The Importance Of Photo 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.

61% of the eligible electorate voted in the 1968 presidential election (Nicholas, 1969), while only 58.6% voted in the 2012 presidential election (Kernell et al., 2016, p. 450). Although national voting rates in 2008 and 2012 were lower than historical rates, voting rates among minorities were at an all time high. This suggests that there is an inverse relationship between national voting rates and minority voting rates, at least in the context of the 1968, 2008, and 2012 elections: if one rate rose, the other fell. Further research on why this occurs would be beneficial for future presidential elections. Voting rates among immigrants are still very low compared to native born voting rates, so efforts to encourage political participation among immigrants should be increased. Efforts to increase the national voting rate (including all races and ethnicities) should also be

Democrats, who almost unanimously oppose voter identification laws, strongly feel that minority groups of voters, who tend to vote Democratic, are more likely to not have the resources, knowledge, or means to have or obtain the necessary identification requirements for the polls. In a research project developed by Matt A. Barreto, Stephen A. Nuño, and Gabriel R. Sanchez, testing was conducted to “determine the rates of access to valid photo identification among voters and non-voters in Indiana, with an eye towards specific demographic groups, such as the elderly and racial minorities” (Barreto, Nuño, and Sanchez 112). Indiana was selected because of its strict voter identification law and for the ability to closely assess specific segments of the electorate under such a law. Their research method, using a random telephone survey of 1,000 registered and 500 non-registered voters, was conducted in a way that was unbiased and provided the most reliable and accurate results possible (Barreto, Nuño, and Sanchez

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,

Verba et al. also speak to the impact of income level on political participation, a topic often repeated by political scientists (DeSipio 1996, McClain and Tauber 1998). The conclusion: “for each kind of participation, affluence and participation go hand in hand” seems rather obvious (Verba et al. 1995: 189). Indeed, if a Latino parent works two low paying jobs and worries about paying the bills every month (as many do) he or she will likely have little incentive to travel to the polling place to ensure Hispanic representation in Washington. Additionally, Hispanics encounter further impediments to political participation: lower ages and education levels, coupled with language difficulties and illegal and non-citizen statuses further enlarge the gap between

Texas has a reputation throughout history of differing views from the federal government in laws and politics pertaining to social, fiscal, and educational issues. On the whole, Texas operates as a largely conservative state. Because of this, policy-making is often right wing. With the institution of a Democratic, liberal president, the State’s dissent from the Federal government has only increased over certain issues. One hot topic of the 2012 Presidential election was immigration. With the major increase in immigration, it is no surprise that the issue was so emphasized. Between 2000 and 2011 there was a 30 percent

The result showed that there were racial preference in the voting patterns for the mayoral race, where 82% of Latino voters supported the Latino candidate Villaraigosa, 79% of black voters supported the white candidate Hahn and 58% of whites voted for Hahn (Abrajano, Nagler, & Alverez, 2005). Delgadillo won the city attorney race receiving the majority support from the Latino voters and black voters (Abrajano, Nagler, & Alverez, 2005). White voters who crossed over to vote for a Latino candidate voted based on the issue and position that the candidate was running on, but for Latino voters who voted for the white candidate, the context of the race mattered less (Abrajano, Nagler, & Alverez, 2005). In the spatial model, voter’s ideology had a positive significance in both races (Abrajano, Nagler, & Alverez, 2005). The more liberal the voters in the mayor race were, increased the chances that they would vote for the Latino candidate while in the city attorney race the more conservative the voter were the more likely they would vote for the Latino candidate (Abrajano, Nagler, & Alverez, 2005).

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.

Obama has been previously critical of Voter ID laws like the one Texas passed in 2011. A federal judge ruled last year that the Texas law had a “discriminatory effect” by restricting access to the polls for black and Hispanic Texans. Last week the full U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals announced that it would hear arguments over whether the law violates the Voting Rights Act. The law requires most citizens to show one of a handful of forms of allowable photo identification before their election ballots can be counted. One specific policy that Obama suggested the state should adopt to increase turnout would be online voter registration. But Abbott appeared uninterested in the proposal when asked about it at a press conference following the announcement that California-based Pegasus Foods is building a new, 80,000-square-foot manufacturing facility in Rockwall, Texas. “We don’t want to open the system up to methodologies or ways of voting that would promote or allow voter fraud,” Abbott

In Texas, worries about voting and races are hued by political changes in late decades. Texans show a significant number of the same essential propensities of voting and non-voting as different Americans. Yet, the challenges gave adequate representation of the specific strengths at work in the Texas appointive universe. These incorporate the as yet developing predominance of the Republican Party, fights over congressional redistricting, extreme and now and again sharp crusading among applicants, progressively lavish battling here and there the poll, proceeding with dating of the developing Latino populace, and that's just the beginning. As every race for open office nears, the broad communications advises us that decisions are both exceedingly

Texas’ voter ID law is one of the strictest in the nation. Discriminatory evidence the majority opinion might see is in the list of acceptable forms of identification. There are seven acceptable forms of identification, which includes a handgun license, but not a student ID. This can be seen as discriminatory towards students who possess a student ID, but not one of the forms of identification specified by the voter ID law. On the basis that younger voters tend to lean towards Democratic opinions. Certain Justices of the Court, like Ginsburg, might find this as proof that with the voter ID law, Texas legislatures are trying to refrain from demographic changes of the state. The law is discriminatory against minorities and poor voters in that not all of these individuals have one of the acceptable forms of identification. Accessing one of these forms of identification could be costly and inconvenient. In order to obtain a Texas ID or drivers license, one must visit a DMV. This can be difficult for individuals who live a significant distance from a DMV and those who do not have a

Senate Bill 14 amended, most significantly, Sec. 63.0101 of the Election Code—the Documentation of Proof of Identification section. Texas voters could previously show their (1) voter certificate, (2) any ID issued by a government agency in any state, whether or not the ID was expired, (3) any photo ID that established identity, (4) birth certificate or equivalent document, (5) U.S. citizenship papers, (6) U.S passport, (7) official mail from a government entity, or (8) current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other government document. S.B. 14

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

Voter turnout, as well as election results, depend upon and are effected by several different factors. Everything from family status to beliefs about abortion can determine how a person will vote. In my presentation, however, I focused on three aspects that effect voter turnout and elections. I found, in my research, that a voter's age, sex and party identification greatly factor into how a person will cast his or her vote.

Besides that, there were complaints about the use of indelible ink in the 13th general Election. Oppositions and clean-polls activists reported that the ink could be easily washed off (Election ink under scrutiny in Malaysia, 2013). To avoid the issue of phantom voters and to reduce human error when checking the voter’s information during the election a new modern polling