Strict Voter Identification 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.

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.

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

There were many credentials in order to voting which were enforced in order to revoke voting rights to those on U.S. soil. Still today many things are required in order to vote in the United States such as: being a citizen of the United States, a legal resident of a state, at least 18 years old by Election Day, not disqualified from voting due to a court order and not under Department of Corrections supervision for a felony conviction. Throughout having the proper requirements to vote are very important and strict. Voting requirements are less harsh than previous history records show, being that they are very general and morally correct as the Supreme Court approve them with Congress created the requirements to voting.

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

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.

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?

In 2008, the Supreme Court upheld Indiana’s law despite lack of evidence of voter fraud. In Texas, however, voter fraud is a real concern. In a column by Greg Abbott, the Texas Attorney General, he states, “In recent years, my office has secured more than 50 voter fraud convictions. Those include a woman who voted in place of her dead mother, a political operative who cast ballots for two people, and a city councilmember who registered foreign nationals to vote in an election decided by 19 votes. Voter fraud is hard to detect, so cases like these are just the tip of the iceberg.” Texas legislature believes that requiring photo identification is a simply way to prevent these fraud issues from occurring. Not everyone agrees with the motives of the

In the article "The Big Lie Behind Voter ID Laws," the editorial board explains how Republican officials and legislators try to pass new voting laws such as requiring photo ID in order to keep eligible voters from voting. They explain how such laws target mainly minorities and poor people. Along with that, there is discussion of a Federal District Judge’s written opinion showing how the law abused the Voting Rights

The right of any citizen of the United States, who are eighteen years of age

States have utilized their discretion over the time, place, and manner to alienate large segments of the voting population in the pass. From the Jim Crow era literacy tests and poll taxes, to modern-day voter ID laws, representatives have attempted to disenfranchise voters at every turn. Thought the Voting Rights Act of 1965 would have ideally rid America of these obstacles by this point, vestiges of the manipulation remain. The passage of years has brought a large degree of uniformity to election laws. For example, all states except Louisiana permit election by plurality in general elections. But several key distinctions prevail, and the desire for federalism here has created issues with suffrage. Voter ID laws are perhaps the most visible

There are a variety of practices that are put in place to limit certain peoples’ ability to be able to have their voice heard during the electoral process, such as Identification requirements to be able to cast your ballot. The court system has ruled that they are not an unconstitutional act, and even though they are believed the have a legitimate purpose by some people, those very laws and restrictions seem to be adversely affecting certain populations at a much higher rate than others.

The main focus of the Dye reading was on voter participation procedures and citizen participation in local politics. It was especially interesting to learn about the history of affirmative racial gerrymandering and how the laws regarding racial gerrymandering are still unclear today. The Smith reading Voter Identification in the Courts went over voter ID laws and legal claims in different states. The main point of Voter ID History was to go over the history of voter identification legislation and enactments from 2000-2015. I thought it was interesting how it seemed to be midwest and southern states that mostly experimented with voter ID laws during this time. In Aging Voting Machines are a Threat to Democracy, the main point was that the current

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