 |
| States affected by the Civil Rights Act of 1965 (and therefore the SCOTUS decision of 2013) |
with a history of discrimination in voting (particularly the Deep South) to additional oversight by the Department of Justice. The conservative decision, in short, said that the formula determining which districts required additional oversight was outdated. The liberal perspective holds that the VRA is still critical in preventing discrimination at the polls.
 |
| States that has implemented voter ID or other laws to restrict voting |
This SCOTUS decision made it easier for many states to pass "voter id bills," which have become the center of the current debate regarding discrimination at the polling place. Across the nation, states with Republican leadership are passing laws that require voters to show picture ID on election day. The Republican rationale is that Voter ID bills, like the one passed in Wisconsin, will prevent in-person voter fraud. The Democratic response has been that the bills are a supposed solution without a real answer. They assert that in-person voter fraud is not a major problem, and that instead these bills are designed to suppress the votes of poor people, minorities, the elderly (least likely to have a driver license), young people and students (most likely to move and therefore not have a current ID) and women (most likely to change their name) -- all of whom are statistically likely to support Democrats. Some Republicans have referenced how these bills can also be understood as strategies to decrease Democratic voter turnouts, as demonstrated by Pennsylvania Representative Turzai (R), and more recently by Governor Chris Christie.
As you can see, we have a significant difference in the way the two parties view the situation. The core difference is that Republicans tend to believe the biggest problem is preventing voter fraud; while Democrats believe the biggest problem is people who should be allowed to vote being denied their right to do so.
What do you think? (Due by Monday, 11/9)
- Read up on several perspectives about the voter ID bill in Wisconsin (which was first implemented in the Tuesday election) and similar bills around the nation. Just to get you started, here is a conservative editorial (WSJ), and here is a liberal argument (Mother Jones), but you should also look elsewhere (please share sources).
- Keep in mind that finding valid statistics is really difficult in this case, as each side uses different studies (not to mention most of the debate is theoretical and doesn't often discuss the statistical frequency of fraud). Having said that, this article (ABCnews) takes a non-partisan look at each side's view of the numbers.
- Post a comment to this post recording your thoughts on voter ID bills or responding to the thoughts of your classmates. Are these bills discriminatory or simply good governance? Are they a political strategy or necessary measures? Is requiring a voter ID requirement a new form of poll tax (see Twenty-Fourth Amendment)? What evidence jumps out at you as most influential in shaping your opinion of these bills?
I believe that Voter ID laws are substantially discriminatory. While some of the numbers may be exaggerated, there is no doubt that minorities have less access and availability to have ID’s ready for voting. A survey done by the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law shows results that display how certain demographics of the voting population are at a disadvantage if Voter ID laws were in place. The study says that while approximately 7% of the voting population of the US does not have a readily available form of ID overall, at least 12% of people earning less than $25,000 a year do not have an ID, and only 66% of voter-eligible women have an ID with their current legal name (I don’t know if having your current legal name as part of your ID is part of Wisconsin’s Voter ID Law, but this could certainly weigh in if any state was to make this a part of their law). 18% of American citizens over 65 do not have a government issued form of photo ID, and 25% of African Americans do not have one either. Of course, all of these results have rather significant margins of error (all of these statistics have margins of error at least 5%) which takes a lot of the punch out of these results, but even factoring those in at worst case scenarios, it is clear that through this survey that Voter ID laws would make it harder for minorities to be able to vote. Also, these demographics are all more likely to vote Democratic than Republican, just throwing that out there.
ReplyDelete(Source: http://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/d/download_file_39242.pdf)
Another reason for why Voter ID laws are unnecessary/undemocratic is that voter fraud is not really a problem, especially not the types of Voter Fraud which Voter ID laws would protect against. The article by ABC News tells us that Voter ID laws only protect against voter impersonation, showing that statistics about voter fraud include every type of illegal voting, suggesting that these Voter ID laws would only stop a certain amount of the overall voter fraud instances from occuring. So while the Conservative argument keeps on saying how bad voter fraud is and that these Voter ID laws need to be passed to stop this threat, the laws themselves wouldn’t even put a dent in the overall problem of voter fraud (given that voter fraud is a problem at all). This combined with the earlier paragraph have brought me to the conclusion that Voter ID laws discriminate against certain demographics, and the payoff for them is quite unsubstantial.
(Source: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/voter-fraud-real-rare/story?id=17213376)
I don’t really see how Voter ID laws could be deemed as a poll tax because any argument saying that the laws are breaking the 24th Amendment will be utterly destroyed by the provision of the laws’ saying that the government will provide free photo ID’s for all citizens . However, you have to ask yourself how easy these “free” ID’s will be to procure and how accessible they will be to especially the people who are in most need of ID’s (see first paragraph).
Also, even though I back the side of the liberal article's viewpoint, the article itself was very derogatory towards Republicans and had a very strong “Us Vs. Them” mentality to the whole piece, making politics seem like a brutal war, with each side saying rumors about the other ones and exaggerating each other’s policies to make them seem like brutes. However much I agree with the article, I have to say, the article won’t really change anyone’s minds about the issue and will only make Republicans more mad at Democrats and Democrats angrier towards Republicans. The style of the writing also made me doubt any facts that the article had to say (I can say about the same for the Conservative article, but this one was far worse).
-Dan Iselin
I fully agree with you on your analysis of the two articles. This is a topic that is very challenging to find unbiased sources. Different groups have different facts which makes it easy to justify either side.
DeleteBuilding off your last paragraph, it felt really difficult to find statistics and credible sources. Whenever a statistic was presented, I had to question its validity (regardless of Democratic/Republican bias). Reading articles of different biases felt like reading on almost two different topics; they seem to operate in different realities.
DeleteI think voter ID laws are a good thing. Not only do they prevent voter fraud, but they can also restore some confidence in our elections. It’s just common sense to require an ID. You need IDs for many things in modern life, so why can’t we bring one to vote?
ReplyDeleteIt’s hard to say how much of a problem voter fraud is because we don’t catch many people committing it. That could mean it’s not a problem. Nevertheless, people are worried about voter fraud. Voter ID laws are meant to assuage those fears and ensure we have fair elections. The only politics behind this is giving people what they want. In Kansas, 83% of people support voter ID laws. If we can restore confidence to elections, it’s worth it. Also, isn’t it worth it to ensure one person, one vote?
Voter ID laws are not discriminatory as long as IDs are easy to get. Kansas has the right idea by offering free IDs to any state resident that needs one. Not only that, IDs are more common than we think. As long as the government keeps IDs accessible, there is no discrimination. Following the example of Kansas would be good. They accept driver’s licenses, non-driver ID cards, concealed carry handgun licenses, U.S. passports, government employee IDs, U.S. military IDs, Kansas college IDs, Government Public Assistance IDs, and indian tribe IDs. There is nothing discriminatory about this because they accept so many IDs. They even give out IDs if you don’t have one of the others.
Proper implementation of voter ID laws would not be discriminatory or harm our election process. Kansas has come up with a voter ID law that is balanced and fair. There is nothing discriminatory and it is a perfect example of the right way to implement voter ID laws. Implementing these laws would help restore the people’s confidence in elections, making them worth it.
You make some very good points about why voter ID laws are good and not discriminatory.
DeleteI agree. Voter IDs should be implemented and if done right then there really should be no problem. I put a big emphasis on correctly though, because if they aren't easy enough to get a hold of, then one could start to argue that they are in fact discriminatory.
DeleteYeah that makes sense. But until ID's can be easily accessed by EVERYONE, voter ID laws will be inherently prejudiced against those who can't easily get them. Also the Kansas example is a really good one, I think that if the policies there were implemented nationwide then having voter ID laws would bring back some importance to elections.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis is an interesting idea - making voter ID ubiquitous so that groups are not discriminated against.
DeleteHowever, I do not think that voter fraud is a prominent issue in our society - I think that the fear of voter fraud stems from a similar overarching fear of immigrants and external opinions. Throughout American history, we can see these same concerns. For example, in the 1800s, many Americans were concerned about the growing Irish Catholic population who might influence society with different opinions from the American ideal. The whole thing has been blown out of proportion and the few cases of voter fraud are unlikely to have any political influence.
Additionally, I think that it would be very difficult to enforce this dissemination of photographic IDs. It would require a lot of resources and funding and is simply not worth the few cases of voter fraud that is actually present (and this still might not even solve the issue). We should be focusing our resources on other issues and we should make voting accessible to everyone who is eligible. Voter ID laws do not solve the issue of voter fraud efficiently and removes a large portion of the population from being able to vote. Even if done correctly, it takes a substantial amount of government resources to be able to do this.
Kansas is a great example, and once other states start doing similar things then implementing voter IDs would be beneficial
DeletePersonally, I think requiring voter IDs really doesn’t hurt anything. Currently the main argument by democrats is that the requirement of Voter IDs will keep certain voters (who usually vote democrat) from voting due to the fact that they would need an ID. I personally believe that they’re using this idea as an argument simply to keep an law that was coined by Republicans from passing.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, I think that this will successfully eliminate voter fraud. I don’t personally believe that this is a major issue, but I do believe that it exists and adding such a law would certainly get rid of the problem, however minor.
The accusation that requiring a Voting ID is a form of poll tax, however, is something that requires a little bit more of a discussion. A poll tax is defined as a tax that is a qualification for voting, so the question is is does the requirement of a voting ID fall under this category? I can certainly see how one could argue that it is, but I personally don’t see it that way. Since the voter ID serves a clear purpose, it's not simply a discriminatory tax. The ID is meant to keep polls fair, not to keep a certain group of people from voting.
Good arguments but I would like to point out that Republicans are implementing these laws as a way to gain ground on election days. The Republicans also want to limit the amount of democratic voters because then the republicans are more likely to win. Is that not some type of cheating? By limiting others that want a say but can not have one because they can not afford to have an ID or no longer need one because of age there is an amount of cheating going on. The republicans are deliberately silencing a portion of the voting class of americans just because they want better chances on election days. You are still being discriminatory in these manners.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe rationale behind voter ID laws is logical, but its implementation has proven discriminatory. The major argument for voter ID has been the fear of voter fraud, of whether elections have democratic integrity. Whether voter fraud is a serious problem in the U.S. right now appears to be debatable; both parties have statistics supporting their beliefs. What’s exasperating is the apparent lack of in-depth statistics on voter fraud; what kind of voter fraud is being committed? How common are voter fraud cases? How often was voter fraud reported or discovered overall? The ABC news article provided statistics with context: out of the 51 people convicted of voter fraud in Texas over the past decade, only 4 were for voter impersonation. As in, voter ID laws would have prevented four false votes. Still, one could argue that those four votes (and the others from the rest of the country) are still undermining the entire system. If there were no drawbacks to these laws, I would go along with them, even if voter fraud didn’t appear to be an obvious problem to me. It’s the principle of it, right?
ReplyDeleteHowever, voter ID laws aren’t harmless. Photo IDs aren’t as universal as expected. And it’s apparent that those most likely to lack a qualifying ID are elderly, minority, and low-income (Source: http://www.npr.org/2012/01/28/146006217/why-new-photo-id-laws-mean-some-wont-vote ). Removing the ability to vote from Americans is the opposite of democratic, so how is this problem supposed to be fixed? The main argument is that access to photo IDs is easy and free. Republican-leaning articles provided little information as to how one would obtain a free ID, and Democratic-leaning articles scathingly accused the system of being difficult and discriminatory. I went to the state government’s website (source: http://www.gab.wi.gov/node/1917 ) , which is provides the official information. What appears to be reasonable is actually nonviable. First of all, you must visit the local DMV, which may or may not be within transportable distance and may or may not be open. Laws have been passed in Wisconsin which close DMVs more often for the sake of tax money, but apparently have the added benefit of narrowing the accessibility of that free ID. Then you need to provide ID to get your ID, such as your birth certificate (which may be inaccessible for some elderly). If you get past the application stage, your ID will be mailed to you (too bad for homeless voters). And if you don’t have a birth certificate, then you need to go to court for that (which is also quite expensive).
Of course, the accessibility for IDs is still debatable. If we want to really close the debate, it should be indisputable whether access to photo IDs is possible or not. DMVs need to be open way more, and they need to be in neighborhoods where people more often need to get an ID, as in low-income neighborhoods. Proving your birth certificate should not be expensive, and the mailing of the ID is discriminatory against homeless people. As of right now, voter ID laws pose an obvious problem to me because of their questionable use, purpose, and democratic value.
I really like your point about how the implementation is what is the cause of the controversy, and that maybe our current system of getting an ID to prove who you are in our country/state is too far behind to not discriminate against certain demographics. Having DMV's open more and having them reach the people that need them the most are very good solutions. One solution to the problem is waiting to implement the voter ID law for a few years, and stress to everyone the importance of getting a photo ID. Then polls should be taken until a less harsh number of people don't have one, when you can then start to use the Voter ID laws.
DeleteI liked your comment, and thought that the points brought up in it were very important and intriguing.
The closing of DMVs across Wisconsin never even crossed my mind in reference to voter identification. You brought up some really good points in saying that the accessibility of these IDs has tremendously decreased, even more so since the issue has been brought to the table. DMVs across Wisconsin are generally open only a few days a week, and now with fewer of them, the ability for many people to have the time and means to get to the nearest open DMV has more than likely decreased. Just some food for thought.
DeleteRequiring voter ID would prevent many poor and minority people from voting. That being said, it would also eliminate the minimal problem of voter fraud. If the US government can afford to give poor people health insurance, then why can't everyone receive an ID card for free? This would solve both issues- every citizen would be able to vote, and they could only vote once. I don’t think that voter ID should be required until EVERY citizen has an ID, because otherwise it would be unconstitutional (basically the same thing as a poll tax) and inherently biased against the poor and minorities.
ReplyDeleteOne of the most difficult aspects of this assignment was dealing with the potential biases of each individual news source. Perhaps even more difficult was making an informed judgment free from any individual biases that one may have. That being said, after reading most of these articles, I believe that although the idea of reducing voter fraud is a good one, ultimately, the enforcement of these laws will always be discriminatory towards a pro-Democratic demographic.
ReplyDeleteThe most glaring problem with the enactment of voter ID laws is that it WILL NOT solve the problem. According to ABCNews, only 4/51 of the voter fraud cases in Texas concerned voter impersonation. Voter ID laws would only be able to resolve 4 of the cases that were presented. Moreover, voter fraud is already an issue that is overexaggerated. From the same source, only 0.00000013% of votes cast resulted in a criminal conviction. This statistic underlines my belief that there simply is not enough benefit for a person to perform a criminal action in exchange for one vote. It would need to be something extremely drastic for a person to be willing to take the risk of going to jail or being deported; simultaneously, even if a Voter ID law was created, what proof is there that this would prevent these people from trying to vote again? People who are desperate enough to perform voter fraud will find a way to vote, regardless of whether there is a law tightening regulation or not. Ultimately, voter fraud has been blown out of proportion and has been used as a political tactic by Republicans to prey on the fears and misconceptions of the public.
The second problem with voter ID laws is that it inherently will discriminate against a certain group of people. According to a study conducted by the Brennan Center for Justice in 2006, citizens earning less than 25,000 per year are twice as likely to not posses voter ID. Additionally, only 48% of women have access to documentation that reflects their current name and 18% of the elderly do not have access to government documentation. Finally, a whopping 25% of the African American population does not have photo identification. These groups are all minorities who would be more inclined to vote for the Democratic Party; interestingly enough, every voter ID law has been proposed by Republican governments.
Most sources will argue that voter ID laws will make the voting process more clear and legitimate, but this contradicts the fact that a large portion of the minority will be unable to vote. Quite frankly, the repercussions of creating a voter ID law far outweighs the benefit of MAYBE resolving a few measly voter identification issues. Although every conservative source trumpets the benefits of creating these laws, they outright ignore the fact that voter ID laws may not and probably will not resolve the issue of voter fraud and they completely disregard the large population that will be discriminated against in return. Ultimately, if the U.S. is to move forward, every person who is eligible to vote should have a ubiquitous ability to do so free of any limitations; this is the only way that we can create a higher voter turnout and therefore, a more representative sample of the general population’s beliefs and interests. At its core, the issue of voter ID is more of a political ploy than a real salient issue. In the end, the disadvantages far outweigh the advantages.
uhh...Unknown is Robert
DeleteI don’t necessarily think that Voter ID’s are discriminatory. There are many different types of IDs that people can obtain, so it’s not discriminatory against one way. And people do need IDs for more things than just voting, so having an ID for voting is just one more thing that people need their IDs for. And with some states there are exceptions with photo IDs like religious objections, if the person is indigent, or victims of domestic abuse http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/voter-id.aspx. Plus, it prevents voting frauds, which have happened before. For example, in Kansas from 1997-2010 there was 221 incidents of voter fraud, which could be avoided if people use IDs http://www.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748704816604576333650886790480. And people can argue that voter frauds are unfair for both the candidates and for the people that are voting fairly because the results have been compromised.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what you have stated. There are many things that we need IDs for and voting would just add to that list. I also agree that voter fraud is unfair.
DeleteVoter ID laws are basically all about political strategy. The only reason why it voter ID became prominent in the first place was because it discriminates against people who may not be able to vote because they do not have enough money or maybe they are too old to have an ID because they do not drive. These certain classes of people tend to vote for Democrats. These voter ID laws are mainly a conservative idea because the law cuts votes towards Democratic politicians. In other words I find these voter ID laws to be very discriminatory and they should not be allowed to circulate in state governments. ID laws are basically a poll tax, but instead of the poll tax being a way to discriminate against a racial aspect. This "tax" is more used to discriminate against a good many races and backgrounds and walks of life. However, there are definitely racial problems that need to be addressed with the voter ID laws as well.
ReplyDeleteMiles Greenlee
I think that implementing voter ID laws is not a bad idea. I do think they provide what we need in order to help stop voter fraud. Although, there is a lack of numerical information to support that voter fraud is a big issue, it doesn’t mean that it is not happening.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I think these laws are a good idea, I can see both sides to the issue. Yes, by having voter ID laws many people would no longer have an equal opportunity to vote, but there are solutions to providing those who can not get an ID with one. The government could provide ID’s for free (like Enosh stated above) or more than a government issued ID could be accepted (within certain limitations of course). There are many solutions to those who would have troubling accessing IDs. Take Kansas who has voter ID laws in place. They accept many different forms of IDs and provide many opportunities for those who have no form of identification including a birth certificate. (Source:www.gotvoterid.com/valid-photo-ids.html#idlist)
This topic is also difficult for me to talk about because it would be so easy for me to provide the ID required for voting. All I would have to do is drive out to the DMV on a day they are open and get an updated license. My opinions are based on the fact that it is easy for me to get a form of ID. Also the fact that states who have these laws in place like Kansas, have provided options to those who don’t have easy access to an ID like I do. Overall, either way you go there are going to be issues on this topic whether it’s voter fraud or the accessibility of getting an ID.
Voter fraud is such a difficult thing to prove. This is not saying that it’s hard to prove who’s committing fraud, but if it’s actually a problem. The reasoning behind the Republican standpoint is that voter fraud is a problem, but there’s nothing set in place to catch people committing this act. The Democrats’ standpoint would be that this isn’t a real problem, considering that it is so hard to prove it even exists, according to the Brennan Center for Justice (http://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/The%20Truth%20About%20Voter%20Fraud.pdf).
ReplyDeleteRequiring voter identification is unnecessary and often inaccessible to many. State-issued identification requires transportation and time off work in order to acquire, and many people do not have the money or time to spare in order to get a voter identification card. These people who are unable to get voter identification are generally those who are below the poverty line, elderly, or are disabled in some way. It is also worth noting that these groups generally sway more left, and are therefore more likely to vote Democrat. This can be seen as motivation for the GOP to discriminate and require voter ID in order to cost the Democrats votes.
I think we’ve all noticed the fear there is surrounding the word “racist” as of late, but I’m going to say it-- requiring voter identification is racist. Those who are below the poverty line are more likely to be people of color, thanks to America’s wonderful wage gap, which is real, although illegal (http://www.psmag.com/business-economics/the-equal-pay-gap-isnt-equal-across-ethnic-lines). Though just looking at voter ID laws on paper doesn’t seem inherently racist, putting them into action is and can be viewed as such. This adds to the systematic racism that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (http://www.justice.gov/crt/history-federal-voting-rights-laws) prohibits.
I think Voter IDs are a good idea to help stop voter fraud. While it’s not a documented that it’s a problem, it doesn’t mean it isn’t. An ID isn’t too much to ask for either; they’re asked for at almost everything that people do, like getting married, applying for any kind of licence, or getting a cell phone, plus every concert that i’ve ever gone to has required me show a photo ID to get the tickets and some also at the doors to get in. Especially when there are thing slike Kansas offering free IDs to people who want/need them. I understand how they could be thought of as discriminatory, but as long as it’s carried out fairly and everyone has an equal opportunity to get an ID I think they’re worth having.
ReplyDelete