[VIDEO] Obama: Voter ID Laws Are Racist, Intended To Keep Blacks From Voting…

“It’s just not a common crime.”

Via: Weasel Zippers

Clinton Lawyer, Soros Back Anti-Voter ID Lawsuits

George Soros and Clinton lawyer Marc Elias engaging in multi-state effort to overturn ID laws

Hillary Clinton’s top campaign lawyer is behind a multi-state push challenging voter identification laws implemented in recent years, efforts that are expected to reach numerous other states ahead of the 2016 elections.

Marc Elias, a top campaign lawyer for Hillary Clinton and a partner at the Washington, D.C., law firm Perkins Coie, has filed lawsuits in three states thus far. The nationwide campaign is being fueled with money from the liberal billionaire George Soros.

Elias first began exploring the possible challenges back in January 2014. Soros then became involved, vowing to throw his weight behind the effort in collaboration with Elias.

“We hope to see these unfair laws, which often disproportionately affect the most vulnerable in our society, repealed,” Soros told the New York Times.

“It is disingenuous to suggest that these laws are meant to protect against voter fraud, which is nearly nonexistent,” Soros political adviser Michael Vachon added. “Clearly they are meant to give Republicans a political advantage on Election Day.”

Soros has pledged $5 million to propel the campaign. Elias did not return a request for comment concerning his dealings with Soros or the total number of lawsuits they plan on bringing forward. A request for comment from George Soros’s press office was also not returned by press time.

Democrats ramped up their efforts last month to challenge voter ID laws implemented by Republican legislatures and governors, claiming that the laws disenfranchise minority voters.

The first in the series of lawsuits was filed in Ohio on May 8. Three weeks later, on June 1, a second suit was filed in Wisconsin. On June 11, a third lawsuit was filed in Virginia. Further suits are expected to follow in other states.

Elias is working independently on behalf of his firm, Perkins Coie, though the Clinton camp supportsthe effort. Perkins Coie has pulled in more than $40 million from Democratic clients since 2000.

The suits came as Hillary Clinton made comments about voting in a number of public speeches.

During a speech in Houston on June 4 at historically black Texas Southern University, Hillary Clintoncalled for a universal, automatic voter registration for 18-year-olds along with early voting up to 20 days before an election.

Via: WFB

Continue Reading.....

Why the Left Really is against Voter ID Laws

The crusade against voter ID laws is the new front in the Left's perennial campaign to convince Americans that Jim Crow is lurking just around the corner.

Left-wing activists and Democrat politicians argue that these laws disproportionately disqualify minorities. They further contend that voter ID laws are pushed by Republicans for the explicit purpose of suppressing the minority vote. Ergo, they insist, the intent of voter ID laws is racist.

It is of little concern to the Left and their allies in the "news" media that a supermajority of white and non-white Americans supports these laws, that jurisdictions with these laws in place saw an increase in black and Hispanic voter turnout in 2012, or that the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that voter ID laws are constitutional.

The Left is just as unmoved by the argument that there are virtually no barriers to acquiring a state issued ID, that an ID is required to drive a car, get a job, and rent an apartment, or that the assumption that black people are not as capable of getting an ID as white people is itself inherently racist.

No. When it comes to the issue of voter IDs, facts, logic, empirical evidence, and common sense cannot get in the way of leveling the libelous charge that racist Republicans are committed to stopping minorities from voting.

We can chalk the Left's position on voter IDs to opportunism: they know that voter IDs can, at least in theory, mitigate election fraud and potentially lower Democrat turnout. But this explanation overlooks the larger point: the Left's opposition to voter IDs is rooted in its ambivalence to representative democracy.

Via: American Thinker

Continue Reading....

Federal government plans to sue Texas over voter ID law, intervene in redistricting case

The Department of Justice announced today that it plans to sue Texas over its voter ID law and will intervene in the ongoing case over the state’s redistricting laws.

“Today’s action marks another step forward in the Justice Department’s continuing effort to protect the voting rights of all eligible Americans,” Attorney General Eric Holder said in a written release. “The Department will take action against jurisdictions that attempt to hinder access to the ballot box, no matter where it occurs.”

It’s the second time this summer that the federal government has singled out Texas in a lawsuit seeking to protect voter rights.

The suits follow a June ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court that found that requiring some states, including Texas, to get federal clearance before making changes to existing voting rules was unconstitutional because it relies on outdated data.

The court left it up to Congress to decide which states should be subject to pre-emptive scrutiny.

After that ruling, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott said the voter ID law would immediately go into effect. The feds countered the following month with a suit that sought to force the state to continue clearing any changes to voting laws (on the grounds that Texas continues to discriminate against voters).

This month, Dallas County commissioners narrowly agreed to join a lawsuit against Gov. Rick Perry over his intentions to implement the law requiring voters to show ID at the polls.

Via: Dallas Morning News

Continue Reading....

Krauthammer’s Take: Voter-ID Laws ‘Utterly Logical’

Charles Krauthammer defended the constitutionality of voter-ID laws and criticized Attorney General Eric Holder for seeking to re-establish Justice Department review of Texas election law under the Voting Rights Act. “It seems utterly logical that you would have to ask for a simple demonstration that you are of age, that you live where you live, you aren’t a felon, and in fact that you haven’t voted an hour and a half before,” Krauthammer said.

The syndicated columnist also argued that case law is on the side of the states; he referred specifically to the 2008 Supreme Court case Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, in which a six-justice majority led by John Paul Stevens found that an Indiana law requiring voters to show an official photo ID was not unconstitutional. “What Holder is doing is, he wants to stigmatize [mandatory voter ID] and to go after any state that actually institutes it,” Krauthammer said, adding, “I think he’s got a very weak case.”

Via: National Review Online

Continue Reading.....