There has recently been a few states, that are passing laws that make it a requirement to have a government issued ID present at the time of voting such as South Carolina, Texas, and Tennessee, among a few others.
Some of these laws are still able to be reviewed by the Department of Justice because the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is still in effect that they can review any voting laws passed by select southern states, such as the law in South Carolina.
These laws are highly controversial but it is clear that the passing of these laws would only prevent cheating or people who are not citizens from voting to affect the lives of people who are actually registered voters and citizens of America. Critics of these laws say that they will prevent people from actually showing up due to the “burden” that will be created by having to actually obtain a government-issued ID. However this is just absurd, because if a person is too lazy to get a government ID, which is easy to obtain if you are who you say you are, and have the documents required, which every citizen should automatically have.
These laws are also avoidable by citizens who are too elderly to get out to obtain ID by getting an affidavit. The notion that this law is discriminatory against the poor and minority, is absurd. If getting an ID requires the same process for every race and age, it is not discriminatory, and therefore it is not wrong to ask for this at the polling booth. This law should have been enacted a long time ago and is only a protection for the American people who deserve to know that their votes will not go to waste because some people chose to cheat or vote when they are not even citizens of our country.
The ability to vote is an important symbol of American freedom. It is an illustration of equality. It is the common denominator between all members of society: men, women, rich, poor, black, white...as long as you are a legal resident of this country, you are able to participate in an election. While I agree with your stand that presenting I.D at the polls will help prevent fraud, I question if you have considered every dimension of this issue.
ReplyDeleteFor example, it may be true that this law is not directly discriminating against the poor and the minority, but the indirect consequences must be addressed.
There is an article on http://www.postandcourier.com ( I will post the link in my own blog, if you are interested) that discusses the controversial aspects of this law, especially in Southern states. In South Carolina, this law would have a great effect on poverty-stricken black citizens because many of them would lose their ability to vote simply based on suspended licenses. (according to this article, there are 68 reasons for suspended licenses, and the law of I.D at the polls requires one's identification card to be VALID.) Another area of society to consider: homeless people would also be required to show I.D. This could be extremely difficult, if not impossible, as many do not have complete birth information or all the necessary documents to obtain I.D, and the costs involved to gather this information (as is stated in the same article) would include a poll tax. As it stands right now, the homeless are able to vote by using their shelters as addresses and so on, but this will change under the new law.
To conclude my response, I see your point when you say that this law offers "protection" to citizens, but I fear that you underestimate the true challenges involved in the details. If the homeless have to find a way to cough up money for a poll tax, do you really think they will be willing to sacrifice? If not, then aren't they being indirectly discriminated against? If they are unable to participate in the election, then who is going to voice their opinion for them on the ballots? If black citizens in states such as South Carolina are unable to provide vaild I.D due to circumstances out of their control, are they not being indirectly discriminated against? I do not feel that the issue at hand is race-related-you mentioned minorities, so I wonder if maybe you see the argument against this law as being racially driven-but rather, I feel that the controversy stems from the widening societal gap between rich and poor that would inevitably occur under this new requirement at the polls.
Thank you Ms. (Mrs? Miss?) Callaway for also saying what I believe. When citizens go out to vote they should carry there identification. I remember the first time I went to vote in 2008, I was so eager to vote that I carried both social security card, Texas ID, Voter Registration card and I had my father bring a utility bill to also prove we lived in Travis County. I did not want to be told I could not vote because of insufficient identification. In 2010 when it was time to elect state Governor, I again carried my SS card, Texas ID, voter registration card, and school ID. For me I bring extra identification just in case. I do not see the argument to NOT have an ID. It is not that big of a deal to be asked to carry extra identification other than the voter registration card in order to vote. Any citizen driving to the voting booths already carries a driver’s license, which is, extra identification. No one is trying to turn away people at the voting booths because of their race, sex, or religion.
ReplyDeleteOn the flip side there is an agreement that citizens should not have to carry extra ID because the State of Texas says the voter registration card is sufficient enough. This argument I’ve heard comes mostly from my parents. When they (my parents) go into cash a paycheck the Banks requite a photo ID. That is there standard. For years, apparently, the standard at the voting booths was only a voter registration card here in Texas. Texas now wants to change this and require an actual photo ID. You and I don’t see the big deal. And I barely see the case my parents have. This law is not requiring anything abnormal. However I believe my parents think this may be the first of many changes. If a photo ID is required, than what’s next, a SS card? After that, what, a birth certificate? Today you ask for a photo ID, tomorrow, what is going to be asked in order to vote. I believe this snowball effect argument is a miniscule probability of coming true but I would not put it past the government to think this was a great idea.
Overall I’m stands on the same side of this issue I do. Voters should carry and provide extra identification at the voting booths if they are asked to.
I think that enacting a law where voters would have to show their photo id or drivers license is very practice. It would prevent fraud would ensure that the correct person is voting and not an imposter. I don’t understand why it is such a big issue, the simple fact is that you get one vote per person as a United States citizen. This law would prevent illegal immigrants from being able to vote in another person name. By enacting this law, it would cause very little if at all any inconvenience to voters.
ReplyDeleteI’m not sure that I agree with what critics say about this proposition. As you pointed out, critics think that it would be a burden for voters. I think that is ridiculous. Most people are required to show their ID many things that they do throughout the day such as going to the bank, or showing ID for a package at the bank, or showing an officer an ID when getting pulled over. Its not like they are asking people to get a new identification card or anything, its something that everyone carries, or should carry, on a daily basis. It does not provide any new inconvenience for voters. There is absolutely no reason this law shouldn’t be passed. It is good to keep the right people voting on election day. The controversy over this proposition is ridiculous to me. I agree with you when you say that this law should have been enacted a long time ago. It ensures that the right people are voting- the people that are registered and American citizens.