Now that Eric Holder has objected to South Carolina voter ID, and blocked it from taking effect, the damage goes well beyond South Carolina. Right now Arizona is challenging the constitutionality of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. So are two other plaintiffs in two other cases. Readers at PJ Media often wonder how Eric Holder has the power to block election laws in 16 states. Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act gives him that power.
The objection to South Carolina Voter ID gives DOJ more evidence that Section 5 should be held to be constitutional. How does that work? Because DOJ will introduce the objection as evidence that Section 5 is still needed to stop discrimination in 2011. DOJ has introduced as evidence in court cases all the objections that DOJ has interposed as evidence that the law is still needed. This evidence will be used against Arizona, and now, with the South Carolina objection, they get one more piece of evidence to support the continued life of Section 5. So Texas, the ball is in your court. If Texas allows the Texas Voter ID submission to stay at DOJ, and then be objected to, Arizona will also endure that objection being used against them.
Add to the price of keeping a doomed Voter ID submission before the corrupt partisan bureaucrats at the DOJ. Arizona, surely, would prefer that Texas withdraw the submission and go to court for approval before one more piece of evidence will be available to support the continued life of Section 5 against Arizona.
And for the lawyers in the room – yes, it is a bootstrap argument. DOJ interposes and objection, then uses their own objection as evidence in court to say the law is still necessary, because they determined that it is, today, in South Carolina.
Add this twist – many many jobs are on the line at DOJ if Section 5 is struck down. So the objection in South Carolina, recommended by DOJ employees, helps keep those same employees, employed.