So long as the feds are into deficit spending, a few more dollars tossed South Carolina’s way ought not make a big difference.
The Palmetto State thinks its residents’ right to vote should be protected, perhaps more so than their Social Security numbers and other personal information, but that’s another matter.
To help guard against potential voter fraud and ensure a person who casts a ballot at the polls is, in fact, the person he claims to be, South Carolina enacted a voter ID law.
People can – and certainly have – go back and forth about the intent of the law.
South Carolina certainly has a tainted history when it comes to voting rights, but every effort was taken to ensure this new law does not disenfranchise the poor, the elderly or minorities.
The law was rejected by the U.S. Department of Justice under the premise it violated a portion of the federal Voting Rights Act. DOJ apparently is unaware the Palmetto State has progressed fairly well beyond the Jim Crow days.
We’re not perfect, mind you, but the majority of the residents and those in power really don’t have a problem with letting every properly registered voter fulfill his duty, right and obligation to cast a ballot.
Simply, the new law provides proof a voter is who he claims to be, just as a photo ID is used to establish proper identification in financial transactions, such as check cashing.
Anyway, the state sued the federal government because of the DOJ’s rejection of the law.
Now, $3.5 million later, the state hopes to recoup some of its financial burden brought on by the suit.
Three judges who presided over the state’s suit said the feds are obligated to pony up.
As much as we hate to see that national deficit spending number keep soaring, we agree and think the feds should come off the money soon, and for more than the $90,000 Attorney General Alan Wilson was seeking; after all, if the Justice Department had not treated the state as though it was stuck in 1965, the lawsuit would not have been necessary.
Notice about comments:
Aiken Standard is pleased to offer readers the enhanced ability to comment on stories. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere in the site or in the newspaper. We ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point.