Voter Id Laws Essay

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 a modernized society that highly values civil rights and equality, it is paramount for every citizen of a country to vote. Throughout history, people of minority and many others have fought for the notorious right to vote, and some even putting their lives on the line. Thus, a blessing of compulsory voting will not only give everybody an opportunity to voice how their country would like to be governed, but also presents a fair representation of what people want. One shouldn’t discount compulsory voting to pose a havoc on civil rights, it grants everyone that right regardless of citizenship and class. Countries should adopt compulsory voting, as countries will govern better and citizens would be happier as their country would be controlled by how they like.

Several countries have mandatory voting for its citizens. Is it something the United States should pursue? Mandatory voting would definitely increase the percentage of votes cast. It would make voting a duty and no longer a right. With most people who vote straight party this would be an advantage to the party who has appeased the most voters as they would come in and cast the quickest vote by straight line voting. It could be possible that knowing you had to vote, one may take more interest in learning more about candidates or constitutional amendments that are on the ballots. However, I am in favor of the opposing view. I think it is a right and privilege and should not be forced upon a person. If you force people to do something they don’t want to do then the you will reap the results. You will have uniformed voters become the majority and making decisions for the country. The politicians base will no longer be the main concern as they now will have to make a push for the politically uneducated voter which will be more about what they can give them than policy issues. This also makes what the

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

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.

Voter identification laws jeopardize the validity of our elections and create a climate in which people are disincentivized to vote. Voter identification laws aim to solve a problem that frankly does not exist. The main reason for their implementation is supposedly that they help in stopping the ‘widespread’ voter fraud in our American elections. However, voter fraud is such a miniscule problem that it can basically be overlooked, especially because of the electoral system works for the elections. According to Source D, researchers at Loyola Law School have found that "out of the one billion votes cast between 2000 and 2014, there were just 31 cases of voter fraud.

The map in Appendix 6 shows the partisan competitiveness of each congressional district in the United States. Southern states, such as Georgia, South Carolina, and Mississippi, show areas of deep blue, indicating congressional districts that are safely Democratic, surrounded by areas of deep red, indicating areas are safely Republican, with very little in between. This shows that there is little to no competition within these states for congressional races and it would appear Republicans have successfully gerrymandered these states to send majority republican delegations to congress. There is, therefore, a lack of partisan competitiveness in these states, which may be a result of the strict voter ID laws. The strict voter ID laws passed in these states may have been intended to help further the Republican strangle hold in these states in conjunction with the Gerrymandered congressional districts, especially considering these states are not competitive in general elections as

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?

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

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

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

Industrial Countries all over the world have seen a steady decline in voter participation; Great Britain is a great example of this. The country has witness turnout in elections falling slowly as time pass. However, the election of 2001 dropped the country from their average of 76% voter turnout to just a 59.4% turnout. Comparatively, Australia, a former colony of Britain, has enjoyed high and steady voter participation since 1924 because of the implementation of compulsory voting. This system has proven to be not only effective in bring voters to the polls, but also effective in improving Australia’s democracy. By evaluating these two countries with similar political structure; one can see the difference in compulsory voting turnouts

The topics discussed in this research paper are some of the political issues that the people of the United States face everyday. Starting with the Voter ID laws, which were first enacted in the 1950’s by South Carolina (1). Since than it has been a method used by registered voters to present some type of formal identification before voting at there local government poll. This created a way to insure that residents of the united states did not vote multiple times and that the actual resident registered to vote was being represented. Although the disadvantages of the Voter ID laws are also endless, by enforcing identification to be present during the time voting period people who did not have the proper documentation were not allowed to vote. This created a demising situation between people who were legally registered to vote but did not have the proper identification document to vote therefore creating less votes in the voting process.

The ultimate source of political power in the United States lays in the people as we carry out our civic responsibilities. By voting Americans can choose who they trust as a national leader, but the candidate can choose the kind of people who chooses them. Politicians have believed that citizens are illegally meddling with elections by either increasing or decreasing the votes of a favored candidate, but if such a crime exists, and there are many ways of doing so, why is it difficult to find evidence of it.

The American system of government is democratic. Democracy is a form of government in which people choose leaders by voting. In America, elections are held at the local, state, and federal levels. In elections, voters choose from one of several candidates from various political parties for open office positions. The United States has two major political parties: Democrat and Republican. There are more political parties, but with the way the electoral process works, most third parties will not succeed, since they will not get sufficient popular vote. However, for the office of President and Vice President, the popular vote does not determine the President and Vice President the Electoral College does. Many eligible voters have decided to “protest vote,” meaning not voting at all or voting third party, because these voters value voting for a candidate who most aligns with their beliefs rather than voting for a candidate that is likely to be elected. Protest voting is a controversial action, with positive and negative aspects, but it does affect the outcome of the election. This is because major parties care about what third-party voters think and may change their platforms accordingly. Protest voting is a significant liberty that Americans can use to express their democratic right.