Voter Id Laws By South Carolina

A strong democratic government rest on citizens exercising their power of voting. Even though in many countries including United States, entitled voters don’t vote during Presidential Elections. This paper will explain that Federal Voting should be mandatory in United States. Many people in United States try their best to stay away from political affairs not realizing the importance politics. Voting is one of the most common ways to get involved in politics. Firstly this paper will state the main problems for the non-voters. Moving forward, why it is necessary and important to vote? And lastly the outcomes if people doesn’t voted. Votes determine who will be responsible in considering laws and their enforcement to all the Americans. By this

Chapter 8 topics varies from voter’s perspectives, constitutional amendments, and candidate’s perspectives. This election has raised many concerns for voters who are deciding whether to vote or to not vote. Voting is a privilege just like driving, but everyone is not able to partake in this privilege due to law barriers. I learned that the fifteenth amendment outlawed race-based restriction on voting. Later the twenty-fourth amendment which passed in 1964 forbided the use of poll taxes in federal elections. This has also been applied to state election since the court passed this in 1966.

Living in a nation based on democracy, where a citizen’s voice is the equivalent of casting a vote in political elections, the majority of American citizens eligible to vote do not participate in elections. The rationale behind voter non-participation varies among individuals and demographic groups; however, they all share a connection regarding their feelings towards their treatment by the country's political system. Minority voters such as blacks and hispanics are a demographic group highly faced with disenfranchisement in regards to political elections due to oppression. North Carolina’s Voter ID laws are a prime example of how minority voters are being shut out.

The Limitation that has been placed since the creation of the Republic on voting were cruel. The Impact of the Revolution which was in part over the issue of voting. Though limitation was grounded on religion test by 1790 all states had eliminated religious requirement for voting. Though the Constitution left the voting matter to the states to deal with. Certain Stated restricted voting to those who owned property, eldest sons over the age 21, poll taxes, or paid high annual taxes, African American, and women were denied the right to vote, ethical and literacy test was conducted, and African American were omitted. Though Black was given the right to vote, the voting ballot was forfeited and if an African American did vote they were beaten to death or beaten.

However, logic dictates that a more legitimate vote would lead to a more legitimate outcome regarding politicians who are elected, and therefore better representation for the people of the United States. Not only are states' rights, minorities, politicians, affected, but the entire country is affected by voter identification restrictions. The political environment has a climate that is very tense to say the least. For the first time in decades, a majority of both parties view the other party as very unfavorable (Chokshi, 2016). With partisanship higher than it has been in decades, it is important that the public views elections as fair and just. This climate is not conducive to change and it seems the gridlock seen in the government today may not change any time soon. Hence, the landmark case of Shelby County v. Holder may simply be the only policy in place that can guide things and the actual decisions may be left up to the states unless cases are taken to the Supreme Court to create

In the past decade, a total of 34 states have passed voter identification laws with the same guidelines from state to state. These laws require voters to show a proof of photo identification in order to be eligible to vote or receive a ballot at the voting polls. The initial purpose of the voter ID laws was to prevent voter fraud. However, the laws have made voting harder for some Americans, like minorities, women, students and elders by requiring a government issued photo ID.

There has been a recent surge of voter ID legislation around the country in Republican concentrated states. The rise of voter ID laws is also contributed officials wanting to decrease identity fraud in the polls. Voter ID laws have been passed as early as 1950 in South Carolina which voters needed a document with the voters' name. Since then gradually states adopted voter ID laws, but voter ID laws became an issue in the 2000s.All the states except for Rhode Island with voter ID laws are primarily Republican.

Recently state and federal legislators have been discussing voter identification laws, also known as voter ID laws. This issue is controversial because it can lead states to deny voters a vote without an approved ID. On one hand, some supporters of ID laws argue that these laws are preventing criminals from committing fraud. From this perspective, the laws are protecting the value of a vote and what it means to actually participate in an election vote. On the other hand, however, people argue that by placing the restriction on voting it is impeding the people constitutional rights much like a poll tax. Opponents also claim that by enforcing an ID law it is creating a poll tax similar to the ones created to prevent the African American people from voting. A poll tax is a specific amount a person is charged before being able to place a vote; the comparison between a poll tax and a driver’s license fee is like comparing apples and oranges, when getting a driver’s license a person is using their license as their main form of ID. Poll taxes were outlaw in the 1960s by the 24th amendment.

This conclusion is interesting due to the overall amount of confusion on the topic as explained earlier. However, multiple studies that have been published that refute this claim, and examples of such studies are demonstrated within this paper. That being said, it does not dismiss the finding that Ansolabehere mentioned about minorities being asked to show identification significantly more often than white voters. Although, this is a problem that still needs to be corrected by society as a whole, and as such, is not unique to the implementation of voter ID laws enforced in certain

Voter ID laws are the laws set into place that require a person to show some form of identification to vote, most of which require PHOTO ID. Senate Bill 14, which requires proof of Identification; providing criminal penalties and Senate Bill 5, which requires a voter to present proof of ID; providing a criminal penalty and increasing a criminal penalty are the two bills being questioned at the time. Senate bill 5 was the revised version of SB 14, which was put into place so that voters with no photo ID could sign a declaration and still cast their vote. SB 5 was thrown out with Attorney General Paxton saying “our argument is simple that this is a legitimate act of legislature. This is not discriminatory.” In 2011 the

As of February 2016, 33 states enforced voter identification requirements. The voter identification law is a law that requires specifics identification in order to avoid fraud during the election. Under the Voting Rights Act, states and localities with a history of racial discrimination needed to get permission from the federal government to enact any changes to their voting laws, in a process called “preclearance.”

I do not think stricter voter ID laws are necessary because of the already low voter turnout. If the states go stricter on voter ID laws that will lead to the voter turnout even lower. The voter ID is an ID to confirm that the person voting is same as the photo shown on the ID and the person is registered to vote. I do not think the voter ID is useful. So stricter voter ID just make people more pressure or time to do all kind of extra paper work. That just make more process and be much harder for certain groups to vote. Maybe they can do like if who have voter ID, they can go to express line. Although voter ID can reduce vote fraud but is it necessary to completely get rid of voter fraud. No, because people can still have other way to do voter

We are currently in the midst of a historical presidential election. People are rallying in mass numbers behind their presidential candidates, and come election time, they hope to have their candidate’s supporter’s turnout to vote. However, other forces such as voter ID laws may already be hindering their candidate chances by leading to a decrease in voter turnout rates. Thus, historically speaking, voter ID laws have been prevented and appealed because of a specific provision in the Voting Right Act of 1965. However, in 2013 the United States Supreme Court repealed Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act. This specific provision laid out how any changes a states makes to their voting laws, must be accepted and passed by the federal government in

Recently there have been a number of states passing legislation requiring photo identification at the voter polls. Currently thirty-four states have passed photo identification legislation. There are two forms of photo identification, non-strict and strict. Strict photo identification is when voters that do not have proper photo identification at the polls have to show their proper identification at a different time in order for their provisional ballot to count. Non-strict photo identification is when voters that do not have proper photo identification at the polls cast a provisional ballot that would be counted in a close election without the voter having to do additional tasks. Controversy surrounds the photo identification legislations

On January 23, 2017, the higher court declined Texas’ request to review their voter identification law. An appeals court back in July said their voter identification law had a discriminatory effect on African American and Hispanic voters. To vote in Texas, you have to show either a driver’s license, identification card, or concealed handgun license, military identification card, passport or citizen certificate. This law did not allow other ways voters could prove their identities. Texas petitioned to the Supreme Court stating that there was no evidence toward a discriminatory effect from their identification law. They said that the Supreme Court justices should hear the case before lower courts have stated their opinion. This led to a lot