Voter Identification Laws

The 5-4 ruling to gut that protection unleashed an immediate wave of state laws that made voting more challenging, including the addition of identification requirements, scaling back of early voting and the tightening of registration rules. Many, including the Brennan Center for Justice, have characterized these new rules as a transparent attempt to suppress the vote of demographics, such as black Americans and younger voters, who tend to vote for the Democratic

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 15th and 19th amendments play a major role in the heated topic of enforcing states to ID a citizen before being able to vote. The 15th amendment allows any citizen to vote no matter what race, color or previous condition of servitude. Also, the 19th amendment gave women the right to vote. With these amendments, they empower every citizen with the right to vote no matter any situation they are in. Yet, some states require voters to show photo ID to vote, for the sole purpose of preventing voter fraud. Only opponents of such voter ID laws argue that such laws disable the poor, the minority, and the elderly because not all of these citizens cannot afford a photo ID.

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.

The fact remains that in an ever-evolving modern society, IDs are a necessity for people in their daily lives (Zorka). IDs are needed to board a plane and to protect against insurance fraud (Zorka). Does this make airports and hospitals racist? (Zorka). The fact remains that the majority of people in the United States have identification, and it is not that much to ask to have them bring it to vote (Kobach). Kobach points out that there are more valid IDs in Kansas than there are eligible voters (Kobach). Zorka goes so far as to say that it is racist to claim that voter ID laws are disenfranchising because you are saying that minorities are too lazy to get the identification needed to vote (Zorka). In Indiana, driver’s licenses are free, which means that in no way is a voter ID law a poll tax (Siegel). Also, identification is not needed for those who are disabled or older than 65 because this may be burdensome on them (Siegel). Voter ID laws are a necessity, and the burden of obtaining an ID is not something that great. This is why the claim that voter ID hurts minorities is

The debate on whether photo identification should be required to vote has become very visible and heated over the past several years. Some argue that voter identification laws are only to keep certain people from being able to participate in an election. They claim that it is meant to dissuade minorities or certain economic demographic groups from voting. When you consider all activities that occur in our everyday lives that require photo identification, there is no valid reason to not verify someone’s identity before allowing them to cast a ballot in an election.

b.) Both Motor voter laws and Photo identification laws do not stimulate voter turnout in United State’s elections. Passed by Congress in 1993, Motor voter laws allow people to register to vote when applying for a for a drivers license. In addition, the laws provide disabled people with public assistance for voter registration fees and permit registration via mail. The passage of the laws was intended to make voter registration easier in order to encourage voter registration. While the

Voter identification laws are made specifically in order to stop certain people from voting, and hurt the candidates that they would have otherwise voted for. This can be seen from an analysis of where the voter identification laws have been passed and how they have affected the winners of elections. Source E cites a Washington Post article that draws a direct line towards voter identification laws and Republican legislatures. The article says, “Where these laws are enacted, the influence of Democrats and liberals wanes and the power of Republicans grows…” What they are really saying is that Republicans pass these laws to suppress Democratic voters, so they can be voted in again in the next election. It is a widely known fact that more minorities vote Democrat, so these Republican lawmakers try to stop some of the minorities from voting by passing these identification laws.

I was surprised to discover that voter identification began in 1950 when South Carolina became the first state to request some form of identification from voters at the polling precincts. Then Hawaii followed in 1970, Texas in 1971, Florida in 1977, and Alaska in 1980. Some of them asked for an ID with a photo, while others asked for any type of document with or without a photo; all provided other means for people to vote if they couldn 't present identification. By 2000, fourteen states were asking for voter identification documents ("Voter ID").

In contrast Midwestern states, as well as New Hampshire and Rhode Island are more likely to have white populations at or above the national average of 79% as well as higher GDP per state than their Southern counterparts as seen in Appendixes 4 and 5. Unlike Southern states, Midwestern states, plus New Hampshire and Rhode Island, have less need to keep minority and poorer populations, who are less likely to have a form of voter Id, from the voting booth because they do not hold as much sway in elections as they do in the south. In addition, a few of these states are Democratic strongholds negating any need to disenfranchise these populations as they make up the majority of the Democratic voting base. While political culture and region, race, and poverty level appear to be strong indicators of voter ID laws in the south, the Midwest alongside New

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.

So instead of jousting over the voter ID laws, should we come up with state of the art ways, so that citizens can get free ID’s, and ways for those that can’t do it themselves to possibly have a mobile service, so that all voters have an equal voting ground. A 2012 study, by Pew Center on the states, found that 2.8 million voters had

Voters Identification law may suppress minority voting and it may not suppress minority voting. We have so many different races that enter this country with permission and without. The laws for visiting or becoming a legal resident in this country is complicated especially because of the terrorist attacks. Identification laws are necessary in my opinion. It helps identify people, most importantly it helps to decrease any fraudulent activities in this country. I can say if it has anything to do with racial and ethnic minorities, maybe it’s a coincidence that majority of African Americans and Hispanic have less access to photo IDs, some of us are not legal citizens, or maybe not. The law complicates everything in general for good reasons so they feel. I can understand what the research and studies demonstrates, about the decrease in minority audience and increase Republican Party turnouts. I do believe if you have a higher mindset you can attain all things that seem impossible. I know firsthand how difficult it is for African Americans to register to vote without an ID, the law won’t even to let you register if its expired. So what the law has gotten strict, so what, that should motivate African Americans and other races in this country to push through any obstructions to get an ID so they can be apart in making changes in this society. I know African Americans went through what may have seem like Hell but they overcame it and contribute to adding Amendments, why go through

In this case, William Crawford argued that the new law was unconstitutional. The result of this trial was a landmark case for states who wanted to implement similar laws in their territories. Voter ID laws have gained public support, as these laws are made to fight voter fraud and to protect the honor of each ballot that is casted in election days. According to a 2006 Pew poll, 86 percent of Republicans along with 71 percent of Democrats said that laws should exist which made voters present a valid photo ID when they wanted to vote.