« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
DoJ Vote Chief Argues Voter ID Laws Discriminate against Whites
When Justice Department lawyers and analysts found in 2005 that a Georgia law requiring voters to have photo ID would disproportionately discriminate against African-Americans, they were overruled by John Tanner, the chief of the Civil Rights Divisions' voting rights section. The law was subsequently halted by a federal appeals judge, who compared it to a Jim Crow-era poll tax.
This past weekend, Tanner showcased his own analytical skills, telling an audience that voter ID requirements actually disproportionately affect whites.
Tanner explained that "primarily elderly persons" are the ones affected by such laws, but "minorities don't become elderly the way white people do: They die first." So anything that "disproportionately impacts the elderly, has the opposite impact on minorities," he added. "Just the math is such as that." Video of Tanner's remarks were posted yesterday by The Brad Blog. We've supplied a transcript below.
According to former Department employees, Tanner's comments were not only wrong, but way off, and typical of the type of decision making in the section. “In trying to defend his decision in the Georgia case, he’s saying things that are frankly ludicrous,” Joe Rich, a forty-year veteran of the Department and Tanner's predecessor in the voting rights section, told me.
"This is the kind of analysis that the voting section has been doing: seat of the pants generalizations and suppositions instead of hard numbers and analysis," said Toby Moore, a redistricting expert who worked as an analyst for the section until the spring of 2006. "It's false." Tanner's conclusions, he added, were "always in support of what his Republican appointee bosses wanted him to say, which is why he got to where he is."
Tanner made the remarks this past Friday during a panel on voter disenfranchisement held by the National Latino Congreso in Los Angeles.
He'd recently made similar comments when addressing the Georgia NAACP about the 2005 Georgia law last week. There, Tanner told the group that minorities were actually "slightly more likely" than non-minorities to have a photo ID," according to the AP.
"As the person who analyzed the numbers for John," Moore told me, "I can tell you that he's cherry-picking the data that he wants to use."
To buffer that statement, Tanner seemed to rely on a similar brand of anecdotal evidence in the Georgia speech, according to the AP:
He suggested that was due to the vestiges of racism that are still at work in the United States."You think you get asked for ID more than I do?" Tanner, who is white, asked the black audience members.
"I've never heard anyone talk about driving while white."
And Tanner said it is wrong to assume that the poor lack photo IDs.
"When someone goes to a check cashing business God help them if they don't have a photo ID," he continued.
"People who are poor are poor. They're not stupid. They're not helpless."
The House Judiciary Committee is currently seeking to have Tanner appear at a Congressional hearing, but has so far been rebuffed by the Justice Department.
A transcript of Tanner's remark last Friday:
Tanner: It's probably true that among those who don't [have photo ID], it's primarily elderly persons. And that's a shame. You know, creating problems for elderly persons just is not good under any circumstance. Of course...that also ties in to the racial aspect, because our society is such that minorities don't become elderly. The way white people do. They die first.There are inequities in health care. There are a variety of inequities in this country. And so anything that disproportionately impacts the elderly, has the opposite impact on minorities – just the math is such as that. And then Georgia, the fact was and the court found that it was not racially discriminatory. That was the finding of the initial court. And that was the clear information from our analysis in the office, my analysis, that was not affected by any other person. And I think that the memorandum which was leaked, which was a breach of legal ethics, was incomplete, was not the complete staff version and ultimately you come up against a hard fact, the minorities in Georgia statistically, slightly, were more likely to have ID, are today, and Georgia -- as far as ID and voter registration and voter participation go we've been straining at gnats and swallowing camels because there are a couple of million people in Georgia who have IDs, who went there and, repeatedly in many cases, to drivers license offices and other offices to get the ID and apparently either said they didn't want to register to vote, which is a very high number, or were not asked as the federal law requires. And as I say we are trying to work with the NAACP there to document a violation of federal law. Federal law does not do everything you want- Yes, sir?
Off screen woman: We have a question.
Question: The panels mentioned earlier -- you haven't spoken to what is the problem, why do we need voter ID? I've heard Duncan Hunter on the GOP debate say one thing, you know, and we always hear, oh all these people are illegally voting, but the government did its own study and they've never found -- there's, you know, miniscule cases of people voter fraud so why is it that we need this voter id requirements in the first place?
And also on that, you mean all these cases that you brought, are all those cases about voter fraud, individual voter fraud, like people voting when they're not eligible because they're felons or whatnot? Because I don't know anything about these cases that you're bringing, this multitude of cases.
Tanner: Well I (camera shakes / muffled)… do policy. We do not, we cannot, use our policy judgment under section 5 of the Voting Rights Act to do what I think is right. If we did that the law would be struck down by the Supreme Court in a New York minute, and that's not gonna happen on my watch. We follow the law, we follow the facts, we've always done that and you know, there's not much else we can do without going into court and getting beaten up badly.
The, on the ID, there have been a number of ID cases, there have been a number of efforts to prove disparities in it in court – all have failed. And they largely, actually in Georgia most recently, and in Indiana, the effort to prove a disparate impact of the ID was based on the same list matching procedures that so accurately have been criticized, trying to match names on two lists, and as the court in Indiana says, garbage in, garbage out.
Comments (39)
The Obnox wrote on October 9, 2007 2:31 PM:Jebus, my head just exploded.
moondancer wrote on October 9, 2007 2:43 PM:The balls. To actually espouse that racist filth at conferences for minorities. It sounds semantically like it could have been lifted from the Wannasee Conference.
modmom wrote on October 9, 2007 2:53 PM:Do you believe this racist has been put in charge of the civil rights division? I really hope KO picks this up and airs it.
Mr Blifil wrote on October 9, 2007 2:59 PM:Holy god. This is a Jimmy The Greek moment on steroids, if you'll pardon the mixed sports analogy.
They are just sittin' there on the porch pickin' their noses and laughing at how much shit like this bothers people of conscience. It's all a big game to them, as long as when 5 PM rolls around, you get glad handed at the club and handed something tall with ice.
Factual findings threaten the ability to control the flow of information. So just hire some numbnuts to go out and propound the exact opposite of what is known factually to be true. All to buy time until 2009.
If their systematic execution of this tactic in every branch of government weren't so flawlessly excellent, I'd be embarrassed for them.
carolyn wrote on October 9, 2007 3:02 PM:What was it the Queen said to Alice? "Sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast." I know I shouldn't laugh but this is so ridiculous I can't help it!
linda wrote on October 9, 2007 3:21 PM:i'm sure john conyers is writing a harsh letter this very minute..
Dave in NYC wrote on October 9, 2007 3:22 PM:Isn't most of the difference in life expectancies due to infant morality rates anyway? So the fact that minorities have a lower life expectancy (and the difference is not that big, anyway) doesn't really have a bearing on the life expectancy of the voting-age population.
Or am I mistaken and that's only true when comparing countries' life expectancy and not when comparing different groups within the U.S.?
Also, discriminating against the elderly is still discrimination regardless of what race they are.
RobbyLove wrote on October 9, 2007 3:28 PM:Wha...I just can't...it's unbeliev...I don't...HOW CAN ANYONE BE THIS IGNORANT??! (caps lock off)
You almost expect the guy to say "And you know, Apartheid was really just misunderstood."
This embarrasses me to be American.
Yellow Dog wrote on October 9, 2007 3:34 PM:This is classic repug bald-faced lying that goes back at least to Ronnie Ray-gun and "trees cause pollution."
They are completely shameless because they don't care what you think, as long as the lie gets out there and sinks into even a few skulls.
In fact, the more outrageous the lie, the more likely they are to get away with it because it's so ludicrous, and the more publicity it gets, so the more vacuum-filled skulls it finds.
And it works. Not many people believe trees cause pollution, but a lot more people question environmental regulations since that one got out.
Nobody really believes that voter ID affects white people more than minorities, but the daring expression of the claim undermines the argument against voter ID.
These guys are not stupid. They're not incompetent.
They're evil.
biff diggerence wrote on October 9, 2007 3:37 PM:Any bio stuff on this yutz ?
I'm imagining:
Born in your basic Confederate Shithole: 1957.
RobbyLove wrote on October 9, 2007 3:47 PM:Can this honestly be the same guy?
"He was named Chief of the Voting Section in June 2005. He has been honored by a number of African American community groups in Alabama and Mississippi and by the District of Columbia City Council, and was the 2004 winner of the John Doar Award, the Civil Rights Division's highest honor."
www.latinocongreso.org/agenda.php?bio=59
biff diggerence wrote on October 9, 2007 3:49 PM:"Tanner -- who was born and spent his early years in Alabama, graduating in 1967 from Indian Springs School near Birmingham . . . "
(hmph)
biff diggerence wrote on October 9, 2007 3:49 PM:"Tanner -- who was born and spent his early years in Alabama, graduating in 1967 from Indian Springs School near Birmingham . . . "
(hmph)
phil james wrote on October 9, 2007 3:52 PM:THIS is why the USA firings were so important to deal with and why the thugs have thrown a knuckle curve to Leahy on the new AG vs the temporary AG and why they will never ever come across with the documents. The USA firings were the clearest and most radically criminal examples of the total subjugation of DOJ to the needs of the party. Republican victory uber alles! Seig Heil Dubya!
serge wrote on October 9, 2007 4:34 PM:Will no one rid me of these douchebags? The arrogance, supported by intellectual vapidity of alarming proportions, is more than a mere mortal should have to bear.
BlueInTexas wrote on October 9, 2007 4:52 PM:Is this an impeachable position?
Puzzled wrote on October 9, 2007 5:42 PM:What did he say that's racist and/or untrue? It is actually true that minorities do not have equal access to healthcare and do not tend to live as long. Anyone even briefly familiar with medical population statistics can tell you the same thing.
What bothers me more is his implication that it's okay to discriminate against the voting rights of the elderly.
bob wrote on October 9, 2007 5:47 PM:Wow. This guy is so full of it. Everyone in that position dealing with voter ID knows that a higher percentage of minorities lack ID (it's a fact, not something open to interpretation), so he is most likely simply lying in order to benefit the GOP, but I suppose there is an outside possibility that he is just ludicrously incompetent.
bob wrote on October 9, 2007 5:50 PM:Puzzled, he's lying about the numbers of people without ID, as mentioned above.
Regardless of who lives longer, more minorities lack ID. Plus, he basically suggests that their are NO elderly minorities, which is just ludicrous.
Monty wrote on October 9, 2007 6:08 PM:As we recall, a similar argument was made in support of the Social Security bamboozelement campaign of 2005:
http://shrillblog.blogspot.com/2005_01_01_archive.html#110599973392755984
Long Memory wrote on October 9, 2007 6:58 PM:What bothers the living hell out of me is that ALL THE REPUBLICANS think like this, but when one of them blurts out what they really think they all say, "Well, he doesn't speak for us."
But these are their peeps. These people ARE the Republicans.
So when somebody runs a racist ad, as happened last year, all the "name" Republians tut-tut about the shame of it all.
And then the white Republicans go into the voting booth and endorse the behavior.
Just pathetic.
RobbyLove wrote on October 9, 2007 7:13 PM:No, not all Republicans think like this and plenty of Democrats actually do think like this. It's regional more than it is party based. It just so happens that the red states (read: Republican states) are where a higher proportion of the racists are. I mean, there's a member of Congress with a (D) next to his name who is a former member of the Klan.
Tanner's ignorance stands up pretty well on its own merits, regardless of whether he's a Republican or Democrat.
James Sheldon wrote on October 9, 2007 10:52 PM:You shouldn't need ID to vote at all, period. It discourages people from voting, which is the last thing we want.
@james
MKennard wrote on October 10, 2007 12:51 AM:Discouraging people from voting may be the last thing WE want, but it's sure not the last thing REPUBLICANS want.
candi wrote on October 10, 2007 1:10 AM:MKennard, you are correct. It's the last thing that we want, and it is the FIRST thing that they want. And I feel just like the first poster-my head just exploded.
parrot wrote on October 10, 2007 2:11 AM:Sadly, the Democrats seem to be discouraging folks from voting as well...from voting for Democrats. I mean, if you are going to vote, why vote for losers? These guys win control of the House and then do what exactly? Whine and complain and then, then, they just basically sell the Constitution down the tubes anyways?
For instance, the Supreme Court just declined to hear the suit of a German national who probably was tortured by the US Government, using US funds, our tax money. Why? And where is the outrage from these Democrats asking questions about that and proposing legislation around that? Seriously, this country has become compromised by the ignorant and the political climbers that the ignorant support...or, anyways, the fewer and fewer people who bother to vote.
In this, there is an opportunity, and that is an opportunity for a third and a fourth and even more parties. Too bad the GOP and the Democrats have added their "traditions" to our system of government. Perhaps it is time that those two parties are broken up or retired.
The truth is...if the Republic was healthy, the GOP would have been declared a criminal organization already. It has not. And there appears to be few, if any Democrats advocating that it be so declared...even though, if polls are any guess, more people support that notion--the not so novel idea; obviously really, if you consider much of the information that has been accruing for the past several years--than actually support King George and his criminal cronies.
numi wrote on October 10, 2007 7:32 AM:As far as I can tell the only good thing about the current crop of Democratic lawmakers is that, compared to the Republicanites, they are merely small-bore crooks, liars and traitors. They don't steal quite as much quite as fast.
Can you say revolution?
Makin' a list -
ineedalife wrote on October 10, 2007 8:05 AM:Checkin' it twice -
La-dee-da!
If he truly felt this law discriminated against whites he should have been just as much against it as his staff who felt it discriminated against minorities. He seems to have painted himself into a corner.
joshblows wrote on October 10, 2007 8:32 AM:FACT: Minority people **DO** die earlier than whites due to poor healthcare and thus would be less likely to be in a position to be an elderly voter without access to a valid ID. Go look it up for God's sake.
I guess he just didn't say it "nicely" enough for you pathetic pansy-ass, bleeding heart sops. What a shame for you. 8-)
bob wrote on October 10, 2007 10:43 AM:america sucks.
buskertype wrote on October 10, 2007 10:50 AM:this is the most amazing thing I've ever seen. Is this a joke? this must be a joke.
Probably the most disturbing thing to me is the sentence:
"And so anything that disproportionately impacts the elderly, has the opposite impact on minorities – "
Does he honestly think that it is good for minorities if white people are denied the right to vote? I guess that would be a very Republican way of looking at it.
JohnLopresti wrote on October 10, 2007 1:48 PM:Something about the tone of the Tanner presentation reminded me of the slim majority opinion in Bush v Gore 531 US 98; check out Chief Justice Rehnquist's Republican jive* at II-B-paragraph 2, which tries to divide the voter from the vote in equal protection terms. We got a minority president in 2000 by gift of the ideologues on the Supreme Court, Tanner is following the same ad campaign footprints through American electoral history as the Justices who voted for ways to keep the minorities separate but equal.
moondancer wrote on October 10, 2007 2:55 PM:One needs to look only as far back in US history as the amazing success of investment fund pressure upon corporations doing business in an apartheid country, getting the companies to exit the Union of South Africa until economic tilted rules there were revised. This occurred only a few decades ago. It is possible to expose the Tanner brand of class war rhetoric for the base sensationalism it is, but there is a tradition established by the Supreme Court fostering Bush into power based on the same kind of patronizing policies.
-----
*http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=531&page=98
The question has to be: If the ID disadvantages ANY group, and if it addresses a non-existent problem, then why have it?
JohnLopresti wrote on October 10, 2007 5:36 PM:The question is rhetorical, because we know its to aid the GOP. But why isn't MSM and people hounding him into seclusion with the above question?
d'd, et al., A little noticed process parallel to what happened with the politicization of the US attorneys whose careerists were purged in Gonzales' reign, also occurred to the voting section of the civil rights division in Department of Justice. Check out Gery Hebert's writings about von Spakovsky and others at Campaign Legal Center website*. A key cornerstone of the Republican precampaign planning now is for Bush to assure bias in the DoJ voting rights division; FEC is in a shambles; EAC is underfunded; the voting machine segments of conglomerate parent companies are discovering their sections are being "spun-off", because in essence their software is hackable and their hardware equally as unsecurity minded from initial concept building outward. Elections 2008 are a contentious prospect looming. What local tricks in FL and OH gifted Bush with term-2? KRove is way beyond these components in thinking, but all of them are part of the plan. Call Tanner the spokesperson most visible now; congress needs to reveal these ploys for the bankrupt politics of suppression and evasion they actually represent.
bob wrote on October 10, 2007 6:53 PM:-----
*http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/press-2928.html
Krugman also noticed the relationship with the GOP argument for Social Security.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/09/only-the-black-die-young/
JESSE (SFSU ASSIGNMENT) wrote on October 15, 2007 3:22 PM:i can't believe Tanner said all those "facts" in front of disenfranchised minorities. it might be true that there is a lot of poor white people, but its crazy to say that means minorities havent been/ wont be disenfranchised by voter id card laws as much as whites.
Keith wrote on December 2, 2007 9:52 PM:Why is it that every racist and moron in the country is working in government? People say it's never good to throw the baby out with the bath water, but with the Bush administration plugging all these idiots to fill important government positions...I say we throw out the baby, the bath water, the bath and whatever else and start again. It really couldn't be worse than this!
dodger dave wrote on December 19, 2007 9:16 PM:kinda makes this old fart long for the days when william bradford reynolds ran the civil rights division at doj.he seemed to be opposed to the very mission he was putively running-but hell,compared to tanner he's thurGOOD marshall.the former sounds like he attended law school with the majority of justices who voted the plessey supreme court decision which established jim dang crow.country club logic meets the pesky equal protection clause.
blogforlove wrote on January 29, 2008 8:43 PM:Why you should buy free viagra ample?
First of all, if you buy us viagra sal you get quality service and great discounts!
Why would you need viagra harmacy?
Viagra in the first place make a uverenost, most of the problems are solved in the privacy of using our products. We will help you learn infinite possibilities in the intimate lives.
Why do you have to use our shop?
You pay only real value of the goods, without deductions resellers percent! Ordering gneric viagra us, you get free delivery and discounts on other products.
On our site you can order levtra. The lowest price. Large discounts. Full anonymity. Free shipping.
More info about viagra onlin you can be found on our website http://buy-viagra-online-pharmacy-in-canada.info/buy-cheap-viagra-online-now/buy-online-suzzyup2coil-viagra.php