Strict Voter Identification Laws

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

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 county chooses several voting locations to have an in-person early voting. Arriving at the poll site, voters must possess an acceptable form of identification; this includes a driver’s license or non-driver’s identification card, tribal government issued identification, long-term certificate or a voter’s affidavit. For voting on election day North Dakota voters must include on their identification their name, their current street address and their date of birth. North Dakota utilizes photo-identification at the election, but it is not the only acceptable form of identification; whereas, Pennsylvania only require an acceptable form of identification for first time voter. Some examples are a Pennsylvania driver’s license, student ID, United States passport, etc. Pennsylvania not having an in-person early voting is beneficial to the citizens because the state holds numerous amounts of citizens compared to North Dakota; it would be a hassle to hold multiple days for election instead of just one day. Pennsylvania may not be tough on photo identification because it is a competitive state, whereas North Dakota is not a competitive

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

Along with acquiring a voting I.D., another thing the Grand Old Party is doing that hurts the minority is to cut down on the days and hours that are crucial for them. With 80% of Americans spending their time working extra hours and 6.5 million people holding 2 jobs as of July of 2010, cutting down on election days would be a disadvantage to not just the people who are working these arduous hours but to our Democratic government(80 Percent Of Americans) (In Weak Economy). When it comes to cutting down days for an election, you have to change your whole schedule that most of us follow religiously, and if your state has passed laws that require you to hold specific voter I.D., you have to go out and acquire it and then register to vote before the deadlines that they have set up and once that’s done you have to reorganize your whole schedule just so you can have a say in government.

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

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, 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

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.

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.

America’s most recent debate focuses on mandatory voting and if it should be enforced in The Unites States. Of course many people have their doubts about this subject while others have already picked a side. Compulsory voting or “mandatory voting” is a system in which electors are obliged to vote in elections or attend a polling place on voting day. If an eligible voter does not attend a polling place, he or she may be subject to punitive measures such as fines or community service. But surely this subject is much more than just receiving votes for future elections; just like any other subject it must have its pros and its cons.

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?

Most republicans and conservatives are saying that having a photo ID is common sense because you need it when you're entering an airport, entering a government building, opening a bank account, applying for a job, and acquiring social security. Democrats are saying that millions of people don't have the ID that is being required to be eligible to vote.This limits our voice because people who are most likely to vote for democratic or people who are poor, disabled, elderly, and urban dwellers are being held back because of the photo ID that's being required to be eligible to

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.

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