The voter ID issue starts with certain laws that, in the US, require that a person show a form of official ID before they are allowed to register to vote. This issue has split both Republicans and Democrats. According to Kenneth Jost, “republicans say [voter-ID laws] are needed to prevent fraud and protect the integrity of elections. Democrats say the laws are not needed and are being pushed in order to reduce voting among groups that skew Democratic in elections especially Latinos and African Americans” (Jost, p. 171). Both of these perspectives are valid, and with an open mind, can both sides have important points about the validity and inclusion of elections. On one hand, it is crucial to prevent fraud and keep the elections free of error, otherwise the outcome could be an unfair ruling. On the other side of the argument, voter-ID laws can cause discrimination and prevent people from voting, also …show more content…
Not all people are able to get an ID due to many reasons such as homelessness or not having the ability to update an existing ID before the election. This issue mostly affects disabled or poor persons. Another reason this issue is because certain groups of people, such as Republicans, are trying to tamp down these voters by putting up laws such as these. Those there is a legitimate reason behind these laws, it does prevent a certain amount of people from voting, enough people to swing the vote one direction or another.
For different states there have been different court decisions on these laws. States that have laws with voter-ID laws in place include Texas and Wisconsin. North Carolina, Kansas and North Dakota have overturned voter-ID, along with a few other restrictive laws on voting. I find myself on the fence about the situation. Both sides of the issue do state several points that impact the argument such lack of voter-ID increasing fraud or decreasing the range of
Stop and frisk is a brief, non-intrusive, police stop of a suspicious individual. The Fourth Amendment entails that the police have a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been, or is in progress before stopping a suspect. If the officer realistically is certain that the person is carrying a weapon and is dangerous, the officers can conduct a search, a rapid pat down of the suspect’s exterior clothing. A law enforcement officer may stop and briefly detain a person for investigatory purposes if the officer has a reasonable suspicion supported by articulable facts of impending criminal activity. Reasonable suspicion is less demanding than probable cause, less quantity of evidence or information is needed. Reasonable suspicion can come from information less reliable than needed for probable cause.
Stop and Frisk is a procedure put into use by the New York Police Department that allows an officer to stop and search a “suspicious character” if they consider her or him to be. The NYPD don’t need a warrant, or see you commit a crime. Officers solely need to regard you as “suspicious” to violate your fourth amendment rights without consequences. Since its Beginning, New York City’s stop and frisk program has brought in much controversy originating from the excessive rate of arrest. While the argument that Stop and Frisk violates an individual’s fourth amendment rights of protection from unreasonable search and seizure could definitely be said, that argument it’s similar to the argument of discrimination. An unfair number of Hispanics and
The issues surrounding the voter ID law have been shrouded in controversy. The voter ID law is a law that require voters to show a valid form of photo identification before receiving a ballot to vote. It has been said to protect the integrity of the electoral ballots, but many feel as though the voter ID law was made to favor those who are more conservative than those who are more liberal in their view on the government. This may be due to the fact that polling stations will only accept valid government issued photo IDs and weapons permits, not including college IDs. This new law also may be disenfranchising towards minorities. Many are calling it a poll tax on minority voters, creating an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote. Others
The wave of new voting restrictions passed around the country, mostly by Republicans, after their victories in the 2010 elections. Supporters of the law argue that such restrictions are necessary to prevent fraud. On the other hand, voting law opponents contend these laws disproportionately affect elderly, minority and low-income groups that tend to vote Democratic. Obtaining photo ID can be costly and burdensome because photo ID laws create a new "financial barrier to the ballot box”. It would have prevented hundreds of thousands of Hispanic voters from the polls just because they lack a state-issued photo ID.
The “Election and voting: Voter Identification” is a debate between three sides with different opinions about the voter identification law. Each side is represented by Chandler Davidson, Hans von Spakovsky, and Edward Foley. This debate is about whether the voter identification laws should be in place or not. Davidson is against the voting id laws stating its historical context and how it will affect the minorities, older and student during the election time. Spakovsky supports the law saying “the law would prevent voter fraud” and make elections strong and fair. Third, position held by Foley is that voter fraud is a problem and voter id law would help prevent it, but we need to make sure that everyone will have an easy access to the designated places.
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 has caused trouble in states, including Texas, regarding the various amount of identification requirements needed.
The most critiqued argument is that mandating voting is just un-American. The con side argues that forcing people to vote violates our freedom of speech. But they don’t feel that the requirement to pay taxes and serve as a jure are unjust. This seems contradictory. The second argument is that requiring all citizens to vote would result in many uninformed and carelessly voters. They continue this argument by stating many people would cast “donkey votes” which are votes for a random candidate because they are required to vote by law. There are many arguments for and against compulsory voting but it comes down to what makes something
Proponents of the issue use the argument that same day voter registration would increase voter turnout, which in fact, it has been proven to do. The three states that have currently adopted same day registration, Maine, Minnesota, and Wisconsin, have seen voter turnout increase by about 5%. This is due to the reduction in the cost of voting to the voter. Pre- registration requires time and effort, something so many Americans seem unwilling to spend. By allowing same day registration, the voter no longer has to have the foresight to register, nor take the time to find the registration place and then actually send in the registration card.
In the presidential primaries, closed primary voters tend to be seen more extreme than the voters in the open primary. Voters in a closed primary can only vote for the party they have registered themselves as through the voter’s registration form they are required to fill out before they are even eligible to vote. Norrander states that more independents vote in the open primaries rather than the closed primaries, unlike the republicans and democrats, because of the rules and party identification. In the states that conduct the primaries using party identification laws were seen to have more party members and few independents. In a survey, Norrander found that the higher level of voters who claimed to be independents were in the states that had either semi-closed primaries or open primaries. The fewest amount of independent voters was found in the semi-open and closed primary
Voters should care about redistricting because it cherry-picks voters, can be used to eliminate an incumbent, eliminate an opponent, skews state-wide representation, dilutes minority voting, and splits up communities. The lines are tailored more to fit the representatives and not the voters.
Voter ID laws eliminate all forms of voter fraud and restore integrity to elections, Government-issued photo IDs are inexpensive and easy to obtain, and voter ID laws don’t restrict the right to vote and restore confidence to voters. To begin with, what is voter fraud? Voter fraud is the illegal obstruction of an election. Voter fraud is composed of double voting, intimidation, undocumented citizens voting, tampering with electronic or paper ballots, as well as deceased voting. Some opponents, such as Attorney General Eric Holder, suggest that there is not a problem with voter fraud.
IDs as a valid form of identification, nor can out of state students vote without a valid
America’s low voter turnout has been attributed to the political parties’ failure to enliven the potential voters with the awareness and competitiveness in elections and the overall difficulty of the registration and voting process. The research portion of this project was predominantly provided from four books focused on voter turnout, whether it was perceived to be increasing or decreasing. The article was found using one of the books and altogether the sources provided analytical and institutional perspectives on American voter turnout. I believe voter turnout, along with voter registration, is steadily declining in America due to multiple factors, though the topics touched on above are largely impacting us today.
Teens are old enough at 16 and 17 to have photo IDs and be tried as adults for serious crimes. It's a double standard to deny them the right to vote while giving them the same penalties as adults. (Should the Voting Age be Lowered? Teens are unfairly treated if they aren’t given the representation of a vote. “Just like all other Americans, young Americans pay taxes. In fact, they pay a lot of taxes. According to the IRS, teens pay an estimated $9.7 billion dollars in sales taxes alone, not to mention many millions of taxes on income.” (The Pros and Cons of Lowering the Voting Age). Teens can make a claim for representation when they’re taxed by a government that they have no say in. “Politicians represent various constituencies. As of today, young people are no one's constituency. Why should politicians care about the needs and wishes of youth when they have no ability to vote for or against them?” (The Pros and Cons of Lowering the Voting Age). Teen’s interests should be protected just like those of every other citizen. That doesn’t negate their inability to make rational voting decisions, however.
Each voter would have to take a test prior to voting to assess whether or not they are actually voting for what they want or just voting because they now are required. Otherwise, the vote of the informed citizens will be cancelled out by the vote of those who are not informed and that would not properly reflect on any group’s desires. Many forced votes would be picked randomly, or whoever comes first on the ballot. Recent work suggests that compulsory voting has no noticeable effect on political knowledge or interest, (Engelen and Hooghe, 2007) nor any evident effect on electoral outcomes (Selb and Lachat, 2007). Democratic rights are founded upon the belief in people’s ability to make rational judgments. If a citizen is rational, and voting is in their own best interest, then there isn’t a need to force them to vote.