Identifying anti-S.C. bias

Photo identification is now mandatory for opening a bank account, boarding a commercial air flight and buying some sinus medications. It's also required for voting in Indiana, thanks to a state law upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2008.

But the U.S. Justice Department blocked South Carolina's new voter ID law last Friday, explaining that under it "non-white voters" would be "disproportionately unlikely to possess the most common types of photo identification."

The 1965 Voting Rights Act mandated that more than a dozen states, including South Carolina, obtain federal "pre-clearance" on changes in election laws. That legal vestige still applies here and in eight other Southern states.

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder argues that such oversight remains necessary. During a speech in Austin, Texas, early this month, he said: "The reality is that -- in jurisdictions across the country -- both overt and subtle forms of discrimination remain all too common."

Actually, the reality is that voting has never been easier -- for all Americans.

Another reality: The Democratic Obama administration has made a habit of going to court with dubious cases in opposition to Republican-dominated South Carolina. For instance:

The National Labor Relations Board's acting general counsel filed a legal complaint against Boeing in April on the grounds that its 2009 decision to build a 787 Dreamliner plant in North Charleston was "illegal retaliation" against a union in Washington state. Yet the company has hired approximately 2,000 more union workers in Washington since making that decision. The NLRB dropped the case on Dec. 9, a week after the union struck a deal with Boeing to provide workers for a 737 MAX factory near Seattle.

And the Justice Department filed suit two months ago to block implementation of South Carolina's new immigration law, which was passed, like similar bills in other states, in frustration over Mr. Holder's failure to effectively enforce federal immigration laws. A federal judge issued an injunction against three provisions of the S.C. law last week, setting the stage for more court battles.

As for South Carolina's voter ID law, there will be more court fights to come on that, too: Gov. Nikki Haley and S.C. Attorney General Alan Wilson said the state will appeal the Justice Department's refusal to approve the law.

A shameful past of race-based voter suppression justified the Voting Rights Act's provision for federal oversight of election-law changes in some Southern states, including ours.

But times -- and access to the polls -- have changed considerably for the better in the nearly half century since President Lyndon B. Johnson signed that legislation into law.

And over the last year, eight states have passed versions of photo ID requirements for voters. Among them is Rhode Island, where Democrats hold lopsided majorities in both chambers of the legislature.

If it's OK for Indiana and Rhode Island to require photo IDs from voters, why isn't it OK for South Carolina?

And where is the "justice" in the Obama administration's apparent animus against our state?