Motion Filed Against DOJ Witch Hunt on Texas Voter ID

Townhall.com:

Voter integrity group True the Vote has filed a motion intervening in a Department of Justice lawsuit against the voter identification law in Texas. 

"The Holder Justice Department has made clear its litigation against Texas will serve as a warning that other states should not pursue election integrity measures - True the Vote stands ready to fight their effort to dilute voters' rights," True the Vote President Catherine Engelbrecht said in statement. "Over 80 percent of Americans favor laws changing to require photo voter identification at the polls. When the DOJ makes baseless claims to obscure the integrity of the voting process, we will not stand idly by. If Texas is to be labeled a political prize by the Plaintiffs and their Interveners, attacking election integrity will not be an acceptable strategy." 

In August, Attorney General Eric Holder issued a lawsuit to stop a strongly supported voter identification law in Texas after the Supreme Court struck down parts of the Voting Rights Act, which resulted in southern states being allowed to change election laws without asking DOJ for permission first. After issuing the lawsuit, Holder argued he would not allow a Supreme Court decision to declare "open season" on voting rights. 

"The Plaintiff [DOJ] is attempting to obtain a remedy which this Court does nothave the jurisdiction to grant. This Court does not have the authority to impose statewidemandates on Texas to submit all future state, county and local election law changes to thePlaintiff for approval under Section 3 of the Voting Rights Act," the motion states. 

Texas Governor Rick Perry has vowed to do whatever it takes to fight DOJ on this issue. 

RELATED:  The Truth About North Carolina’s Voter ID Law the Media Won’t Tell You

Supreme Court Strikes Down Part of Voting Rights Act

Don't believe the hype. While white liberals and their messengers in the mainstream media will deem this SCOTUS decision as "RACIST!!!", the truth is that not only did "history not end in 1965", but it's the Left's own ignorance towards widespread voter fraud (all in the name of making sure blacks continue to vote overwhelmingly Democrat) that partly served as the lightning rod for this case being heard by SCOTUS in the first place:

In a landmark 5-4 decision today, the Supreme Court struck down a section of the Voting Rights Act that designated that the Act applied only to certain parts of the United States. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion. 

Section 5 of the VRA dictated that state and local governments in the United States would have to get approval from the federal Department of Justice to change their election laws. Section 4 of the VRA contains the formula that determined which parts of the United States that Section 5 applies to. It was Section 4 of the VRA that the Supreme Court struck down today, which means that Section 5 will go unenforced until Congress can come up with an alternative formula for determining which governments must receive approval for election law changes. 

Notably, Chief Justice Roberts' opinion leaves the possibility that Congress can come up with a legally sound formula that would still limit the Section 5 requirements to only some parts of the United States - but that Section 4 is currently constitutionally unacceptable.

Professor William Jacobson of Legal Insurrection pulled out the key part of Chief Justice Roberts' opinion:

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 employed extraordinary measures to address an extraordinary problem. Section 5 of the Act required States to obtain federal permission before enacting any law related to voting—a drastic departure from basic principles of federalism. And §4 of the Act applied that requirement only to some States—an equally dramatic departure from the principle that all States enjoy equal sovereignty. This was strong medicine, but Congress determined it was needed to address entrenched racial discrimination in voting, “an insidious and pervasive evil which had been perpetuated in certain parts of our country through unremitting and ingenious defiance of the Constitution.” South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U. S. 301, 309 (1966). As we explained in upholding the law, “exceptional conditions can justify legislative measures not otherwise appropriate.” Id., at 334. Reflecting the unprecedented nature of these measures, they were scheduled to expire after five years. See Voting Rights Act of 1965, §4(a), 79 Stat. 438.

Nearly 50 years later, they are still in effect; indeed, they have been made more stringent, and are now scheduled to last until 2031. There is no denying, however, that the conditions that originally justified these measures no longer characterize voting in the covered jurisdictions….

At the same time, voting discrimination still exists; no one doubts that. The question is whether the Act’s extraordinary measures, including its disparate treatment of the States, continue to satisfy constitutional requirements.

RELATED:  Breaking: Supreme Court strikes down part of Voting Rights Act

South Carolina GOP Rep. Trey Gowdy Eviscerates Claims That Voter ID Laws Are Racist During Hearing

Gee, asking people to have ID when they vote....that must be "RACIST!!!":

During a hearing into the constitutionality of voter identification laws enacted across the country, Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) tore into claims by the Department of Justice that those laws were racially discriminatory. In the space of five minutes, Gowdy knocked down the claims, one by one, that a voter ID law passed in South Carolina in 2011 discriminated against African-Americans or was dissimilar to laws the Justice Department had cleared in a variety of other states. 

Gowdy began by noting that, when the Palmetto State’s voter identification law was passed, a third of the state’s congressional delegation were African-American; former GOP Rep. Tim Scott and Democratic Rep. James Clyburn. 

He went on to say that Scott is now one of two African-American U.S. senators and the state’s governor is also of minority descent. 

“Further to same, South Carolina’s voter ID law was similar if not less restrictive than those DOJ had pre-cleared in New Hampshire, Virginia, and Georgia,” Gowdy continued. “And, moreover, South Carolina’s plan was similar, if not less restrictive, to plans approved outside of DOJ pre-clearance in states like Tennessee, Kansas, Indiana – which, incidentally, was affirmed by the United States Supreme Court – Idaho, South Dakota, and Michigan.” 

He went on to say that the law passed in South Carolina made it easier for individuals to acquire a photo ID and to cast provisional ballots.

Gowdy turned to the professor who was testifying before the committee on the discriminatory nature of voter identification laws. “There was a 1.6 percent difference in African-Americans who had accepted photo IDs – acceptable photo IDs – and white South Carolinians,” Gowdy said. “20 years ago, when I was working on voting rights cases, that was considered de minimis.” 

“Now, it costs South Carolina $3.5 million to defend that 1.6 percent difference,” Gowdy said of a legal challenge to that law which the state eventually won. He added that those who did not have identification cannot enter a federal court house, board an aircraft, or enter the chambers of Congress – all of those activities require photo identification.

“I’m sorry for the Department of Justice that they put politics ahead of the law,” Gowdy concluded. 

RELATED: MSNBC Broadcasts 19 Segments On Voter I.D. This Week, Ignores Poll Showing 74% Support For I.D. Laws

In 59 Philadelphia Wards, Mitt Romney Did Not Get A Single Vote

Voter fraud and/or voter intimidation could only explain this:

It's one thing for a Democratic presidential candidate to dominate a Democratic city like Philadelphia, but check out this head-spinning figure: In 59 voting divisions in the city, Mitt Romney received not one vote. Zero. Zilch.

These are the kind of numbers that send Republicans into paroxysms of voter-fraud angst, but such results may not be so startling after all.

"We have always had these dense urban corridors that are extremely Democratic," said Jonathan Rodden, a political science professor at Stanford University. "It's kind of an urban fact, and you are looking at the extreme end of it in Philadelphia."

RELATED:  Philly poll workers partially cover Obama mural after court order, leaving logo and quote in view

Politiks As Usual: In The News 11/12/12

Petraeus Resigns After Affair With Biographer Turned Up in FBI Probe

The Liberal Media Are More Powerful Than Ever

It’s Not The Economy, Stupid

Partial Recount in Tight Florida House Race Between West and Murphy

Philadelphia Came Out in Astronomical Numbers for Obama

Is the GOP Headed for the Boneyard?

‘Catholic Bishops’ Election Behavior Threatens Their Authority’

Newsweek Cover Compares Obama to Napoleon, Calls GOP 'Old,' 'White,' 'History'

Senators Propose Comprehensive Immigration Changes

A Message To Discouraged Christians

Vote Count Confirms Obama Win in Florida