Voter Identification Laws

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

These states may not be aware that they are disregarding the twenty-sixth amendment.Amendment XXVI to the United States Constitution prohibits the states and the federal government from using age as a reason for denying the right to vote to citizens

It 's the time of the season when the stakes run high. Our democracy is currently under a fierce battle to decide its next leader, supreme court justice, and overall pathway forward. Another item on the docket of democracy is the new voter ID laws. These laws have been strengthening and becoming more widespread over the past decade. North Carolina is but the latest state to adopt this voter ID policy and with the current circumstances, few realize the fierce battle North Carolina is facing.. These new laws, passed laws in 2013, made showing an approved government issued ID mandatory if one wanted to vote this election cycle. In addition they also outlawed same day registration and the ability to vote outside one 's precinct. North Carolina’s passage was just another addition to the ongoing controversy surrounding these voter ID laws. This is an issue that has divided the nation, and now our home state. Critics of the new laws say that the laws disenfranchise potential voters, specifically those of African-American and Hispanic backgrounds. Supporters of the laws have adopted the platform that voting is a privilege and that the new laws are necessary and proper to protect against voter fraud. Whichever side you find yourself on one thing is clear, these new

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

Why? Because of the strong impact it has on the outcome of the election and the number of votes registered. According to Lauren Justice, Latino’s especially were less likely to vote in ‘12 than in ‘08 because of their inability to get a hand of the identification (3). Thousands of people in the states have not been able to require all the necessary items they need in order to get an ID. Some states require an original birth certificate which isn’t always easy to get because of where it’s from. This may not be a problem to some, some like the republicans who set up these laws. Calling them ‘fair’, ‘necessary’, and ‘voter friendly’. The reason they set these rules up is to keep Democrats from stealing elections. How would they do it? Based on numerous studies and surveys, election fraud has been found to be rare, and the in-person fraud that the laws could prevent is virtually absent (Justice 2). Not only is this absurd, but these laws makes it even more difficult for people. If by any means they are not able to get an ID, states like Texas and Wisconsin may let them take an oath. An oath that lets those without an approved ID vote after signing it, only after stating that they cannot “reasonably” obtain one. What about the others who weren’t able to ‘reasonably’ obtain one? What about all the others who can’t take the oath? How can this be fixed? What the states need to do in order for these problems to be fixed is to get rid of the strictness these laws have on the voting. If they do, then more people are willing to vote and can impact the election greatly. If this were to happen, maybe Donald Trump would have not become president and more votes would have

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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 1973 Congress amended the Voting Rights Act and extended protections to members of “languages minorities.” The new language minorities’ classification meant that the act’s protection now extended to voters non-English speaking minorities. These classifications included those who spoke Spanish, Native American languages, Native Alaskan languages, and Asian languages. Some of the changes to the new amendment within the Voting Rights Act prohibited literacy tests as a requirement for voter registration. It also required jurisdictions with large minority language speaking populations to have non-English speaking ballots as well as oral voting instructions that conformed to the language minorities within their districts. Additionally, the new amendments to the Voting Rights Act also protected minorities from voter dilution (the nullification of minority group votes through a

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