(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(D) Julie Gonzales
(R) Janak Joshi
80%
40%
20%
(D) Jena Griswold
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Hetal Doshi
50%
40%↓
30%
(D) Jeff Bridges
(D) Brianna Titone
(R) Kevin Grantham
50%↑
40%↓
30%
(D) Diana DeGette*
(D) Wanda James
(D) Milat Kiros
80%
20%
10%↓
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Alex Kelloff
(R) H. Scheppelman
60%↓
40%↓
30%↑
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) E. Laubacher
(D) Trisha Calvarese
90%
30%↑
20%
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Jessica Killin
55%↓
45%↑
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Shannon Bird
(D) Manny Rutinel
45%↓
30%
30%
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
(Gessler, are you paying attention to what happens when you legislate against “fraud” that does not appear to exist? – promoted by ProgressiveCowgirl)
Last May, the Governor of South Carolina signed a bill that changed the voter identification requirements to include a photo id. As many of you are aware, minorities are much more likely to not have a photo id of any kind than the majority. Because the state failed to prove that voters would not be disenfranchised, or that current laws are allowing any kind of fraud, the Department of Justice has ruled that the law is in direct violation of the Voting Rights Act.
Assistant U.S. Attorney General Thomas Perez sums it up nicely in a letter to the SC AG:
“Although the state has a legitimate interest in preventing voter fraud and safeguarding voter confidence … the state’s submission did not include any evidence or instance of either in-person voter impersonation or any other type of fraud that is not already addressed by the state’s existing voter identification requirement.”
Yes, that quote did reiterate my point about lack of proof being a bummer for any over-reaching Secretary of States wandering about, withholding their super great, totally existent evidence of massive voter fraud, but I used it anyway.
Gov. Haley could push for an appeal (U.S. District Court), which is to be expected. She is, as you might imagine, calling the decision “outrageous” and a violation of the 10th Amendment.
Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!
Comments