by Dave Jolly
Last month, the US Supreme Court struck down Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. That section was a special provision that allowed the federal government to have a discretionary control of state voting laws in areas where there was historically voter discrimination against minorities. This provision was aimed mostly at southern states and certain counties in other states. The Act spells out certain criteria to define which states or counties would come under the special provision of Section 5.
The Obama administration has used Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act to stop states from passing election laws that required photo IDs or that regulated or restricted the time and dates of early voting. Attorney General Eric Holder used it nullify voter ID laws passed in Texas and South Carolina prior to the 2012 elections. Since Obama took office, at least 30 states have tried to pass some kind of voting law to require a valid photo ID or to restrict the number of days available to early voting. Obama and his henchmen have used Section 5 to attack every one of those laws and squash the states’ rights to enact them.
Losing this legal tool, even though it was used wrongly in many cases, has not set well with Obama or Holder. On Monday, they held a meeting with civil rights leaders at the White House to discuss plans to fight to restore the provisions of Section 5.
Of course you wouldn’t expect the Democrats to have any kind of civil rights meeting without inviting one of the most racist people in the country, Al Sharpton. Emerging from the meeting, which was closed to the media even though Sharpton is a commentator for MSNBC, he stated:
“There is a wound in the Voting Rights Act, but it is far from dead.”
Also in attendance was Rep. Alan B. Williams a Florida Democrat. In what I deem as an act of tasteless desperation, Williams tried to push the issue of voting rights using Trayvon Martin as a poster child, because Martin would have turned 18 next year and would have been eligible to vote. Williams stated:
“One thing that’s not lost upon many of us down there, post the Shelby decision but also post the Zimmerman verdict, we know that next year would have been the first year that Trayvon Martin would have had an opportunity to vote, and we know that it’s very sacred, and it’s not lost on us. We want to make sure that everyone has that opportunity.”
Williams use of Martin with the voting rights issue is callous, incentive and offensive. First of all, the voting rights issue of Section 5 is supposed to be about whether poor people can obtain a voter ID card or not. From everything I read on Trayvon Martin, he was certainly mobile enough to go and register to vote, so he is a non-issue in this case.
Secondly, what about all of the white, Hispanic, Asian or American Indian teens that have tragically died at the hands of someone else who would also be eligible to vote? Singling out Martin should be an offense to the families of all of these other kids whose lives were cut short. My three best friends growing up were killed by a drunk driver when they were 19. The voting age at the time was still 21. A year later, the voting age was dropped to 19 and they would have been able to vote.
Thirdly, what happened to Trayvon Martin is tragic, but let’s face it, he wasn’t the little angel that everyone made him out to be. He was a pot smoking, angry teen who owned a set of burglary tools. He even stated on his social media sites that he wanted to start a fight with someone. Obviously, the kid had an attitude problem and apparently took it out on George Zimmerman.
As for Obama, Holder and company fighting for the voting rights of poor minorities, it’s very hypocritical of them to make such an argument. I’ve yet to have any of them explain to me why these same poor minority people are required to have an ID in order to receive the government assistance (welfare, food stamps, etc.) but it’s unconstitutional to require them to have a voter ID. If they have a car, they have to have driver’s license and proof of insurance, but it’s unconstitutional to require them to have a voter ID. Obamacare will require them to have health insurance which will require some form of ID, but it’s unconstitutional to require them to have a voter ID.
It’s not about the rights of poor minorities; it’s about allowing avenues for voter fraud. The truth is that Obama, Holder and company need to fight voter ID laws so they can continue to win elections via voter fraud. Without voter IDs, they can repeat what happened in a number of precincts in the country who saw 100% of the vote going to Obama. No voter ID allows dead people, pets, non-citizens and illegals to be able to cast their votes for Democrats.
I honestly believe that if every state required a photo voter ID for last November’s election that there would be some Democrats still looking for a job, as many should be.