"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote in message
news:171120050748074301%dbarnes@aol.com...

A team of Justice Department lawyers and analysts who reviewed a
Georgia voter-identification law recommended rejecting it because it
was likely to discriminate against black voters, but they were
overruled the next day by higher-ranking officials at Justice,
according to department documents.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/16/AR200511
1602504.html

You're black, right? LOL! Why are you so racist?

"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote in message
news:171120050748074301%dbarnes@aol.com...

A team of Justice Department lawyers and analysts who reviewed a
Georgia voter-identification law recommended rejecting it because it
was likely to discriminate against black voters, but they were
overruled the next day by higher-ranking officials at Justice,
according to department documents.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/16/AR200511
1602504.html

You're black, right?
LOL!
Why are you so racist?

Bigotted Bastards of Georgia & bush's racist Justice Dept. won't stop
until the black vote is stiffled! As the population grows in that
state of hatred and intolerance, repuglicans fear a democratic takeover
- which to them is akin to losing the Civil War!

"Criticism of Voting Law Was Overruled"

"Justice Dept. Backed Georgia Measure Despite Fears of Discrimination"

By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, November 17, 2005; A01

A team of Justice Department lawyers and analysts who reviewed a
Georgia voter-identification law recommended rejecting it because it
was likely to discriminate against black voters, but they were
overruled the next day by higher-ranking officials at Justice,
according to department documents.

The Justice Department has characterized the "pre-clearance" of the
controversial Georgia voter-identification program as a joint decision
by career and political appointees in the Civil Rights Division.
Republican proponents in Georgia have cited federal approval of the
program as evidence that it would not discriminate against African
Americans and other minorities.
But an Aug. 25 staff memo obtained by The Washington Post recommended
blocking the program because Georgia failed to show that the measure
would not dilute the votes of minority residents, as required under the
Voting Rights Act.

The memo, endorsed by four of the team's five members, also said the
state had provided flawed and incomplete data. The team found
significant evidence that the plan would be "retrogressive," meaning
that it would reduce blacks' access to the polls.

A day later, on Aug. 26, the chief of the department's voting rights
section, John Tanner, told Georgia officials that the program could go
forward. "The Attorney General does not interpose any objection to the
specified changes," he said in a letter to them.
Eric Holland, a Justice Department spokesman, said in a statement this
week that "disagreements are healthy in a debate" and that voting
rights decisions are made "after reviewing both the pros and cons very
carefully."

"At the end of the day, the section chief is responsible for tendering
a recommendation" to the assistant attorney general for civil rights,
he said.

The Georgia voter ID program has been the subject of fierce partisan
debate since it was approved by the state's Republican-controlled
legislature in March. The plan was blocked on constitutional grounds in
October by a U.S. District Court judge, who compared the measure to a
Jim Crow-era poll tax. A three-judge appellate panel, made up of one
Democratic and two Republican appointees, upheld the lower court's
injunction.

The program requires voters to obtain one of six forms of photo
identification before going to the polls, as opposed to 17 types of
identification currently allowed. Those without a driver's license or
other photo identification are required to obtain a special digital
identification card, which would cost $20 for five years and could be
obtained from motor vehicle offices in only 59 of the state's 159
counties.

Proponents said the measure was needed to combat voter fraud, but
opponents charged that Republicans were trying to keep black voters,
who tend to vote Democratic, away from the polls.
Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 requires Georgia and eight
other states, mostly in the South, to submit any voting rule changes
that might affect minority groups to the Justice Department for review.
The department can either halt the proposed changes with an objection
or issue a "pre-clearance" letter allowing them to proceed. Portions of
the act, including Section 5, are up for renewal in Congress, and
Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales has said that he supports
reauthorizing the law.

The Justice Department's decision to approve the Georgia measure was
the latest in a series of disputes within the Civil Rights Division,
which lost nearly 20 percent of its lawyers in 2005 and has assigned
dozens of those who remain to handle immigration cases instead of civil
rights litigation. In the voting rights section, which handles
election-related issues such as the Georgia plan, political appointees
also overruled career lawyers in approving GOP-backed redistricting
maps in Mississippi and Texas in recent years, current and former
employees have said.
The Voting Rights Act puts the legal burden on Georgia to show that
proposed election-related changes would not be retrogressive. According
to the Aug. 25 memo from the Justice review team, Georgia lawmakers and
state officials made little effort to research the possible racial
impact of the proposed program.

The 51-page memo recommended several steps that Georgia could take to
make the ID program fairer to minority voters, such as continuing to
allow the use of non-photo identification, such as birth certificates
and Social Security cards, that have not been shown to pose security
problems.
Those in favor of issuing an objection were Robert Berman, deputy chief
of the voting rights section; Amy Zubrensky, a trial lawyer; Heather
Moss, a civil rights analyst; and Toby Moore, a geographer, according
to the memo. A fifth member of the team, trial lawyer Joshua Rogers,
recommended approval, but the memo does not include his reasoning.
Berman did not return a call made to his office.

A key area of disagreement between the staff and their supervisors
appears to be the reliability of data provided by the Georgia
Department of Driver Services and other state agencies.
The staff memo noted that the records were riddled with errors,
including the unexpired licenses of dead people, and were "of a quality
far below what we are accustomed to using in the Voting Section." And
other sources, including the U.S. Census Bureau, showed that Georgia
blacks were much less likely than whites to own vehicles and also less
likely to have photo IDs, the memo said.

"While no single piece of data confirms that blacks will [be]
disparately impacted compared to whites, the totality of the evidence
points to that conclusion," the memo said. It added later: "The state
has failed to meet its burden of demonstrating that the change is not
retrogressive."
But Assistant Attorney General William E. Moschella cited the state's
data in an Oct. 7 letter to a senator that argues the number of
eligible voters without a photo ID is "extremely small."

"All individual data indicates that the state's African-American
citizens are, if anything, slightly more likely than white citizens to
possess one of the necessary forms of identification," Moschella wrote
to Sen. Christopher S. Bond (R-Mo.) in defense of the department's
decision.
State Sen. Bill Stephens, a Republican who helped win passage of the
legislation, said the Justice Department's approval was vital because
of the restrictions faced by Georgia under the Voting Rights Act.

"That is the most crucial part of any elections legislation we pass,"
said Stephens, who is a candidate for secretary of state. "We know we
have to await the Justice Department's pre-clearance of virtually
anything we do."

State Rep. Tyrone L. Brooks Sr., a Democrat and president of the
Georgia Association of Black Elected Officials, said he was not
surprised by the Justice Department's position in the case.
"Some of my colleagues told me early on that, because of politics in
the Bush administration, no matter what the staff recommendation was,
this would be approved by the attorney general," Brooks said. "It's
disappointing that the staff recommendation was not accepted, because
that has been the norm since 1965."

? 2005 The Washington Post Company

What's wrong, in total panic mode over this law destroying rampant
voter fraud?