S.C. voter ID legislation blatantly discriminatory

The lead editorial in The Post and Courier of Dec. 8 noted that the state of Rhode Island, which has a Democrat-controlled legislature, recently passed a voter ID law. The writer saw that as evidence that voter ID laws are actually nonpartisan and argued that our state's voter ID law should be approved by the U.S. Department of Justice because it will prevent the kind of voter fraud that has been documented in Chicago, that changes in South Carolina since 1911 and 1961 mean that our state's law has no discriminatory intent, that the NAACP is wrong in asserting that voter ID laws are an attack on black and Latino voting rights and that the ACLU is wrong in asserting that elderly, student, minority and low-income voters may be disenfranchised in South Carolina.

As a pastor with congregants who will be adversely affected by the law and as a member of the Charleston Branch NAACP and the ACLU in South Carolina, I'd like to offer a different perspective. The editorial, like those in The Post and Courier that frequently take President Obama to task, is as balanced as a see-saw with an elephant on one end and a mouse on the other. The Rhode Island Secretary of State's website shows significant differences in the Rhode Island and South Carolina voter ID laws.

Rhode Island's law will be phased in and won't go into full effect until 2014, which gives time to work out "bugs" in the process and for those with problems obtaining photo IDs to better do so. Rhode Island voters will be able to present birth certificates and Social Security cards at the polls in 2012. South Carolina's law is designed to take effect immediately.

Rhode Island's law allows a broader variety of photo IDs, including student IDs and government-issued medical cards. South Carolina's law allows far fewer acceptable IDs. Rhode Island's law allows voters without photo IDs to cast provisional ballots, with the understanding that if the signatures on their ballots match the signatures on their voter registration, their ballots will count. South Carolina's law makes no such provision.

The differences in the laws come down to one simple word -- intent. The clear intent of Rhode Island's law is to provide opportunities for every possible vote to be counted. The clear intent of South Carolina's law is to make it harder for some people to vote. Our state's intent is suspect and discriminatory, for even though we're in 2011, and not 1911 or 1961, politely veneered discrimination is still discrimination.

It's been documented that the South Carolina law's greatest negative impact will be felt in predominately black precincts. Our state's schools are still disproportionately funded, with the best-performing schools along the very white and Republican I-85 corridor and the schools with the greatest struggles along the very black and Democratic I-95 corridor. Our state's minority residents are still most likely to be pulled over by police in cities like North Charleston for no reason other than suspicions raised by the color of their skin. Our state is presently preparing to defend an immigration law that has little clear intent beyond hassling Latino immigrants and citizens -- unless a stray German BMW executive happens to forget to carry his passport and is arrested, as was a Mercedes executive in Alabama.

Given our state's history and present direction, coupled with the fact that there was no burning desire for voter IDs until President Obama drew a large minority voter turnout in 2008, it's plain that South Carolina's voter ID law is meant to minimize the chances of that happening again.

Arguing that the law is needed to prevent Chicago-style voter shenanigans while failing to note that there has been virtually no documented voter fraud in our state is shallow and ridiculous. This isn't Illinois or Rhode Island. This is South Carolina.

Our state's voter ID Law should be judged on its own merits and intent. If it's found to be as blatantly bigoted as it seems to be, then it should be thrown out so that no citizen will be denied the right to vote.

The Rev. Joseph A. Darby is senior pastor of Morris Brown African Methodist Episcopal Church.