I have NOT studied each and every law (or potential law) mentioned in the linked article, but it doesn’t to take a political science expert to question the general tone.
These statutes are not neutral. Their greatest impact will be to reduce turnout among African-Americans, Latinos and the young. It is no accident that these groups were key to Barack Obama’s victory in 2008 — or that the laws in question are being enacted in states where Republicans control state governments.
Republicans are RACISTS! But it’s clearly not racist to suggest that certain minorities need extra consideration?
In Texas, for example, the law allows concealed handgun licenses to work as identification, but not student IDs. And guess what? Nationwide exit polls show that John McCain carried households in which someone owned a gun by 25 percentage points but lost voters in households without a gun by 32 points.
A CCW license is a easy to get as a student ID? Damn them gun owners for voting Republican anyway!
In 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court, by 6-3, upheld Indiana’s voter ID statute. So seeking judicial relief may be difficult. Nonetheless, the Justice Department should vigorously challenge these laws, particularly in states covered by the Voting Rights Act. And the court should be asked to review the issue again in light of new evidence that these laws have a real impact in restricting the rights of particular voter groups.
Damn SCOTUS anyway. It seems “particular voter groups” can’t manage to deal with laws that others can handle?
In part because of a surge of voters who had not cast ballots before, the United States elected its first African-American president in 2008. Are we now going to witness a subtle return of Jim Crow voting laws?
The author uses the word ‘subtle’ to mean sneaky, of course.
No mention of military voters disenfranchised – no mention of ACORN – no mention of The New Black Panthers, just a paternalistic (not-racist!) concern for those downtrodden few who need some sort of extra help to figure out how to vote.