Wednesday, December 14, 2011

Support Your Local Democrats - Vote Early, Vote Often

As our administration has concluded, the attack by various groups on neutral laws designed to prevent voter fraud are a deliberate and systemic attempt to open the door for millions of ineligible votes to be cast, all in an effort to circumvent the bedrock foundation of our nation, the democratic process, and to elect the Democrat of their choice.

Attorney General Eric Holder, Speech at the LBJ Library, 12 Dec. 2011

Just Joking . . .

As Congressman John Lewis described it, in a speech on the House floor this summer, the voting rights that he worked throughout his life – and nearly gave his life – to ensure are, “under attack… [by] a deliberate and systematic attempt to prevent millions of elderly voters, young voters, students, [and] minority and low-income voters from exercising their constitutional right to engage in the democratic process.

Attorney General Eric Holder, Speech at the LBJ Library, 12 Dec. 2011

Not Joking . . .

Unfortunately the second quote is real, coming from the national disgrace that is our nation's highest law enforcement official, Attorney Gen. Eric Holder. Or at least he represents a portion of our nation. If you are a Democrat or one of their core victim groups, Holder's your man. His speech, and his plan to attack election fraud laws as well as redistricting plans, was laid out in a NYT article here.

Just how radical was Holder's speech? How about this - Holder doesn't merely want to attack election laws generally, he wants, as John Hinderaker points out at Powerline, to do away entirely with having to register to vote in elections. Can you think of anything more amenable to fraud?

The only reason our government has the slightest legitimacy is because of the belief that each vote counts. That stops being true when there is electoral fraud, and legitimate votes are diluted by fraudulent ones. If and when it happens on a large enough scale, you will get blood in the street.

As it stands, the most onerous election laws of any state in the nation today would require showing a picture i.d. at the polls to vote. That's it. Indeed, in 2008, the Supreme Court voted 6 to 3 in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board to uphold such a picture i.d. requirement. As the Court reasoned:

. . . For most voters who need them, the inconvenience of making a trip to the BMV, gathering the required documents, and posing for a photograph surely does not qualify as a substantial burden on the right to vote, or even represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting.

So upon what possible legal basis is the Obama administration going to challenge the latest voter fraud prevention laws? And indeed, where is there the slightest bit of proof that such neutral laws operate to disenfranchise even a single person?

You will find more on the tenor of Holder's speech and the national ramifications of his plans from J. Christian Adams at PJM.

No comments: