Of course. What kind of land doesn’t allow folks like O.J. Simpson or Brett Kimberlin to vote? Note the way Holder phrases his objection:
Disenfranchisement of the formerly incarcerated is unnecessary, unjust and counterproductive, Attorney General Eric Holder told an audience at the Georgetown University Law Center on Tuesday.
“At worst, these laws, with their disparate impact on minority communities, echo policies enacted during a deeply troubled period in America’s past – a time of post-Civil War discrimination,” Holder said. “And they have their roots in centuries-old conceptions of justice that were too often based on exclusion, animus and fear.”
In case you missed the significance of the “disparate impact” language, let me explain: Holder is implying that he may not just be talking about this. He may mandate it, under the Voting Rights Act.
It would be a new bloc of Democrat voters, of course, but that’s not the reason he would do it. Oh my no! It’s about fairness.
But why wait for that? Why doesn’t Holder simply declare that he will not prosecute any election official who allows a felon to vote even though they are not on the voter rolls? Obama’s rewriting all the laws anyway.
No, that sounds too voluntary. I have a better idea. Let’s have all state governors, legislators, and elections officials certify, through a self-attestation on their tax forms, that they are not discriminating against felons by preventing them from voting.
Thanks to Dana.