Bill Clinton: "But a great democracy does not make it harder to vote than to buy an assault weapon." Srsly?

Bill Clinton: "But a great democracy does not make it harder to vote than to buy an assault weapon (APPLAUSE)."  It is extremely difficult for me to believe that he doesn't clearly know that this is false.  Most states right now don't require voter IDs to vote.  Those that do have a requirement make free IDs available (e.g., Georgia, Indiana, Pennsylvania, Texas).  Yet if you buy a gun from any dealer in the US you have to have a photo ID and those IDs aren't provided for free.  Plus, one has to pay the Federally licensed firearms dealer for handling the transaction.  There is no similar fee for voting.

The problem is that Clinton was willing to make a false claim as a way of helping to make a racially divisive claim.

So why do Democrats require IDs to buy guns but oppose them for voting?

The Washington Post has a piece on North Carolina's new voter ID law:

. . . The measure requires voters to present government-issued photo identification at the polls and shortens the early voting period from 17 to 10 days. It will also end pre-registration for 16- and 17-year-old voters who will be 18 on Election Day and eliminates same-day voter registration.
Democrats and minority groups have been fighting against the changes, arguing that they represent an effort to suppress the minority vote and the youth vote, along with reducing Democrats’ advantage in early voting. They point out that there is little documented evidence of voter fraud. . . .
The Justice Department has suggested it will fight the new law, which comes just weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a key portion of the Voting Rights Act. States like North Carolina are no longer required to obtain preclearance from the Justice Department for such changes after the Court struck down the formula used for determining which states and jurisdictions with a history of voter suppression require preclearance.
The Justice Department is also looking to challenge a new Voter ID law in Texas and has also fought against a new Voter ID law in Florida. . . .

So where are the DOJ lawsuits over requiring IDs to buy guns?  Don't they also discriminate minorities?

Updating Photo ID laws: Pennsylvania and Wisconsin are the key tests

Only five states are currently scheduled to have Photo IDs and the only state where it is likely to make a big difference is Pennsylvania.  Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, and Tennessee are safely Republican states this year.  For that matter, despite the legal appeals regarding Texas and South Carolina, they are also not really contested.  The only other state besides Pennsylvania where the new law could make a big difference is Wisconsin.  This is from Real Clear Politics:

Jennie Bowser of the National Conference of State Legislatures classifies nine of the measures as “strict photo ID laws,” meaning that prospective voters who show up at the polls without required identification have little recourse. They can cast a provisional ballot, but it won’t count unless they make a subsequent visit to the elections office with the required identification. 

Five states will use these strict laws in November: Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Pennsylvania and Tennessee. Two state judges have blocked Wisconsin’s law. Laws in Texas and South Carolina were denied pre-clearance by the Department of Justice under the Voting Rights Act and are awaiting action by a D.C. federal court. A Mississippi law is in the early stages of pre-clearance. . . .

The court decision in Pennsylvania this week was thus a major victory.  As the WSJ wrote:

Voters who show up at their polling place without an ID will be allowed to cast a provisional ballot and present proof of identity within six days. Indigent voters may also cast a provisional ballot and sign a statement saying they couldn't obtain the necessary documents. Does all of this plausibly add up to voter suppression? . . .

Where Wisconsin stands on its Photo ID law is available here. Democrats are fighting hard in Texas and South Carolina, not because they think that it will dramatically alter those state's elections, but because they worry that if more states have these laws, it will be harder for them to claim that Photo ID laws have the bad effects that they claim.

Eric Holder defends Photo IDs to get into Federal Court Houses, but sees problem with requiring Photo IDs to vote

So if requiring a photo ID is discriminatory, is it OK to make it difficult for people to have their day in court?  What if they are a witness or involved in a civil case or supposed to serve on a jury?  Isn't Mr. Holder worried that Photo ID requirements will bias the legal system?  Josh Gerstein has this at Politico:

. . . At a House Judiciary Committee oversight hearing Thursday, Rep. Dan Lungren (R-Calif.) asked Holder about the practice, which has been standard procedure at most, if not all, federal courthouses for the last decade or so.
“If I were to go to the federal courthouse here in D.C., either as a party or as an attorney, wouldn’t I have to show a government-issued photo ID?” Lungren asked.
“That’s not been my experience, here in DC. I don’t — you know,” Holder replied.
“Some federal courts — are you aware that’s required in some federal courts in this land?” Lungren said.
“I don’t know,” Holder replied.
“Is your Justice Department investigating the discriminatory effect of those laws?” Lungren asked, after citing other places where one is told to show ID, like the airport and even when visiting the Justice Department itself.
Holder said Lungren’s comparison was off the mark, because the right to vote is the “most fundamental constitutional right.” . . .
The attorney general also insisted that visitors do not need photo ID to enter Justice Department headquarters. (You’ll certainly be asked for it. Trust me.)
“That’s not true in the government. That’s not true with the Justice Department,” Holder told Lungren. “if you were to show up at the Justice Department somebody could vouch for you and you could come in to the department and we could have a very civil, I’m sure, conversation.”
“Is that right? I havent tried that with TSA. That doesn’t work very well,” Lungren shot back. . . .

Meanwhile in Chicago, "New Law Requires Photo ID To Buy Some Drain Cleaners."  Apparently, just don't buy drain cleaners at hardware stores.

 A new state law requires those who buy industrial drain cleaners and other caustic substances to provide photo identification and sign a log.The law does not apply to most drain cleaners that consumers typically buy at grocery stores, but only to high-grade industrial cleaners that are normally only sold at hardware stores. . . .