Essay On Voter Id Law

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

One of the more controversial debates in today’s political arena, especially around election times, is that of felon disenfranchisement. The disenfranchisement of felons, or the practice of denying felons and ex-felons the right to vote, has been in practice before the colonization of America and traces back to early England; however, it has not become so controversial and publicized until recent times. “In today’s political system, felons and ex-felons are the only competent adults that are denied the right to vote; the total of those banned to vote is approximately 4.7 million men and women, over two percent of the nation’s population” (Reiman 3).

About 5.26 million people with a felony conviction are not allowed to vote in elections. Each state has its own laws on disenfranchisement. Nine states in America permanently restrict felons from voting while Vermont and Maine allow felons to vote while in prison. Proponents of felon re-enfranchisement believe felons who have paid their debt to society by completing their sentences should have all of their rights and privileges restored. They argue that efforts to block ex-felons from voting are unfair, undemocratic, and politically or racially motivated. Opponents of felon voting say the restrictions are consistent with other voting limitations such as age, residency, mental capacity, and other felon

Voting has not always been as easy as it is today. It is interesting to examine how far America has progressed in its process of allowing different types of people to be able to vote. Voting was once aimed at a particular group of people, which were white males that owned their own property. Today, most people over the age of eighteen can vote, except for the mentally incompetent or people who have been convicted of major felonies in some states. The decline of voter participation has always been a debate in the public arena. According to McDonald and Popkin, it is “the most important, most familiar, most analyzed, and most conjectured trend in recent American political history (2001, 963)” The question is, how important is voter

“There is an estimated number of 5.85 million Americans who are prohibited from voting due to laws that disenfranchise citizens convicted of felony offenses.” (Uggen). Varying by state, each disenfranchisement law is different. Only 2 out of 50 U.S. states; Vermont & Maine, authorize voting from convicted felons incarcerated and liberated as shown in (Fig. 1). But of the 48 remaining states these rights are either prohibited or authorized in at least 5 years succeeding to liberation. This disenfranchisement needs to be retracted due to fact that convicted felons; incarcerated or liberated, are U.S. citizens who are guaranteed constitutional rights that should allow them as citizens to have equal opportunity in political and social

Voters Identification law may suppress minority voting and it may not suppress minority voting. We have so many different races that enter this country with permission and without. The laws for visiting or becoming a legal resident in this country is complicated especially because of the terrorist attacks. Identification laws are necessary in my opinion. It helps identify people, most importantly it helps to decrease any fraudulent activities in this country. I can say if it has anything to do with racial and ethnic minorities, maybe it’s a coincidence that majority of African Americans and Hispanic have less access to photo IDs, some of us are not legal citizens, or maybe not. The law complicates everything in general for good reasons so they feel. I can understand what the research and studies demonstrates, about the decrease in minority audience and increase Republican Party turnouts. I do believe if you have a higher mindset you can attain all things that seem impossible. I know firsthand how difficult it is for African Americans to register to vote without an ID, the law won’t even to let you register if its expired. So what the law has gotten strict, so what, that should motivate African Americans and other races in this country to push through any obstructions to get an ID so they can be apart in making changes in this society. I know African Americans went through what may have seem like Hell but they overcame it and contribute to adding Amendments, why go through

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.

Millions of Americans lose the right to vote due to past felony convictions. While majority of Americans have completed their sentence, they are still not afforded the opportunity to vote. In some states voting rights of felons are terminated all together while other states allow felons who have completed their sentence to regain their voting rights. Felon disenfranchisement is not being allowed to vote after committing a felony. Felon Disenfranchisement takes a toll on our society by placing limits on the amount of possible state votes, and discontinues voting rights in some states. A vast number of citizens believe that felons should not have the right to vote.

Back in 1974 three individual ex-felons, disenfranchised even after their sentences and paroles were completed, came to the Supreme Court believing that their fourteenth amendment right to equal protection of the law was violated by three different California county officials and the Secretary of State who denied them voting registration due to their ex-felon status. When the case was brought forth to the Supreme Court, the defendants, as in the three officials and the Secretary of State, acquiesced and decided henceforth that they would register ex-felons who have completed their sentence and paroles. But the Supreme Court case was not obsolete because the case persisted to be on behalf of all disenfranchised ex-felons in the state of California who were under similar situations.

The voice of millions of Americans can’t be heard due to the disenfranchisement laws, which is vital living in a country that depends on votes for elected officials. There are many supporters and non-supporters of the disenfranchisement laws, and “since 1975 there have been 13 states that liberalized their laws, 11 states have passed further limitations on felons, and 3 states have passed both laws” (Manza, 2004). There is an on going debate among citizens and states whether or not to amend the disenfranchisement laws and allow more convicted ex-felons to use their voting rights. Some believe their voting rights should not be restored, because they are criminals, and it’s a part of being a criminal. Others are fighting that their voting rights should be restored, that people make mistakes, and if they have completed their sentence then they have served their punishment. Research shows a consensus

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?

Although some states believe that voting is a privilege that can be taken away after intolerable behavior, ex-criminals should be given voting rights because they are heavily impacted by government decisions, the vote is consequently taken away from low income, minority factions, and the US has a historical record of disenfranchising people regarding their race, color, previous servitude, and sex, so we have reason to question the disenfranchisement of other minorities.

A second way disenfranchisement laws affect the political voice of the wider community is through a phenomenon that can be referred to as collateral voter depression. Multiple studies have found that, where disenfranchisement laws are strict, the non-disenfranchised Black population votes at a lower rate than their otherwise similar Black counterparts in less restrictive states. Researchers controlled for variables such as the degree to which the state legislature’s racial make-up mirrors the racial makeup of the state population; segregation; concurrent elections (e.g. state-wide senatorial or gubernatorial elections); state-level voting policies such as same day registration and early voting; and individual-level characteristics, such as “age, income, gender, marital status, employment, residential mobility, children, and geographic location.” One of these studies, conducted in 2003, determined that “the probability of voting declines at a greater rate for African Americans compared to Caucasian Americans, when they live in states with restrictive criminal disenfranchisement laws, even for those who have never been convicted of a crime.” A 2016 study reached similar conclusions, finding that

The debate on whether photo identification should be required to vote has become very visible and heated over the past several years. Some argue that voter identification laws are only to keep certain people from being able to participate in an election. They claim that it is meant to dissuade minorities or certain economic demographic groups from voting. When you consider all activities that occur in our everyday lives that require photo identification, there is no valid reason to not verify someone’s identity before allowing them to cast a ballot in an election.

Should voters have to show identification at the polls? Do voter ID laws suppress voter turnout? Absolutely! An ID is required for a lot of different things in the United States. You need an ID to drive, open a credit card, drink, and so on. Having an ID prevents people from stealing others identity and this is important when it comes to the polls. It limits each registered voter to one vote for their chosen candidate. This prevents people from rigging the election. Remember, every single vote counts and fraudulent votes could turn the election around. Another reason that I believe identification should be required to vote is because it prevents underage citizens from voting.