by Chris Haire
As I mentioned on the previous post, South Carolina's Voter ID law isn't so much a targeted effort to remove blacks from the voter rolls, but a misguided effort on the part of the SCGOP to turn its back on the rural senior population.
After all, prior to 1970, many South Carolinians in rural areas were still born in the home with the assistance of a midwife or the like and in many occasions a birth certificate was never sought. And since many of them do not have birth certificates, they don't have driver's licenses.
Now, one possible solution to this would have been to apply the Voter ID law to only the current crop of new voters. This would have surely prevented the removal of many of these older South Carolinians from the voter rolls. That's what I would have done.
And wouldn't you know it, the state Senate thought they had a solution that would keep these rural seniors and others on the rolls, but the state House squashed it. (At this time, I don't know exactly what the Senate's solution was. I will try to find that information today, that is if the bottle of bourbon in my desk will let me.)
According to Wesley Donehue, political consultant, communications director for the state Senate, and the guy who let me know that the Senate had attempted to keep seniors on the rolls, in his opinion such a provision would have given a Voter ID law a "better chance at passing judicial scrutiny."
Keep that in mind when the Department of Justice gives it's final verdict on South Carolina's Voter ID law — it won't be favorable — and know that once again the SCGOP has riled up their redmeat Republican base for yet another futile law and a non-issue. (See the "I Believe" license plates.)