DoJ Vote Chief Argues Voter ID Laws Discriminate against Whites

[babylonsister]

DoJ Vote Chief Argues Voter ID Laws Discriminate against Whites
By Paul Kiel - October 9, 2007, 12:48PM

When Justice Department lawyers and analysts found in 2005 that a Georgia law requiring voters to have photo ID would disproportionately discriminate against African-Americans, they were overruled by John Tanner, the chief of the Civil Rights Divisions' voting rights section. The law was subsequently halted by a federal appeals judge, who compared it to a Jim Crow-era poll tax.

This past weekend, Tanner showcased his own analytical skills, telling an audience that voter ID requirements actually disproportionately affect whites.

Tanner explained that "primarily elderly persons" are the ones affected by such laws, but "minorities don't become elderly the way white people do: They die first." So anything that "disproportionately impacts the elderly, has the opposite impact on minorities," he added. "Just the math is such as that." Video of Tanner's remarks were posted yesterday by The Brad Blog. We've supplied a transcript below.

According to former Department employees, Tanner's comments were not only wrong, but way off, and typical of the type of decision making in the section. “In trying to defend his decision in the Georgia case, he’s saying things that are frankly ludicrous,” Joe Rich, a forty-year veteran of the Department and Tanner's predecessor in the voting rights section, told me.

"This is the kind of analysis that the voting section has been doing: seat of the pants generalizations and suppositions instead of hard numbers and analysis," said Toby Moore, a redistricting expert who worked as an analyst for the section until the spring of 2006. "It's false." Tanner's conclusions, he added, were "always in support of what his Republican appointee bosses wanted him to say, which is why he got to where he is."

Tanner made the remarks this past Friday during a panel on voter disenfranchisement held by the National Latino Congreso in Los Angeles.

more...

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004414.php

[AspenRose]

1. Ah, more Orwellian speak from the administration

"Civil Rights" = Protect white privilege (and screw everyone else)

[KamaAina]

2. As I pointed out yesterday, Asian Americans live longer than whites

i.e. they do "become elderly the way white people do" -- and then some.

What an ass. :dunce:

[mod mom]

3. EVERYONE MUST WATCH THE VIDEO-you won't believe it! I hope KO picks it up!

[SoCalDem]

4. It's to the advantage of the right wingers to get people to object to ID laws.

Think about it..

IF we all had great IDs..biometric tamper-proof IDs, there would be a system already in place that would make a national health care system possible. It would also make voting registration easier too, since we would HAVE proof positive that we ARE citizens of this country.

So of course it's necessary to make a sizable number of people harken back to the old movies..the ones where the sinister Gestapo guy asks" Peppppers, pleazzzze..may I zeeee your pepppppers pleazzzze"..

It's all so "scary"...yet in EVERY other part of our life, we are required to have IDs, and people don't even mind, since it's OK to show ID to get into your gym, your bank account, your parking garage..you name it.. but when it comes to the PRIME facets of your citizenship, and the rights & privileges of that citizenship, there's supposed to be complete secrecy....anonymity..

There ARE actually people who think they are under the radar, yet if they have ever gone to school or seen a doctor or rented a video or gotten a prescription, they are NOT.. The sense of paranoia is crucial to keeping the right wing machine well-oiled..

If it weren't so sad, it would be funny :(

[cali]

5. Truly revolting.

Someone get him the fuck out of Justice. This should be an issue in Mukasey's confirmation.

[Igel]

6. At least somebody's gotten around to the actual point.

But the transcript suggests that he has numbers, not just seat-of-the-pants generalizations: "... ultimately you come up against a hard fact, the minorities in Georgia statistically, slightly, were more likely to have ID...".

It may not be a hard fact: It may be a seat-of-the-pants generalization misrepresented. It would be nice to know, either way. (And, yes, there are those claiming it isn't a hard fact, but claims are cheap and merely give the guy a chance to come back with actual numbers. I'm not holding my breath.)