Taegan Goddard brings our attention to the following:
Author of Voter ID Law Admits to Racist Email
South Carolina state Rep. Alan Clemmons (R), the author of a voter ID law considered discriminatory by the Justice Department, testified in federal court that, “while crafting the bill, he had responded favorably to a friend’s racist email in support of the measure,” McClatchy reports.
Clemmons
An email from Ed Koziol said that if the legislature offered a reward for voter identification cards, “it would be like a swarm of bees going after a watermelon.”
Clemmons responded: “Amen, Ed, thank you for your support.”
However, Clemmons testified that he did not remember giving out packets of peanuts with cards that said “Stop Obama’s nutty agenda and support voter ID.”
The original story he’s referring to was a bit more circumspect in its headline: “S.C. lawmaker admits positive response to racist email on voter ID bill.” Indicating that the lawmaker didn’t originate the racist meme.
But still. He did say, “Amen.” He now says he regrets that. From the McClatchy Washington Bureau story:
Garrard Beeney, who represented the civil rights groups, presented emails sent to and from Clemmons’ personal account between 2009 and 2011, when he was working on the law. One, from a man named Ed Koziol, used racially charged rhetoric to denounce the idea that poor, black voters might lack transportation or other resources necessary to obtain photo ID. If the legislature offered a reward for identification cards, “it would be like a swarm of bees going after a watermelon,” Koziol wrote.
Beeney asked Clemmons how he had replied to this email. Clemmons hesitated a moment before answering, “It was a poorly considered response when I said, ‘Amen, Ed, thank you for your support.’”
Beeney also contended that Clemmons, a Republican, wrote the law to suppress Democratic votes. Blacks in South Carolina typically vote Democratic. Beeney asked Clemmons whether he remembered distributing packets of peanuts with cards that read “Stop Obama’s nutty agenda and support voter ID.”
Clemmons said he did not, though Beeney said he had testified in June that he did…
Which takes me back to last night. As I noted in my real-time comments during Nikki Haley’s speech, the crowd seemed pretty lukewarm to her until she mentioned Voter ID. The party faithful, they love them some Voter ID. You might say they gave her a big “amen” on that.
Related Posts
“The party faithful, they love them some Voter ID”.
As do 74% of all Americans.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/page/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2012/08/12/National-Politics/Polling/question_6226.xml?uuid=Nd4PSOTWEeGXOe75nF-yhQ
Not the way the party faithful do. They’re INTO it; it stirs their blood. Just as Democrats get all stirred up AGAINST it.
As I have said repeatedly, I’m indifferent to the issue. Require voter ID or don’t, but let’s stop talking about it and move on — because to me, it’s an “issue” that exists solely for the parties to fight over.
Of course, I suppose one could take an academic sort of interest in the issue as something that so PERFECTLY separates Democrats and Republicans, and so neatly defines them in terms of their respective least attractive traits — their prejudices, their fears, and such.
But since I care nothing for the parties, I just await the day when the fight is over and I don’t have to hear about it any more…
“The party faithful, they love them some Voter ID. You might say they gave her a big “amen” on that.”
Brad, so you’re saying that anyone who walks into a polling station should be able to get in line and vote without any sort of identification? If I want to drive to Augusta and vote for the mayor in November I should be able to, and on the way home swing through Aiken and vote on county council members.
What I’m SAYING, Steven, is that the issue doesn’t move me either way. Have voter ID or not, it doesn’t affect the world much.
The GOP love voter ID because it tickles them that they might prevent “those people” from voting. This infuriates Democrats, because they regard that as mean, and also because they expect “those people” to vote for THEM. Which speaks to why the Republicans don’t want them voting. So much about what the parties respectively love and despise, and hope for and fear, is tied up in this issue.
But here’s the thing: The Republicans can’t demonstrate a need — they go on about voter fraud and can’t demonstrate that it’s an actual problem. The Democrats, on the other hand, haven’t really demonstrated that it’s that much of an onerous burden to voters.
I agree with Democrats that it’s wrong to artificially raise a barrier that would prevent someone who CANNOT get the requisite identification from voting. And I agree with Republicans that it is incredible that anyone would find it completely impossible to obtain identification.
In between, there’s all sorts of room for argument about when a degree of difficulty in obtaining ID becomes an inappropriate burden, and thereby an intolerable barrier to the right to vote.
I get lost in all of that because of my own ambivalence about how easy voting should be. I really do think people should have to make an effort to vote, given the ample evidence that we have that too many people who vote NOW don’t take the responsibility seriously enough. I don’t think that effort should be excessive, but I think it should require effort. For instance, I don’t hold with early voting on demand. You should have a really good excuse not to show up on Election Day at your polling place.
And I guess part of it, for me, lies in the fact that I used “responsibility,” rather than “right,” to describe voting above. Yes, it’s both. But a lot of folks want to forget the “responsibility” part.
So what you’re saying is you don’t have a problem with people voting where they’re not supposed to or people voting more than once. That’s why you have to register and provide an ID. Even third world countries have some sort of voting procedure whether it be an inked thumb or an ID. What you’re saying is that a free-for-all is okay too. Vote, get back in line, vote, get back in line.
You’re automatically making this an us vs. them issue when it’s not. I could care less who they vote for, I just want them to be legally able to vote in the precinct they’re scheduled to vote in and only able to vote once. I don’t understand why you are against some sort of organized voting?
No, that’s not what I’m saying. What I’m saying is what I wrote.
We have organized voting now. It works fine, and no one has been able to show that it doesn’t.
Now… is there anyone else who’d like to comment on this topic?
You know, one of the frustrating things about a blog is that it’s hard to get people on topic. Y’all (Steven excepted) keep commenting on and on about stuff I posted about yesterday or earlier, but it’s hard to attract people to the more recent topic.
Apparently, fewer and fewer of you interact with the blog by calling up the main page and seeing what’s new. Some use feedreaders; others look for the latest comments (and I sense that some of you stay away from threads where you see all the comments are from certain people).
Sometimes, social media help me engage (on Twitter, people are very much about the topic of the moment), but it’s often hard to get people to come HERE from THERE. Yet here is where we can have real conversations…
Anyway, anyone want to talk about the “watermelon” thing? Anyone? No? OK, I’ll go post about something else…
So now you’re saying you’re fine with the way it is today… having to show an ID. But minutes ago you were fine with people not showing ID’s. I’m confused, which is it?
As far as watermelons go, I’m sure anytime “black” and “watermelon” are said in the same sentence it a racist remark. Just like “taco” and Mexican” or “chopsticks” and “Japanese”. Which reminds me of an old John Boy and Billy morning radio skit where they had a black guy talking about diversity in NASCAR and wanting to see a guy named Leroy Watermelon driving the Afrosheen Cadillac.
To me it does speak to whether or not this i.d. requirement has underlying racial overtones. It does. Meanwhile, unless someone can demonstrate that we have a problem with voter fraud that this i.d. system will prevent, I suggest that if there is a reasonable possiblity that someone who can legally vote will be turned away, then that alone is reason to strike down this law.
BTW, Brad, I think that there is great responsibility involved in voting, also. But this law does not address that.
Where exactly is the “free for all” you are talking about? You want voting irregularity, look not to the occasional poor guy with no picture ID. Look at what happened to Ron Paul in Iowa, when ballot boxes disappeared, then reappeared. He finally won it after Mitt Romney took credit for the win. Too late, Mitt got weeks of coverage.
If you want fairness, with the voter id law simultaneously implement a program to help those folks who don’t have them, which is about 100,000 in this state. As we have discussed, there are folks who are absolutely in a catch 22, with no way of getting that government issued photo id. I know Nikki Haley volunteered to drive each one of them to their respective dmv office.
We have hashed this through before. Voter ID laws address a problem that doesn’t exist. They are intended to drive down low-income and minority voting participation, as is demonstrated by the numerous ‘gaffes’ of folks like Clemmons. Sew confusion and discouragement.
If you want a robust voter ID law, you will need to have a fair means of validating id’s which would mean having equipment that can scan said ID, rather than relying on some arbitrary unpaid poll workers opinion. How many fake Government Issued Photo ID’s get a pass on any given Saturday night in 5 Points when the legal drinking age is 21 and the average age of USC Students is something under that?
But hey, pass a law for a reason that doesn’t exist, then don’t enforce it with the necessary funding to make it do what you purport it to do, and finally criticize it for not doing what you said it was going to do.
Where is the bill that would do that inexpensive thing you mentioned, inking the thumb? I am down with that one.
Wally “Famous” Amos, who’s a neighbor, loves watermelon so much he painted part of his house to look like watermelon. He’s also annoyed that watermelon is so tied to racial stereotypes. “EVERYBODY loves watermelon!” says he.
“Meanwhile, unless someone can demonstrate that we have a problem with voter fraud that this i.d. system will prevent, I suggest that if there is a reasonable possibility that someone who can legally vote will be turned away, then that alone is reason to strike down this law.”
Interesting opinion, but unfortunately, that’s not the legal standard.
Its rare Brad and I post on a subject the same day.
Here is the article I did on the voter ID law.
It focuses more on my concern of its bias and lack of solving the real problem of absentee voting.
http://www.columbiacents.com/home/2012/8/29/voter-id-laws-sham-protection-at-best-jim-crow-disenfranchis.html
“The party faithful, they love them some Voter ID. You might say they gave her a big “amen” on that.”
I consider myself a conservative. I agree many of the fiscal tenants of the tea party.
I can’t support them on this.
“Anyway, anyone want to talk about the “watermelon” thing? Anyone? No? OK, I’ll go post about something else…”
And Yes I will post on the watermelon thing. Its completely racist. Voter ID will affect minorities more.
I want my candidates I support to win. I refuse to stoop to that level though to exclude qualified people from voting.
“There is no question about the legitimacy or importance of the State’s interest in counting only the votes of eligible voters. Moreover, the interest in orderly administration and accurate record keeping provides a sufficient justification for carefully identifying all voters participating in the
election process. While the most effective method of preventing election fraud may well be debatable, the propriety of doing so is perfectly clear.”
That was Justice Stevens, writing for the majority in Crawford vs. Marion County.
SCOTUS is going to uphold the Voter ID law, y’all.
And when the Supremes do that — or don’t do that; either way is fine — will it mean I won’t have to hear about it anymore?
I cringe at even bringing it up, but did anyone else notice that Representative Peanuts ‘N Watermelon is Mormon?
That wouldn’t matter any other year, but this is now … how inconvenient for the some who probably want great distance from this.
“I cringe at even bringing it up, but did anyone else notice that Representative Peanuts ‘N Watermelon is Mormon?”…Mark
If you cringed at even bringing it up, then why the h@ll did you bring it up? Are you trying to tie Mormons to racism? How many Mormons do you know? I think the Mormon Tabernacle Choir has black members. I think the Mormon Church has black members. Just what was the purpose for your “cringing” effort anyway? Equating what this guy said with Romney who is also Mormon?
I definitely avoid threads where certain people (read: one person) are posting. Unfortunately, that person likes to post a lot.
While the comment is definitely racist, we all knew there was a racial component to the law, so no news there. I think in some ways more telling is that he also directly connected voter id to the goal of vote suppression with the nuts comment.
Ummm, Bart, you might want to read up on the history of the Mormon church. You won’t need to go back but three decades, two really.
Not that it makes any difference, but I know lots of Mormons. I also wasn’t equating this guy with Romney. I made the point that other people probably are not very interested in seeing this guy’s story unfurl at this time. Was I not clear, or was that nuance difficult to fathom?
In 1978, the Mormon Church finally decided black men could be on a par with white men. 1978.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978_Revelation_on_Priesthood
“If you cringed at even bringing it up, then why the h@ll did you bring it up? Are you trying to tie Mormons to racism?”
BINGO!!! All that journalism learnin’ didn’t just to waste when he left the paper.
Welcome susanincola!!!
Bryan, I wasn’t going for a legal standard; I was simply saying why I thought this law should not be enacted. However, if the SCOTUS decides that there are racial overtones, it might be sufficient to legally strike this law.
Brad,
I think this is a one election cycle thing. People will get turned away. It will be a huge deal for a bit.
Over the cycle they will roll out the new voter reg cards. Do a real attempt to id folks besides a 1 day offer to give people rides.
This reminds me of the fad of redrawing district lines 4 yrs ago. Happened real bad in texas.
Next cycle it will be something else equally frustrating.
My Dad broke his hip and ended up in a nursing home for a few years before he died. His mind was clear. He just couldn’t take care of himself. His driver’s license needed to be renewed, but he didn’t renew it. We both knew that he would never drive again. I did get him an absentee ballot. He read The State daily, and wanted to participate. I guess if he were still alive he’d be disenfranchised. Getting to the DMV to get an ID might not be a big deal for the able bodied, but it would have been impossible for him.
Susanincola,
To whom do you refer?
Now, now, no need naming names. Let’s apply the Victorian standard: We all know what is meant, but we don’t come out and say it…
I am for Voter ID- but not as it’s presently proposed in South Carolina.
My voter ID bill would:
1) Exempt everyone over the age of 60 from having to show a Voter ID until 2020
2) Would allow various forms of ID- expired drivers licenses from any state, expired or current military IDs, and others
Elliot, if he had a valid SC drivers license, he could “renew” that into a current SC ID card without a problem. They just use the photo on file and issue it onto the ID card. Just because someone isn’t going to drive any longer doesn’t mean they have to hand in their drivers license… it could have been renewed online for identification purposes.
Umm, I am not ignorant about the past of the Mormom church. They, like many other religions took stock of their practices and changed them. In 1978 when the Mormon church officially dropped their restrictions on who could be a priest based on their own crisis of conscience over the practice, they embraced all races and after working with Mormons building temples, I can attest first hand they welcomed the change with open hearts and minds.
It has been 34 years since the decision was made official for the church. Yes, there are still some who hold to the old ways but as with any religion trying to grow and change, not everyone embraces the new.
By the way, there was no attempt at nuance, it was meant to make a direct connection through the Mormon religion with Clemmons and Romney and to associate Romney with racism. Otherwise, why bring it up?
At least be open about it.
I’m curious with all this Democratic bashing the Mormon church, how recently did the Catholic church finally allow women to become priests? Brad?
Umm, I am not ignorant about the past of the Mormom church. They, like many other religions took stock of their practices and changed them.
-Bart
Apparently the Catholic Church didn’t get the memo.
Thank you, Bud, for answering Steven before I got the chance to.
As you see, Steven, Democrats don’t let a day pass without giving the church hell over that.
And Bud, the church gets all the memos. But it doesn’t put the new cover sheets on the TPS reports because it doesn’t believe in it.
Me, I’m neutral on the subject. Of course, being neutral is COMPLETELY unacceptable to feminists. The way I think is anathema to them, mainly because I am uninterested in their issue.
Of course, there are a lot of priests who would welcome women to the ranks. There was one I heard just a few weeks ago when attending Mass out of town who told a joke that had as its point that “Jesus was a woman.” He then further quipped that those in attendance need not repeat that he’d told that story, which got him another laugh.
Then there was this associate pastor who used to be at St. Peter’s before he went into full retirement. He was this warm-hearted little old Irishman, who was at a stage in life when he didn’t much care what anyone thought about what he thought. I forget the occasion — Father’s Day or something — and he was talking about fathers when he interjected that personally, he looked forward to the day when a priest could speak to a congregation about his own children. Or, he added after a pause, about HER own children…
“Apparently the Catholic Church didn’t get the memo.”…bud
If you are referring to the protection of pedophile priests, then I agree with you. Any religious organization claiming to be Christian based would never protect or allow a priest, preacher, or one in authority being allowed to remain in their position and still having access to children. They should have been turned over to the authorities immediately upon discovery of their crimes. Absolutely no excuse. Yet, it is not right to portray all Catholics as approving of the behavior of some in the priesthood. After all, it was their children who were the victims and no parent in their right mind would allow their child to be sexually abused by anyone.
I’m not saying this is necessarily the case, but it could be that Catholic parents are aware that their children are no more in danger at church than at a youth camp or in other situations that put adult males together with kids. Because statistically, Catholic priests are no more likely to be pedophiles than men at large.
Of course, they SHOULD be far LESS likely, but one finds evil everywhere.
Taking that in another direction — it’s a little hard for outsiders to imagine what Catholics experience and what we think. To outsiders, it looks like nothing goes on in the Church but sexual abuse and pronouncements about abortion and birth control. Because that’s what makes it into news stories. Catholics experience the actual full life of the church, all of its teachings and its works in the community, and know what a tiny proportion of actual Catholic life those controversies take up.
That’s an answer? Reading that I forgot what the question was.
I still don’t know when women could become priests. Was it 1850, 1957, 2006, never???
Steven, you seem to be trying to make a point, and it seems as though it’s based in the idea that I said something about Mormonism. Which I didn’t. But even if I did, the point you’re trying to make would be utterly meaningless to me. Because, as I’ve said many times before, I completely reject the Identity Politics idea that race equals gender equals sexual orientation equals whatever other defining characteristic the IP folks have pulled into their tent today.
Actually my comment was in response to Bart’s comment about in 1978 Mormon’s allowing black to become priests.
“By the way, there was no attempt at nuance, it was meant to make a direct connection through the Mormon religion with Clemmons and Romney and to associate Romney with racism. Otherwise, why bring it up?
At least be open about it.”
– Bart
Bart, I don’t think I have much trouble writing what I mean to convey. If I was inarticulate earlier, maybe this will make more sense to you.
Since I said “how inconvenient for the some who probably want great distance from this” I remain confused how an admittedly awkward reference to “the some who” could be construed to be a reference to Romney himself. My comment has nothing to do with Romney.
My comment was about the calculus for political operatives if this story about the author of the SC Voter ID law gains traction. This is especially true if the Justice Department strikes down the SC law – or that of any other state. But either way, at a time when the Romney campaign is trying to reach out to independent voters and focus on economic issues this type of distraction must be most unwelcome. From a national perspective, it is bad enough that a Republican state representative has popped up who professes an appreciation for racial bigotry and an APPARENT desire suppress black voters. But then the guy is the primary author of South Carolina’s new Voter ID law. And then as I topper he is also a Mormon. I would call that accumulation of facts to be quite inconvenient for Republican presidential campaign staffers looking to expand the tent and appeal to swing voters nationwide. That also has nothing to do with Mormonism or of LDS history. But these are things Romney doesn’t want to be a part of his election conversation. So this congruence is inconvenient for the campaign.
The nuance was not in any attempt by me to connect Romney with the SC Representative. Where I thought it was needed was in the perspective of some who read my words and might rabidly jump to parry a perceived attack – which is why I said in the original post that bringing up this point could make me cringe.
I am pretty ambivalent about Voter ID laws as a concept. But I find the obvious intent behind the ones put forth recently to be quite distasteful. If we are going to make it harder for people to vote on election day, we ought to also make it harder to vote by absentee ballot. Otherwise, it is obvious which voters bother certain people; especially in the election cycle following 2008.
@Mark,
Apparently you believe your convoluted attempt to explain your comment can deflect attention from its intended purpose.
So, for the simple minded who do not possess the intellect or ability to comprehend the “nuance” in your original comment, indulge my ignorance and allow me to clarify how the lesser educated interpreted your words.
Rep. Alan Clemmons (R) drafted the SC Voter ID bill. A supporter sent a racist email and Clemmons admitted his response was poorly worded. Nowhere in the email or correspondence was the fact that Clemmons is a Mormon mentioned. The email’s content and response are the issues.
Now, if the email issue could be a source of inconvenience for Republican presidential campaign staffers who are trying to expand the tent and appeal to swing voters nationwide, that would be sufficient unto itself to convey your point. However, when preceded with the pointed reference to Clemmons Mormon faith, it begs the question, what is remotely relevant about Clemmons’ Mormon religion as related to the issue? Therefore, if his religion is not relevant, and it should not be, why “cringe” and include it in your comment? Motive? Intent? Purpose? What?
The “rabidly jump to parry a perceived attack” is convenient but does require a degree of suspension of disbelief to accept as an adequate explanation.
Allow me to post your quote again. “I cringe at even bringing it up, but did anyone else notice that Representative Peanuts ‘N Watermelon is Mormon?”
(Unless another Mormon has entered the race, there is only one – Mitt Romney.)
“That wouldn’t matter any other year, but this is now … how inconvenient for the some who probably want great distance from this.”
Once again, if the point of the comment was to infer the incident in itself would prove to be inconvenient, then as you tried to explain in your parsed response, if his (Clemmons) religion wouldn’t matter any other year, why should it matter this year unless someone believes it is important enough to be introduced as a point of debate or contention in the campaign?
If Newt Gingrich or another Republican were the nominee, would his or her religion be of any importance or relevant to the Voter ID issue or the racist comment by a Clemmons supporter? I think not. If Clemmons was a Catholic, Methodist, Baptist, Lutheran, Presbyterian, agnostic, atheist, or secular humanist, would you have “cringed” and pointed it out? Doubtful.
No, you said exactly what you wanted to say and the intent to make the Mormon connection between Clemmons and Romney is obvious to anyone possessing a minimal ability to comprehend the written word, nuanced or not.
The state had a good read on voter ID.
http://www.thestate.com/2012/09/01/2421471/sc-voter-id-law-takes-some-hits.html
From The State:
Garrard Beeney, a New York lawyer and lead attorney for the national civil rights groups that intervened in the case against the state, asked a clearly uncomfortable Clemmons whether he considered it racist to liken potentially disenfranchised South Carolinians to “a swarm of bees going after a watermelon” — part of the email to which the legislator had blessed with an “amen.”
When Clemmons dodged the question twice, Beeney bore in:
“Third time, sir. Is it racist or not in your view?”
Finally Clemmons conceded, “There is certainly a shade of racism there.”
And on Friday, state Sen. John Scott, who was the only Democrat and the only black on the conference committee that finalized the law’s language, testified about what he saw as the motivation behind the measure.
Asked whether he thought Republican legislators intended to suppress the black vote, he responded: “I do. I really and truly do. I believe that.”
——————————-
This is why I just can’t support Voter ID. Whatever good intentions it had have been perverted by the specter of racism.
As Bryan reminded me the choice isn’t in my hands. I’m not on federal or SCOTUS judge. I just can’t associate or defend something I believe is associated with racism.
Bart,
What I said.
As Tavis points out, given the situation with the hearing of the SC case and the decision with regard to the Texas Voter ID case, it looks as though the Supreme Court will be hearing this issue soon.
If you don’t believe that that is inconvenient for Romney’s campaign (especially given that the author of one of the bills, who happens to be a Mormon, has admitted he’s racist) then I don’t see that there is anything to say to you at this point.
There are zero documented cases of voter fraud that would be alleviated by voter ID, according to all neutral fact checking sources.
Mark,
No,at this point you really don’t have anything to say to me. As I tried to point out, the fact that Clemmons and Romney are Mormons have not one thing to do with the racism issue and is of no consequence unless one wishes to make it an issue.
And, as you pointed out, Tavis made his point with clarity, no attempt at nuance, and did so without invoking the religion connection between Clemmons and Romney which once again is of no importance unless it is to you which in this instance must have been of consequence to you, otherwise….?
Yes, if the SCOTUS rules against the Voter ID Bill, it could be inconvenient for Romney’s supporters, but that was never my point. Purposefully making the religious connection which has no bearing on the issue at all was my point of contention.
Bart, I think you’re being rough on Mark. He’s a good guy, and didn’t mean anything nefarious.
When he brought up the fact the Mr. Clemmons was a Mormon, my reaction was, “Oh, that’s an unfortunate coincidence.” Which is about as far as it goes.
O.K. Brad, issue dropped.