What else can I conclude from this story? Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez, speaking about the Justice Department again stopping South Carolina's Voter ID Law is quoted as saying "I remain unable to conclude that the State of South Carolina has carried its burden of showing that the submitted change in Section 5 of Act R54 neither has a discriminatory purpose nor will have a discriminatory effect.”
The law, which would require picture identification to be eligible to vote, has been blocked twice by Eric Holder's Justice Department. Ostensibly, this is because Voter ID is discriminatory. But I must ask, "How, exactly?" The law already provides that the State will inform anyone they can find without a state-issued ID of the law, and will provide free ID to those who "can't afford one."
So how is this discriminatory? Based on this logic, the following things are all discriminatory:
* Traveling outside the country
* Watching an 'R' Rated Film.
* Purchasing/Drinking Alcohol
* Purchasing/Using Tobacco Products
Yet no one claims these things are discriminatory. Last I checked, no one asked you if you had photo ID prior to you trying to buy paint, or going to the movie theater. If you show up, and you don't have ID, you're just out of luck. And if you "can't afford" an ID? Well, too bad, you're still out of luck. That seems much more restrictive than this Voter ID law.
The fact is that the only reason to oppose Voter ID is to make it more difficult to make sure only eligible voters are voting. Without Voter ID it is easier for people to vote using ballots that are not theirs. It is also easier for illegal aliens to vote.
This is not about racism or discrimination, it's about vote fraud and stopping the States from protecting the votes of legal citizens.