Graham, Gowdy ask Holder to leave South Carolina voter ID law alone

The court was considering the issue because the Department of Justice refused to pre-clear the law, which prompted South Carolina to bring the case.

In light of the decision, Graham and Gowdy called on Holder not to pursue the issue any further now that the court has said the law is fine.

{mosads}”Appealing the Court’s ruling will cost both the Federal government and the State of South Carolina more money in litigation costs; money that can be better utilized in other areas,” they wrote. “Further the Supreme Court has already held that Voter ID laws are legitimate and important state interests.”

Graham and Gowdy noted that the disparity between black and white voters who do not have the right kind of identification is “less than 1.6 percent,” and said the court found in favor of the law in part because the “rhetoric surrounding the law… was based on a misunderstanding of how the law would work.”

The law allows voters to present a state driver’s license, state photo ID, passport, military ID, or a new free ID issued by county election offices would be accepted by poll workers.

“South Carolina passed a Voter ID bill; complied with federal law by submitting it for pre-clearance; and was ultimately vindicated by the October 10 ruling,” they wrote in their October 11 letter. “Yesterday’s ruling should not be challenged.”