• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Scribecast: Voter ID Proponents Launch Counteroffensive Against DOJ

    U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder is currently blocking implementation of voter ID laws in South Carolina and Texas. It’s the latest battle in the fight for voter integrity at the ballot box and the reason two supporters of voter ID are launching a robust defense the laws.

    “We believe this offensive by the Justice Department must be met with a counteroffensive,” said Ken Blackwell, Ohio’s former secretary of state. He is working on the project with Ken Klukowski, a fellow with the American Civil Rights Union and faculty member at Liberty University’s School of Law. The two will launch their project in the coming days.

    Blackwell and Klukowski warn that liberals will stop at nothing in their quest to topple voter ID laws. The NAACP has even brought the issue to the U.N. Human Rights Council, an organization whose members include China, Cuba and Russia. Blackwell previously served as U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Human Rights Commission, the organization’s predecessor.

    Listen to the interview with Blackwell and Klukowski on Scribecast

    Klukowski believes the Holder’s actions against South Carolina on Texas are driven purely by politics to “gin up an electoral base to drive turnout on Election Day.” He noted that Holder is only blocking laws in states subject to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, a civil rights-era law that gives the Department of Justice authority over voting changes.

    “The Obama-Holder Department of Justice has launched an all-out war on voter ID and other measures,” Blackwell said. “Although Holder’s actions are purported to prevent African-Americans from being disenfranchised, in reality they serve as a crass political attempt to ensure his boss gets re-elected this year.”

    The U.S. Supreme Court upheld Indiana’s voter ID law in 2008. Klukowski said that decision even had the backing of liberal Justice John Paul Stevens. The laws in South Carolina and Texas are similar to the one in Indiana.

    The podcast runs about 10 minutes. It was produced with the help of Hannah Sternberg. Listen to previous interviews on Scribecast or subscribe to future episodes.

    Posted in Featured, Scribe [slideshow_deploy]

    11 Responses to Scribecast: Voter ID Proponents Launch Counteroffensive Against DOJ

    1. Jesse Cox says:

      THANK YOU Mr. Blackwell and Mr. Klukowski.

    2. (I hope this isn't a duplicate…as I signed in, most of my post disappeared, so I'm trying again)
      I'm a FIRM proponent of Voter ID. Yet, even fledgling democracies like Iraq understand the importance of one man/one vote and thus use the purple ink on the voter's finger. For me, this seems a logical step for here. It will prevent multiple voting which is essential, and it won't cost the voter any money. However, it seems that Dems, and especially this group of Dems is highly against ANY type of ID of a voter to ensure one man/one vote. That leads me to ask WHY? The only answer I can come up with is that they WANT voter fraud. Now, admittedly, the ink won't prevent the illegal alien vote, but an ID can be easily obtained by the guy on the corner who makes the teenager's fake ID. Seems to me that a combination of purple ink and ID IN TANDEM would be the best bet…….

    3. allen says:

      This Field Hand Knows nothing about Fast and Furious? Can sit there and LIE, Goes to show you some people act like they are in TAMMANY HALL. Holder should be going to Jail for the Gun Running.

    4. Blair Franconia, NH says:

      The UN Human Rights Council? REALLY? More like the UN Human Wrongs Council. The UN Human Rights
      Council, formerly the UN Human Rights Commission, kicked us off just after the invasion of Iraq. Why? Because
      we stood up for human rights and countries like Khadaffy's Libya, China, North Korea, and Syria, treat human
      rights like a doormat. To dictators, there's no such thing as human rights, only human privileges. You have freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and freedom of expression, as long as you don't
      criticize the government. Then they can be taken away.

    5. Jeanne Stotler says:

      Holder is a disgrace, we need all ways to curb voter fraud as well as welfare, and medicaid fraud. I am sick of everyone saying how mean we are not to welcome the illegals, well they are not the Landscapers, housepainters ans small construction Co/ that see their livelyhood,evaporate as illegals tae these jobs. These out of work Americans do not count in the Pres. figures as tey are self employed and canot cllect unemployment, 2 of my sons are affected and living hand to mouth after no work for the last three years, they cannot bid low enough to compete. Close the borders, deport all caught, regardless, and for God sakes stop printing everything in Spanish/English, tee are a lot of us whose ancestors came from France, Denmark, Germany etc and they didn't get this service, they learned to speak English and became the citizens that help build this country.

    6. O2BMe says:

      Since the Supreme Court had already ruled in the Indiana challenge I can't see the problem if all the other states in the union want to do the same. It has to be politically motivated.

    7. Mutantone says:

      What we need to do is install field finger print scanners at all polling locations and match them to the finger prints taken when you register to vote and check off the name so they can not be bused around from poll to poll by ACORN this will also prevent the dead from rising just to vote as well as preventing Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck from voting (Mickey only has gloves for hands and Donald only has feathers)

      • Nick Meisher says:

        Substituting a finger or an eye scan for an ID is a bad move. I prefer to have my wallet stolen then have my finger chopped off or eye gauged out. It would be much simpler to match voting to social security number, since its a joke anyway that 'its not supposed to be used for identification.'

      • saveamerica says:

        germs, disease?

    8. Jinsky Jean-Pois says:

      The public policy concept of election law reform is intended for the legislatures of the several state governments to implement and to enforce minimum legal standards that regulate the electoral process and the electoral administration thereof with appropriate security elements. By 2013, at least four states may have their constitutions modified on the topic of election law reform: Arizona (2004), Minnesota (2012), Mississippi (2011), and Missouri (2012). A strict voter photographic identity requirement were adopted by nine states according to the National Counsel of State Legislatures: Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Wisconsin. Five Democratic state governors have vetoed legislation to impose a strict photographic voter-identity requirements approved by Republican legislatures: Minnesota (Mark Dayton), Missouri (Jay Nixon), Montana (Brian Schweitzer) North Carolina (Beverly Perdue), and New Hampshire (John Lynch). Election law reform should establish a process to verify the identity, eligibility, and residency of voter registrants.

      The legal doctrine of one vote per citizen is a sacred prinicple that defines and governs the representative republic in elections to reflect the consent of the governed. Voter fraud is an abhorrent criminal offense that devalues the integrity and veracity of the electoral process and should not be condoned criminal conduct that the public should tolerate. A biometric or photographic-identity verification system that conforms to the minimum authentication standard for identity, eligibility, and residency is merited for a uniform voter registration database administered by the state election bureau, which should be enforced and implemented by law. Third party organizations, such as ACORN, have assisted people cast fraudulent and illegitimate votes at polling precincts and with postal absentee ballots under fictitious voter registration submitted to election officials. Many ACORN officials have been charged, indicted, prosecuted, and convicted of criminal voter fraud offenses. In conclusion, this public policy initiative is appropriate and justifiable for security of the electoral process.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×