Voter ID Is Not Jim Crow

In a speech at the LBJ Library at the University of Texas–Austin, Attorney General Eric Holder attacked efforts by state legislators to ensure the integrity of the ballot box. In a setting obviously designed to evoke Lyndon Johnson’s historic signing of the Voting Rights Act in 1965, Holder railed against voter-ID laws and other election-reform measures. While minimizing the danger of fraud, Holder seemed oblivious to the irony of doing so at the LBJ Library: It was, after all, the infamous Ballot Box 13 and the stolen 1948 election that launched LBJ’s political career.

As the government’s chief lawyer, Holder is tasked with enforcing federal election laws in an objective, nonpartisan, race-neutral manner. Instead, Holder parroted the talking points of the Democratic National Committee and racial-grievance organizations, falsely comparing voter-ID requirements and other election reforms with the violent efforts of state officials to keep black citizens from the polls a half-century ago. Holder claimed that such practices “remain all too common.”

Keep reading this post . . .

  • Indeed it isn’t Jim Crow

    Voter ID is Jim Crow? To use that comparison would be comparing apples to oranges.

    If requiring having or providing ID to sign up for or receive social security benefits isn’t suppressing an elderly persons (be they white or black) right to receive the aforementioned benefit, then requiring an elderly person (be they white or black) to provide proper ID to vote isn’t suppressing their right to vote.

    The boilerplate charge is that requiring proper ID to vote suppresses the elderly or minority vote, but as can be seen, that charge is bunk.