In 2005, the state of Indiana passed a voter ID law. The law requires that a valid photo ID must be presented by a person casting a ballot at a polling station. The law caused a big problem and we appealed all the way to the Supreme Court. CNN’s Bill Mears wrote an article depicting the court’s ruling entitled, “High court upholds Indiana’s voter ID laws.” The article states, “The 6-3 vote allows Indiana to require the identification.” Mears also comments by saying that this was, “the biggest voter rights case taken up by the justices since the 2000 dispute over Florida’s ballots, in which George W. Bush prevailed to gain the presidency.” The article also quotes Justice John Paul Stevens who wrote the majority for the court saying, “[A]ny political issues considered by the state were mitigated by its desire to stop voter fraud.” While the article also quotes the dissenting opinion judge, Justice David Souter by stating, “Indiana has made no such justification for the statute and as to some aspects of its law, it hardly even tried.” Personally I believe the most important part of this law that makes this law justifiable is this quote by the article, “For those lacking a driver’s license or other government-issued photo ID such as a passport, the state provides a free voter…
Poll after poll shows the majority of Minnesotans want a photo ID requirement to vote (“Poling Results”). This shows that the public does not have full confidence in the fairness of our current election system. Fair, transparent elections are essential to the functioning of our representative republic. We deserve to have confidence in the integrity of our election system. Nothing inspires that confidence like photo ID. Other countries already have voter ID or verification already in place.…
Compulsory voting would help citizens to become further educated about voting. In accordance to the George Mason University citizens with a lower education or are of a younger age, have a lower percentage of voter turnout(Doc. B). This would be caused by the fact that these citizens don’t have much knowledge of how to vote. Having compulsory voting would eliminate this due to the fact that…
First, Models 1-4 suggest that turnout does not have a significant impact on party strength. In the national party strength models, turnout does indeed have a significant and positive impact on party strength. This finding makes perfect sense. At the start of the period of study, whether one voted was highly dependent on class. Today, this relationship is not as strong. Figures 3.3 and 3.4 show a distinctive upward trend in the data. Moreover, midterm effects are visible. It makes it reasonable to expect that more new voters were showing up at the polls and voting for at least some Republican candidates in high profile races. Turnout is not by itself significant in any of the state party strength models. This suggests that candidates such as Senator Trent Lott and President Ronald Reagan may have been able to convince new southern voters to show up and vote for them, but those new voters continued to vote for Democratic candidates in state level…
Voter identification laws has been a controversial issue on whether or not it should be implemented in every state in America. 34 states have passed laws that required voters who registered to show a photo identification issued by the government before voting. This leaves only 16 states that do not require voters to have photo identification. The whole purpose of voter identification was to stop people from impersonating other people and fraud, but some people believe that voter identification can create barriers for people to vote or can cause people to not vote at all. As a result, voter identification can be looked as a just law making voting as honest as it can be or a way to prevent people from voting.…
We are a democratic country, with this comes a responsibility which involves voting. In Canada every citizen, over the age of eighteen, has the right to vote, but so many chose not to. With voters turn out toward outstanding lows, wouldn't mandatory voting make the best law based solution? Britannica.com describes compulsory voting as a, “system in some countries, notably Australia and Belgium, electoral participation is legally required, and nonvoters can face fines. The concept of compulsory voting reflects a strain in democratic theory in which voting is considered not merely a right but a duty. Its purpose is to ensure the electoral equality of all social groups.” There are a number of reasons why individuals might not vote, for instance,…
Voting has become a huge dilemma in a few states one of those states being Texas. In 2014, Texas forced a new law, to be eligible to vote you must show identification. Since 2014, many studies show that voting has decreased.…
It has been instituted multiple times in the past, specifically targeted towards groups of people (women, blacks, non-property owning men), and amendments have been made so that all citizens of the United States can vote (the 19th, 26th, etc.) Supporters of the test argue that it is a check on ignorant voters, and allows us to uphold the privileges of the informed citizens, and keep our democracy stable. However, a voting test is unrealistic, and the issue of an even smaller voter turnout arises, along with questions about the specifics of the test, including who would create the test, a suitable length for the test, a passing grade, and how to enforce the test, to ensure everyone voting takes it. Another problem with instituting a voting test is, it would be useless as a check on ignorant voters. The founding fathers of the nation created a system where the popular vote doesn’t decide the presidency, the electoral college does. Since we already have a check on ignorant voters, the voting test, which may sound good in theory but not so much in practice, would be a wasted, ineffective…
All forms of life have rights, whether you agree or not. In terms of the Human Race, this has varied throughout time. Especially for people of color. These disputes continued even after slavery was put to an end. It continued on in a movement known as the Civil Rights movement. A movement that is still yet very live today.…
It is the duty of the American people to play an active role in determining who represents their best interests in Congress. Stephen Witham, in his presentation titled, Becoming an Informed Voter, says the following in regards to the American peoples’ responsibility to not only vote, but to do so intelligently, “We, as voters, are supposed to focus primarily on electing Congress…I challenge the students to think about voting for an individual based on the way they vote to represent you in Congress.” In response to the aforesaid…
As of 2012, 1.8 million dead people were registered to vote, a serious concern. In California, John Cenker voted from the grave 5 times, including two presidential elections, and it is roughly estimated that there are around 300 others in the Southern California area just like him. While it does not seem like a large part of the population, elections do get decided by small portions of the electorate with some frequency, making the relevance of voter fraud felt in those situations. To deal with this and other related issues, the government should issue Voter IDs to prevent the dead from voting and remain vigilant with regards to multiple votes cast by other individuals.…
Von Spakovsky argues that this law will only improve our great nation. He argues that this is a basic requirement to insure the integrity of its citizens. This requirement will not only prevent illegal citizens from voting, but also prevent citizens from voting more than once. With this occurring, our elections are not as accurate as they could be. In addition, the author brings to attention that there is not fraud in every election, but with close elections, voter ID laws could make sure every vote is accurate. Another point brought up is that Americans use identification cards on a daily basis. For example, citizens use them to “board a plane, drive a car, check into a hotel, buy alcohol, or see a doctor”(Von Spakovsky). An ID card is a very reasonable requirement and is very accessible to all Americans. I agree with Von Spakovsky in the fact that this should be required and will help prevent fraud. In the world today, there are many ways individuals can travel to a DMV. In addition, ID cards do not expire for 10 years, which makes it even worth the trip to help…
(civilrights.org, 2013). Are you kidding me? The more I read about the outrage against the law the angrier I become! An article published by the Washington Post made it seem like we were being ridiculous and unnecessarily harsh with lower-income minorities. (Horwitz, May 23). Why in the world wouldn’t the entire United States implement this procedure? It’s not racism, it’s completely fair. People want equality until it doesn’t benefit them. The article went on to say “Opponents say that the laws were designed to target people more likely to vote Democratic.” Give me a break. It’s to ensure that legal, productive members of society are the one’s casting their votes. It’s common sense. It’s not to discriminate. People 18 and older should have some sort of proper identification. Like I said before, this is obviously not a black and white situation. There are always going to be people that were dealt a bad hand or have a special circumstance. Make it easier for those people to share their stories and obtain identification, not change the law to let just anyone walk in and vote. The article also mentioned that Texas also allowed concealed handgun license to be used as proper identification. How very Texan of…
Voter ID laws in America go back to the 1950’s, when South Carolina became the first state that required a person to have some form of identification document or in some cases, a photo ID to vote or receive a ballot for an election. Throughout many years this topic became a controversial issue in America and has caused a major uproar between American citizens. Voter ID laws are backed up by voter fraud claims that are not accurate. President Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton both acted upon this issue and addressed voter ID laws in America in two different speeches.…
Groups who are disenfranchised have little ability to affect who represents them or to influence their behavior in office. Certain laws affect poor, young and minority Americans’ (such as African Americans) rights to vote and also affects their descriptive and policy representation. These laws mainly affect minorities’ Formalistic representation, which means that they cannot have an input on a politician’s means by which the representative obtains his/her status. That effectively gives them no rights on the outcomes of elections that should be given to all people from the 14th amendment. If we still have laws disenfranchising certain groups how far have we really come?…