Obama Promises Action on Discriminatory Voter ID Laws in Hardball Interview

President Obama is interviewed by Chris Matthews for his show
Hardball on MSNBC at American University in Washington DC.,
Dec. 5, 2013.- Photo by Charles Ommanney for MSNBC

President Obama did an one-on-one interview with Chris Matthews on MSNBC's Hardball before news broke that the world lost a human rights icon in Nelson Mandela's passing.

Lost in the news is Obama's response to a question on Voter ID and GOP voter suppression during the interview.

Obama offered a response that appears to offer assurance that the administration is going to pursue a strong political and legal attack against illegal GOP voter obstruction.

Said Obama, "Keep in mind though, for all the efforts that have been made, and some of them by the way may be illegal, may violate the Voting Rights Act even after the Supreme Court's recent ruling, and our Justice Department is going to be staying on them if we have evidence that you have mechanisms that are specifically designed to discriminate against certain groups of voters. Then, the Justice Department will come down on them and file suit."

A Twitter question appeared on screen and was read aloud by Matthews:

C.Wilhams@Persistentvoice

What can we do to stop the #GOP from rigging the vote state by state to disenfranchise voters (and) destroy our democracy?

Chris Matthews

Thirty-six states right now, led by Republican legislatures, have been trying to make it difficult for minority people to vote especially in big cities, and (with) older people. Everybody knows the game; Republicans often admit the game—to deny people the vote. Well, what's your reaction?

Barack Obama

A couple of things. You saw the lines that we had, not only in 08 but then in 12, some of these folks might have stood in line. And, I said on election night, that's unacceptable in a democracy that has been around as long as ours' and that the world looks to.

So, we actually immediately assigned my chief election lawyer and Mitt Romney's chief election lawyer to sit down with a group of experts and come up with a whole series of voter reforms. They're supposed to report back to me by the end of this year, so that early next year we're going to put forward what we know will be a bipartisan effort, or a bipartisan proposal, to encourage people to vote.

You can't say you take pride in American democracy, American Constitutionalism, American exceptionalism, and then you're doing everything you can to make harder for people to vote as opposed to easier for people to vote.

So, I think there are some common sense things that we can do, and I won't preview the proposals because I haven't gotten them yet.

Keep in mind though, for all the efforts that have been made, and some of them by the way may be illegal, may violate the Voting Rights Act even after the Supreme Court's recent ruling, and our Justice Department is going to be staying on them if we have evidence that you have mechanisms that are specifically designed to discriminate against certain groups of voters. Then, the Justice Department will come down on them and file suit.

The one point I want to make though is that even with all the efforts that were made, let's say in the last election, folks still voted.

And, if people feel engaged enough and have a sense of a stake in our democracy, you'll be able to vote. Our biggest problem right now is not the misguided efforts of some of these state legislators. Our bigger problem is the one you alluded to earlier, which is people's skepticism that government in fact can make a difference.

Even in the best of years these days we still have about 40 percent of the population who is eligible to vote that chooses to opt out. And they're not being turned away at the polls, they're turning themselves away from the polls. That's something we've got to get at, and young people in particular have a tendency to vote during presidential years and then just are not excited at all during mid-terms. These mid-term elections in many ways are even more important because that is what is going to determine who's in charge of Congress, and you may agree with me or disagree with me but don't think that it all ends with me.

It's also important who's the Speaker of the House and who's in charge of the Senate. And I hope young people increasingly understand that.

Texas Obstucts Women from Voting; Effort Similar to Wisc AG's Failed Suit

Civil rights violations are our business: GOP

Update: Barbara Arnwine and Eleanor Smeal explain the GOP's war on women voting: "The assault on voting rights is a naked attempt to suppress the votes of minorities, students, the elderly, and the poor. But don’t be fooled. This War on Voting is an essential part of the War on Women."

In 2008 Wisconsin's Republican Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen tried to push through the courts a new constitutional requirement to vote: An exact match of a voter's name on the databases of various government bureaucracies.

Ridiculous.

The GOP voter obstruction effort failed miserably, though Van Hollen later showed no shame in trying to stop our sacred right to vote, efforts for which Van Hollen will be well-compensated in the private sector at a cushy GOP firm, (Van Hollen is not seeking reelection in 2014.)

"Nothing in state or federal law requires that there be a data match as a prerequisite for a citizen's right to vote," Judge Maryann Sumi said in dismissing Van Hollen's lawsuit (J.B. Van Hollen v. Government Accountability Board (GAB) et al (2008)) that tried to use the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) as a voter suppression tool.

In October 2008, it was reported by WisPolitics that Reince Priebus (then Wisconsin and now national GOP Chair) and Wisconsin McCain-Palin co-chair Van Hollen met before and at the 2008 National Republican Convention in St. Paul to discuss this new voter obstruction effort which would was employed by the Van Hollen-headed Wisconsin Department of Justice during the 2008 presidential campaign.

Now, Texas is employing the Priebus-Van Hollen strategy to obstruct voting, requiring an exact and up-to-date name match on Photo Voter ID, per newly enacted Texas GOP law.

The New Civil Rights Movements notes: "Think Progress reports that as of November 5, Texans must show a photo ID with their up-to-date legal name. It sounds like such a small thing, but according to the Brennan Center for Justice, only 66% of voting age women have ready access to a photo document that will attest to proof of citizenship. This is largely because young women have not updated their documents with their married names, a circumstance that doesn’t affect male voters in any significant way. Suddenly 34% of women voters are scrambling for an acceptable ID, while 99% of men are home free."

Van Hollen had denied any contacts with the Republican Party and the McCain campaign about Wisconsin's invented 2008 voting rule in the GOP's failed lawsuit, a denial that was contradicted by WisPolitics‘ audio recording revealing Van Hollen promising this 2008 legal action to Priebus on alleged "voter fraud" during an address at the 2008 Republican National Convention held in St. Paul.

Texas GOP Attorney General Greg Abbott, Wendy Davis' likely opponent for governor in 2014, has had much to say about new voting requirements and other GOP obstruction schemes, now under challenge by the U.S. DoJ under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, to the chagrin of voting rights poseur and lede Republican bullshitter, James Sensenbrenner. Abbott is running the Reince Priebus playbook.

Writes Dave McNeely:

"In 2011, both houses of the Texas Legislature were controlled by large Republican majorities, and their redistricting decisions were designed to increase the Republican Party's electoral prospects at the expense of the Democrats," says the (legal) brief filed by Abbott's office, (defending Texas gerrymandering). "It is perfectly constitutional for a Republican-controlled legislature to make partisan redistricting decisions, even if there are incidental effects on minority voters who support Democratic candidates."

Abbott also accused Jose Garza, a lawyer for the Mexican American Legislative Caucus, of unethical behavior for telling Latino voters to go ahead to the polls even without the now-required photo ID in a Sept. 14 election in Edinburg to fill a city council vacancy.

It is "unethical for a lawyer to advise someone to violate Texas law," Abbott said. "Confusing and misleading Texans in order to create an unnecessary lawsuit is disgraceful."

Garza hotly shot back that he had never encouraged Texans to violate the law, but to cast provisional ballots if they can't get a photo ID. He said he thinks the law is unconstitutional, and if they are refused that would be grounds for a legal challenge.

"Do not stay home and allow a discriminatory law to suppress your vote and voice," Garza said. "That is my message to Edinburg's voters."

Abbott says he needs to stop voter fraud and ensure the integrity of Texas elections.

As the world looks at American politics, wondering vaguely if the US has lost its collective mind in allowing the Tea Party suicide caucus to threaten the world economy, it also cast dubious eyes on the American commitment to voting rights in a democracy, wondering in the words of Teresa Wiltz in The Guardian if this is "2013 or 1953?"

It's 1953, only worse.

In the words of Joel Bleifuss, editor of In These Times, enterprising and corrupt voter obstruction efforts by GOP operatives, including five sitting jurists on the U.S. Supreme Court judges, have in dismantling voter protections imposed on America a "gift to both the billionaire political hobbyists who gave us the Tea Party Congress and the noisy charlatans who push for cynical 'anti-voter-fraud' legislation that is crafted to suppress voter turnout."