Voter Identification Law Essay

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.

The idea of Voter ID laws began to sprung after the 2000 election, when George W. Bush won Florida after it was too close to call.

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 2002, with the intention of updating election technology, hampering voter fraud, and increasing faith in the electoral system, President George W. Bush signed into law the Help America Vote Act (Gerken 14). Since the implementation of this act, controversial voter identification laws have begun springing up all over the country. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, “thirty-one states require all voters to show ID before voting at the polls. In fifteen of these, the ID must include a photo of the voter; in the remaining sixteen, non-photo forms of ID are acceptable” (Voter Identification Requirements). In 2005 Indiana lawmakers passed one of the strictest voter identification laws in the country requiring voters

Texas has also long supported an increase in border security. In 2006, Gov. Rick Perry announced a plan that assigned Department of Public Safety personnel as well as other resources to the border to assist in law enforcement. He also added an additional $3.8 million in grant funding for state criminal justice planning funds to the Texas Border Sheriff’s Coalition. (Texas House of Representatives) The state’s legislative policy has been one of strict anti-immigration. In Texas’s 81st Legislative session, the issue of Voter ID arose. The Voter ID bill would require photo identification or two forms of other identification in order to vote. During the 81st session, Democrats filibustered to prevent the issue from being voted upon, it is very likely this is the only reason the bill did not pass and it likely will pass should it reappear in the 82nd session.

Voting is one of the most essential right’s that we obtain in the United States. African Americans and women have struggled for the right to vote for years. The right to vote is the way we the people get to get our voice heard. Unfortunately, Texas voting turnout is one of the lowest in the nation. There are numerous of reasons that make Texas one of the states with a low voter turnout rate.

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.

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?

Holder it was determined that times have changed since the 1960’s, yet the new state voting ID laws show how minorities continue to be oppressed by the dominant race. According to states like Alabama, Texas and Mississippi they are enacting these voting ID laws to prevent voter fraud during elections, yet evidence has shown that voting fraud is almost non-existent(The Voting Rights Act: Hard-Won Gains, An Uncertain Future). Also, the states do not take into consideration inequalities that these laws will reveal. These actions made by the states show their unequal treatment towards the minority class because they will be the most affected by these laws. There are a variety of reasons why people would not be able to obtain an ID, the most common one will be financial hardships. It is evident that there is a wage gap in the U.S economy and that minorities earn less than the average white American. It was an unjust decision of the Supreme Court to take away the law that gave them equality and did not require them to make extra prerequisites in order to be able to vote. These regulatory measures are another way to keep these minorities oppressed and ultimately keep the social hierarchy as it is, dominant race at the top and the minorities at the bottom, having to work their way up the social ladder. The supreme court decision was unwarranted due to the knowledge of discrimination still happening in the

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

In Arizona, the voter registration system was confusing which resulted in tens of thousands of people who thought they are registered to vote were disenfranchised when they try to vote. It was a way for Arizona to enforce the proof of citizenship requirement. If an individual in Arizona wanted to vote both state and federal elections, the individual must provide specific documents such as a birth certificate to prove citizenship. Such “political disenfranchisement” (Chavez-Garcia 550) was seen by the Supreme Court and held that Arizona cannot add a document to prove citizenship in federal elections which every state has to accept the federal form. This “dual registration system” is designed to deprive registration for eligible soon to be voters

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

Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines democracy "as a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by the people" (www.merriam-webster.com). But the one big problem is that "We the people" are not exercising their "supreme power" to determine the U.S. government. Less than half of the eligible electorate showed up at the polls for the 1996 U.S. presidential election. While lower turnout has marred previous presidential elections, 1996's voter turnout dipped below 50 percent for the first time in more than 30 years. It appears that the people's increasing cynicism about politicians that they lie to get elected and the perception that people have no respect or confidence in the

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.

Gunmen on the grassy knoll, AIDS, landing on the moon, chemtrails, UFO’s, CIA mind control and Waco are some of the well-known conspiracies. But what about George W. Bush’s re-election? This cynicism goes beyond political rhetoric and focuses on our ability to participate in a representative democracy. Developed by the ancient Greeks, one of the first voting systems involved dropping bronze disks into barrels. As technology progressed, the advancements in voting systems surrendered an unacceptable system that lacks accuracy despite public outcry for a paper-verified trail.