In February of 2009, Eric Holder used the occasion of his confirmation as U.S. attorney general to berate the American people for their reticence on matters of race and equality. “Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial we have always been and continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards,” he famously lectured.
In the years since, he has emerged as the living embodiment of his words. I don’t mean by this that he has initiated a dialog on race. Rather, he has demonstrated the most abject form of cowardice, hiding behind and exploiting his position as the nation’s chief law enforcement officer to pervert the rule of law to benefit “his people.”
Nowhere have Holder’s shenanigans been more transparently on display than in his manipulation of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which was designed to put an end to the systematic disenfranchisement of minorities, predominantly in Southern states with a history of discrimination.
On December 13, in a speech at the LBJ Presidential Library in Austin, Texas, Holder renewed his declaration of war on states that require stricter voter identification at the polls. One might assume that a man in his position would be eager to combat voter fraud—which the ID requirement would help ensure—but the attorney general has a different agendum. And a rationale to back it up.
As the Wall Street Journal points out in an editorial on Friday:
In a letter to South Carolina’s government, Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Thomas Perez called the state law—which would require voters to present one of five forms of photo ID at the polls—a violation of Section 5 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Overall, he noted, 8.4% of the state’s registered white voters lack photo ID, compared to 10% of nonwhite voters.
This is the yawning chasm the Justice Department is now using to justify the unprecedented federal intrusion into state election law, and the first denial of a ‘pre-clearance’ Voting Rights request since 1994.
The article goes on to chronicle interpretation of the Voting Rights Act B.H. and S.H., “before Holder” and “since Holder”:
In 2005, Justice approved a Georgia law with the same provisions and protections of the one Mr. Holder nixed for South Carolina. In 2008, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board that an Indiana law requiring photo ID did not present an undue burden on voters.
South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley has announced her intention to sue Justice over its denial of her state’s law. The case will almost certainly be decided by the Supreme Court, which already has a legal precedent to follow in the Indiana law.
- Federal judge: Nonpartisan elections are unfair to minorities
- CT mayor seeks to extend voting rights to illegal immigrants
- Left: Blacks are not brainwashed—except for Herman Cain
- That conversation on race is now needed more desperately than ever
- Will “Fast and Furious” be Eric Holder’s Waterloo?
- Explosive hate-filled video suggests Justice Department bias in voter intimidation case
- Obama again urges voters to “call your congressperson” (except in NY-9)
- AG Holder, brother ‘weren’t aware’ of taxes owed on family home in Queens
- Bombshell: Justice Department accused of encouraging voter fraud
- New documentary alleges voter fraud by Obama campaign in 2008 primaries
Subscribe at the top of the page to have my articles sent directly to your e-mail inbox. Follow me on Twitter or join me at Facebook. You can reach me at email@example.com or by posting a comment below.