Georgia Attorney General Craps On Citizens Again

Lately in Georgia there has been a battle brewing between our attorney general, Thurbert Baker, and everybody else. This has got to be the only lawyer in America who can't figure out to file a lawsuit. He is also running as a Democrat in the upcoming governors race.

My question for the voters, the legal ones that is, is why would you vote for some schmuck who obviously isn't putting the concerns of its citizens above his seemingly blind allegiance to all things Democrat?

What am I talking about?

Earlier this year the governor directed him to look into filing a lawsuit and joining in with the other states contesting the passage of Obamacare. His response was there was nothing to it and he refused. As a result the state has filed suit but the assistance of some private attorneys who are doing the work pro-bono.

Now he refuses to fight for the citizens of Georgia in regards to their efforts to clean up the voter rolls in the state. This campaign was started by former Secretary of State Karen Handel, who coincidentally is running for governor on the Republican ticket, and the case has been continued by her replacement.

Ever the loyal Democrat once again Baker refuses to push the case, which has been getting kicked around by the courts. One thing to make readers aware of is that Georgia, as in most southern states, has to abide by something called the Voters Rights Act. This legislation was passed in the heyday of the Civil Rights movement and imposes some very draconian measures on southern states in regards to voting. Something the bluenoses in New England have not a clue about. Basically what it does is require southern states to receive federal approval to make any changes to it's voting processes and procedures.

When Karen Handel was the Secretary of State she uncovered real evidence of illegal aliens and others who are not qualified to vote in the state participating in the voting. In order to counter it she started a plan to require photo ID and other verification procedures to ensure the voters were protected. The use of a photo ID has already been approved by the Supreme Court. Of course a liberal judge here and one there has constantly thrown roadblocks up.

I have read and heard on many occasions that a lawyer could indict a ham sandwich, but apparently in Georgia we have an Attorney General who can do nothing but eat ham sandwiches. Thurbert is the personification of the problem with politics in this country today. None of the politicians are looking out for those who elected them, rather their loyalty is to their party first with the citizens somewhere down the list between getting a tax payer funded credit card and figuring out how to upgrade their tax payer transportation to the newest vehicle.

I would hope this last act by Mr Baker would also seal his doom on any aspirations he has to be governor. He shouldn't make it past the primaries, but the citizens of Georgia need to pay close attention to the slate of candidates running for Attorney General and try to elect one who is going to stand for the citizens of Georgia and not their party.

And I don't care which party ticket they run on.

NY Times: Requiring Voter ID Harsh, Extraordinarily Strict

The new York Times editors are doing a bit of preemptive whining before the 2008 election.

You would think by the rhetoric voters would be required to hand over their first born before they're able to vote.

All of it over Indiana requiring valid identification.

The horror of it all.

Minorities, poor, elderly and handicapped hardest hit, of course.

In 2000, the Supreme Court decided that George W. Bush was the winner. In 2008, the court may once again have something to say about the election — but this time, it may do it before the votes are even cast.

The court will hear oral arguments next month in a critically important election case. Crawford v. Marion County Election Board is a challenge to Indiana’s harsh voter ID law.

The law, pushed through by Republicans in 2005, requires registered voters who cast ballots in person to provide current government-issued photo ID.

Indiana’s law is extraordinarily strict: it requires voters to have not just photo ID, but very specific forms of it — most likely a driver’s license or an ID card issued by the Bureau of Motor Vehicles.

At first blush, voter ID laws may not seem so unreasonable. But the fact is, a substantial number of Americans who are registered to vote do not have official government photo IDs. That is particularly true of poor people, racial minorities, the elderly, and the disabled — many of whom do not drive and do not have drivers’ licenses.

My heart just breaks. An effort to prevent voter fraud is being decried by the same people who turned a blind eye to voter fraud, most often by Demmocrats.

Well, these folks have 11 months to get their act together. If they can't get a valid government ID in that time, it's their problem.

The piece continue in heart-tugging fashion.

If the 2008 election is close, Americans will be looking at things like the decision in this case to figure out what provided the victory margin. It would be tragic if a sharply divided Supreme Court decided a presidential election for the second time in eight years.