Pros And Cons Of Voter ID Laws

Voter ID laws in the United States have begun to create controversy since the beginning of its adaptations in the early 2000’s. Voter ID laws in the United States is a law that requires U.S. citizens to have a special form of identification in order to vote in an election. The idea with Voter ID laws is that the state must make sure that the laws do not pose any sort of burden on the voters. These laws have been proposed in order to stop voting fraud. However, the institution of Voter ID laws have made trouble in states, including Texas, regarding to the various amount of identification requirements needed.

In recent years, society has noticed increasingly minute numbers of voters. Regardless of what is causing people to stay home, it is a big issue. Voting is a right, every citizen is entitled to having a voice in the government. We can choose to vote or we can choose to abstain. This is not an issue, until voting numbers are so low it is hard to even call elections. To help fix this, countries have implemented a system called "Compulsory Voting", or more blatantly put as "Mandatory Voting". This system would require all citizens (capable) to vote. On paper, this seems like a good idea. However, it is a removal of right. To have a right is to have an option. We as citizens have the right to almost anything we want. The Constitution gives us options. You wouldn't say we have the right to pay taxes. We are required to pay taxes. Obligations are not considered rights. Making the right to vote mandatory would be removing one keyword. RIGHT.

One of the arguments that those against the idea of enacting voter ID laws make is that there is no way that voter fraud can actually sway an election enough for the wrong candidate to win (Zorka). This is simply not the case, and there have been numerous cases where the amount of illegal votes cast was greater than the margin of victory for that election (Kobach). For example, in the Senate race with

Voter ID Laws, now present in some form or another in thirty states, require individuals to show government-issued identification in order to cast a ballot on Election Day. The debate over the need for such laws has never been more important. Voter ID laws were brought to the forefront of American politics in the most recent presidential election as a result of President Elect Donald Trump’s insistence that the election process in America is riddled with wide-spread voter fraud. His claims of a “rigged election” were printed, broadcast, and proliferated through social media for the majority of his campaign. Such claims, if factual, should certainly be immediately rectified. The United States is built on the integrity of its election process and maintaining that integrity is paramount. The issue at hand is: Are these claims of widespread voter fraud fact or fiction? The key driver in the debate over Voter ID laws is whether or not such laws are intended to prevent voter fraud or whether the laws themselves are a form of government-endorsed fraud intended to suppress the vote of specific populations. The fact remains that neither the President Elect nor the states implementing Voter ID laws have been able to produce evidence of election rigging or widespread voter fraud. As such, without evidence of the need for the supposed protection from fraud that these laws are intended to provide, we can only conclude that such laws are not

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

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

Throughout the years, the United States has been choosing its president using the electoral college, voter ID laws to reduce voter turnout, gerrymandering to choose our representatives, and using methods to select candidates in the primaries. Through the electoral college, their presidents have been unfairly chosen using the winner take all system. In this system, if they, the voters, choose the losing party, they might as well go home because of how it works. To make matters even worse, voter ID laws have been making their laws even more difficult to surpass, in able to reduce the number of votes. Gerrymandering is used to give a party a special advantage by using the packing and cracking method, and as for the primaries, they are held by

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.

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.

The election of a nation’s governing official is an event of great import. The power granted to such an individual is great indeed, and so much so that the position is considered its own branch of the government in and of itself. The trial that is the election is a competition unlike any other, with several professional liars competing for the favor of countless souls. During the election of 2000 this came to a head with several questionable occurrences taking place and lending obvious benefit to the Republican candidate, Ronald Reagan.The events of this election were less than savory, with some believing several facets of it were simply wrong from either a legal or moral standpoint. Late in the election it was discovered that several votes

We all know that voter fraud is so rare that the draconian laws designed to prevent it, is nothing more than an attempt to suppress

So instead of jousting over the voter ID laws, should we come up with state of the art ways, so that citizens can get free ID’s, and ways for those that can’t do it themselves to possibly have a mobile service, so that all voters have an equal voting ground. A 2012 study, by Pew Center on the states, found that 2.8 million voters had

While the main purpose for voter ID is to eliminate fraud and corruption in the American voting system, it has brought with it consequences that discourage and even prohibit eligible voters to vote. The 2012 election, a vast number of state required a government-issued photo ID. Even the state Indiana required this even though “state GOP officials couldn 't provide a single instance of a voter committing the type of fraud the new ID law was supposed to stop” (Berman). Surprisingly, in Wisconsin, they will only except ID’s containing “a current address, birth date, signature and two-year expiration date” that so far

Mostly the democratic party has ideas that are against voter ID. Voter ID is a discrimination against the people who can’t afford and are unable to get some sort of ID in order to vote. This group of people that can’t acquire ID are mostly African Americans, hispanics, and minorities. Voter ID would also eliminate a huge part of the democratic votes because these people would have most likely voted for democrats (because they are against voter ID). This is a huge disadvantage for the democrats because republicans would have bigger numbers and the democratic ideas would not get as many votes. If we had voter ID, the only people who would be able to vote would mostly be white. In our modern day society, they tend to have the most money and have

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