Essay On Voter ID Laws

The idea of obtaining a voter ID and presenting it at polls to vote is a concern amongst Republicans and Democrats. Republicans believe that a voter ID should be required at polling areas and create laws in support of this notion, however Democrats believe that by passing these laws we deny the constitutional right of citizens to vote, therefore rendering these laws unconstitutional. I for one believe that we should have voter ID laws which required people show a form of ID at polling stations to ensure that votes registered for a poll are that of a citizen and that of the one who is voting. Based on the three articles from The Enduring Debate, debating whether we should have Voter ID laws, we can see as to how voting fraud can be committed and how it’s only use may possibly be used to push the Republican agenda and disrupt the Democrats agenda.

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, in Texas Voter ID laws are “strict” meaning that a voter cannot vote with a valid ballot without first representing a photo ID. When a person does not present a valid photo ID, they vote with a provisional ballot that will only be counted if the voter returns with an acceptable form of identification. In late 2013, the Obama administration filed a complaint against the Voter ID law that Texas was proposing. This was in “efforts to restore a stronger federal role in protecting minority voters in Texas” (Mataconis). The administration stated that the law discriminated against those of a minority group, meanwhile Republicans said that the complaint was an intrusion on state’s rights. John Cornyn, a Republican in the Senate, said that “a politicized Justice

It 's the time of the season when the stakes run high. Our democracy is currently under a fierce battle to decide its next leader, supreme court justice, and overall pathway forward. Another item on the docket of democracy is the new voter ID laws. These laws have been strengthening and becoming more widespread over the past decade. North Carolina is but the latest state to adopt this voter ID policy and with the current circumstances, few realize the fierce battle North Carolina is facing.. These new laws, passed laws in 2013, made showing an approved government issued ID mandatory if one wanted to vote this election cycle. In addition they also outlawed same day registration and the ability to vote outside one 's precinct. North Carolina’s passage was just another addition to the ongoing controversy surrounding these voter ID laws. This is an issue that has divided the nation, and now our home state. Critics of the new laws say that the laws disenfranchise potential voters, specifically those of African-American and Hispanic backgrounds. Supporters of the laws have adopted the platform that voting is a privilege and that the new laws are necessary and proper to protect against voter fraud. Whichever side you find yourself on one thing is clear, these new

Nearly 100 years after the 15th amendment was ratified, vast disparities and blatant discrimination in voting process and practice were still pervasive, particularly in certain southern states like Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana. The 1965 Voting Rights Act (VRA) was enacted by congress to address this enduring inequity. Section 5 of the VRA requires that states meeting criteria set out in section 4(b) of the act, must obtain federal “preclearance” before enacting any laws that affect voting. Section 4(b) provides the conditions for the preclearance requirement as state or jurisdictions where less than 50% of minorities were registered to vote in 1964.

The I.D. requirement for voting is unnecessary. The governors argue that it would prevent fraud because voters are required to prove their identifications. However, just like John Oliver said, although I.D. voter appears to be a common sense, it may become impossible for some people.There are six types of government-issued identifications that can be used at voting polls in Texas. First of all, driver's licenses seem to be the most common method; however, not everyone drives or has a car. Secondly, Texas authorizes gun holders to carry their handguns around. Apparently, not all Texans obtain or carry weapons with them; therefore, it is not a popular choice to be used at voting polls. Thirdly, the passport can be one option; however, only a

Why? Because of the strong impact it has on the outcome of the election and the number of votes registered. According to Lauren Justice, Latino’s especially were less likely to vote in ‘12 than in ‘08 because of their inability to get a hand of the identification (3). Thousands of people in the states have not been able to require all the necessary items they need in order to get an ID. Some states require an original birth certificate which isn’t always easy to get because of where it’s from. This may not be a problem to some, some like the republicans who set up these laws. Calling them ‘fair’, ‘necessary’, and ‘voter friendly’. The reason they set these rules up is to keep Democrats from stealing elections. How would they do it? Based on numerous studies and surveys, election fraud has been found to be rare, and the in-person fraud that the laws could prevent is virtually absent (Justice 2). Not only is this absurd, but these laws makes it even more difficult for people. If by any means they are not able to get an ID, states like Texas and Wisconsin may let them take an oath. An oath that lets those without an approved ID vote after signing it, only after stating that they cannot “reasonably” obtain one. What about the others who weren’t able to ‘reasonably’ obtain one? What about all the others who can’t take the oath? How can this be fixed? What the states need to do in order for these problems to be fixed is to get rid of the strictness these laws have on the voting. If they do, then more people are willing to vote and can impact the election greatly. If this were to happen, maybe Donald Trump would have not become president and more votes would have

Republican proponents claim that voter identification laws do not discourage those who are most likely to vote from turning out to the polls. They also believe voter identification laws are vitally essential to discourage voter fraud and to strengthen public trust in the electoral system (Gerken 40). Looking closer at both sides of this continuing controversy will help to clarify each sides claims and reveal any misinformation.

As the Texas legislature moves to the end of their one hundred and forty days in session, a few key bills held the attention of both the Texas House of Representatives and the Texas Senate. Two of these central bills are referred to as Sanctuary cities, Senate Bill 4, and Voter ID, Senate Bill 14. Though these two issues are hotly contested by most democratic representatives, numerous republicans hold many concerns over these two bills as well as Governor Greg Abbott recently signed the two into law. As I analyze these two issues, a few primary issues strike me as an issue. With the adoption of new regulations and restrictions for both voter identification and sanctuary cities, the political,

Texas has also long supported an increase in border security. In 2006, Gov. Rick Perry announced a plan that assigned Department of Public Safety personnel as well as other resources to the border to assist in law enforcement. He also added an additional $3.8 million in grant funding for state criminal justice planning funds to the Texas Border Sheriff’s Coalition. (Texas House of Representatives) The state’s legislative policy has been one of strict anti-immigration. In Texas’s 81st Legislative session, the issue of Voter ID arose. The Voter ID bill would require photo identification or two forms of other identification in order to vote. During the 81st session, Democrats filibustered to prevent the issue from being voted upon, it is very likely this is the only reason the bill did not pass and it likely will pass should it reappear in the 82nd session.

Analysts explained: This ruling of the Supreme Court gave 9 states power to make their own election law, which overthrew the essential principle of the Voting Rights Act. The Court believed that the decision was right because the American society had changed: “While any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy the problem speaks to current conditions” (Mears & Botehlo). Right after the ruling, ‘Texas announced shortly after the decision that a voter identification law that had been blocked would go into effect immediately, and that redistricting maps there would no longer need federal approval” (Liptak). This ruling brought strong opposition, the main reason being that the Voting Rights Act had benefited the United States profoundly by protecting people who were fighting for their equal rights. Opponents pointed out that there were still people fighting for their

Voting is one of the most essential right’s that we obtain in the United States. African Americans and women have struggled for the right to vote for years. The right to vote is the way we the people get to get our voice heard. Unfortunately, Texas voting turnout is one of the lowest in the nation. There are numerous of reasons that make Texas one of the states with a low voter turnout rate.

Whether protecting and expanding voting rights through permitting more valid vote identifications is a controversial topic during the presidential election of 2016. Many people believe that the current voter ID law makes young, women, minority groups, and seniors hard to access to the ballot box, and thus, should be revised to broaden lists of acceptable forms of voter ID. On the other hand, the supporters of the Voter ID law argue that the law is effective to eliminate undocumented immigrants and noncitizens to make a fraud when voting. Janell Ross, in her article “Hillary Clinton declares war on Voter ID,” uses examples and professional language to demonstrate the negative sides of the Voter ID law in a polished manner. In the article, “Here’s what Donald Trump thinks about Voting,” Zachary Roth uses strong reasons to make a clear argument on the necessity of implementation of the Voter ID law. A valid and persuasive argument should be able to appear to reason, writer’s character, and emotion. Therefore, although Ross and Roth both clearly present their opinions in a professional manner for the audience, they lack validity in providing credible sources to back up some of their ideas.

Our Voting System is clearly being corrupted. Problems identifying legitimate voters is much more serious than anyone is acknowledging. With identity scams on the rise, states are getting tougher on the identification requirements needed to vote. In 2013, the Supreme Court ruled that a provision of the Voting Rights Act was unconstitutional and those counties and states previously subjected to these laws did not need approval to make changes to their voter ID laws. Eight states passed voter ID laws that year. Since then three states Georgia, Indiana and Florida require photo ID’s, eighteen other states now require some form of identification (National Conference of State Legislatures), with the other 25 only requiring signatures. In lieu of all the voter ID fraud, is it imperative for states to put in place a Voter ID Law? Will these laws put a burden on the states citizens or will they become disenfranchised if they don’t have the proper ID (Rodriguez, US. Election Assistant Commission), and is it just another hurdle that voters will have to leap over to vote for who or what they believe in?

Industrial Countries all over the world have seen a steady decline in voter participation; Great Britain is a great example of this. The country has witness turnout in elections falling slowly as time pass. However, the election of 2001 dropped the country from their average of 76% voter turnout to just a 59.4% turnout. Comparatively, Australia, a former colony of Britain, has enjoyed high and steady voter participation since 1924 because of the implementation of compulsory voting. This system has proven to be not only effective in bring voters to the polls, but also effective in improving Australia’s democracy. By evaluating these two countries with similar political structure; one can see the difference in compulsory voting turnouts

But, as of today there is no solid way of knowing if someone is or is not trying to sneak in more than one ballot. “I don’t know if anybody knows how prevalent it is, because the only time you find out is when somebody gets caught.” (Guzman, 1) And the statistics of that happening is .00000013 percent or 26 out of every 197 million cases. Because there are multiple techniques that can and have been used time after time again. Although this is the case there has been some attempt to prevent it. Voter ID law are one example, but it is far from the perfect solution. First, it prevents only one type of voter’s fraud, voter impersonation. And, second, the voter’s ID laws has been ruled as discrimination; so the rule is not enforced everywhere and the public can vote without