On Monday, South Carolina State Sen. Gerald Malloy and Judith Browne-Dianis, co-director of the Advancement Project, talked with Rev. Al Sharpton about Republican attempts to suppress elderly, minority, poor and young voters.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
As a result of South Carolina Democrats’ efforts to fight the new S.C. voter ID laws, the DOJ tells the S.C. Republicans to “Show me the receipts!”:
South Carolina’s new voter ID law put on hold
Justice Department says state needs to show new rules won’t hurt voters
11:25 PM, Aug. 30, 2011
By Eric Connor | Staff writer
South Carolina’s new voter ID law will be on hold until the state can provide more information to the federal Department of Justice, which says it needs more specifics to ensure that the new law doesn’t disenfranchise voters.
The state Attorney General’s Office said in a letter to the Justice Department on Tuesday that it had hired a former U.S. solicitor general to assist in answering questions about how the state would implement the law passed by the Legislature and signed by Gov. Nikki Haley in May.
“The state seeks to have this legislation become operable in the near future so that elections are held with the act fully in effect,” Assistant Deputy Attorney General Havird Jones wrote.
The window of opportunity to have the new law in effect for November elections is still open, said Chris Whitmire, a spokesman for the Election Commission.
The Attorney General’s Office notified the state Election Commission on Tuesday morning that it wanted questions asked by the Justice Department’s voting rights division answered by Sept. 12.
“We have answers to all the questions the DOJ is asking,” Whitmire said.
On Monday, the Justice Department declined to “pre-clear” the state’s new law on the grounds that it didn’t have enough information.
In a letter to the attorney general, the voting rights chief asked questions including how many registered voters don’t have a state driver’s license or ID and how they will be notified of the new law’s requirements, what types of evidence will be accepted to prove a voter’s identity and how those who can’t reasonably secure an ID will still be allowed to vote.
Supporters say the controversial new law will help prevent voter fraud by requiring voters to produce a valid photo ID when voting, such as a driver’s license, a state ID or a military ID.
However, 178,000 voters in the state have no such ID. Opponents have argued that this could discourage some voters — particularly the elderly, the poor and minorities — from showing up at the polls.
State Democrats, who on Tuesday said the state had failed to prove the law wouldn’t disenfranchise voters, said the law seeks to provide a solution to a non-problem and that they provided volumes of information proving the law is discriminatory.
In its letter to the DOJ, the Attorney General’s Office said that voters without ID would be allowed to sign an affidavit at the polls that they suffer a “reasonable impediment” to getting a photo ID, and the affidavit can’t be challenged unless there is reason to believe it is false.
The state has hired former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement to help answer the DOJ’s questions, according to the letter. Clement held the DOJ’s fourth-ranking position from 2005 to 2008.
The DOJ — which took the full 60 days allotted to respond to the state’s request for clearance of the law — will now have another 60 days to make a ruling based on the clarifications by the state.
Whitmire said the Election Commission already has web pages designed and educational materials prepared for if the law is cleared.
“We are certainly ready,” he said.
