Though the poll tax has been out of use for decades, states may resort to other tactics that have the same effect of a poll tax: discouraging certain voters from showing up on election day. Does a Texas law requiring a photo ID to vote have the same effect as the infamous poll tax?
A new poll tax?
You may also check out this similar article from 2012:
U.S. Voting Rights Under Siege
I completely understand why this is such a hotly debated topic, as it is very difficult to provide proof for either side. But, even though it looks like the state might be trying to maintain power by making it harder for minorities (who will most likely vote in opposition of them) to vote, I don't think this is true. North Carolina isn't steadfast Republican for every election, so I don't think their state legislature would want to keep people from voting Democrat. Instead, I think they are just trying to protect their elections from fraud by requiring identification. Then again, some sort of majority faction with bad intnetions may have formed in their state government.
ReplyDeleteIn general, I think requiring identification to vote is a good practice, as long as the state has good motives and is willing to provide extra aid in the ways of receiving such indentification to those who may need it.
Matthew Stewart Period 2
I personally believe that Yes, having to show a Photo ID is similar to the infamous poll tax. Based on the evidence supported for the article, only 2 votes out of 35 million votes were impersonation fraud. This goes a long way when stating that showing a Photo ID is one way of reducing voter fraud by proving that it does not work. In fact, the research for that specific evidence, evidence out of North Carolina, shows that not having a Photo ID is not needed and thus proves that Voter Fraud is indeed rare. So I do belive that needing a Photo ID should not be required to vote and that it is similar to the infamous Poll Tax.
ReplyDeleteGregory James Pullon Jr.
Period 5
While I believe that the states should have a right to decide the requirements for voting in one's own state the requirement for photo ID just seems unnecessary. While it provides protection against election fraud it also creates a double burden for voters. This, like a poll tax, would discourage eligible voters from voting because they would have to obtain a photo ID on top of registering both of which take time, effort, and money. This process might also be tougher on minority groups so the states, despite their best intentions, would end up discriminating against them. Plus as the article said there hasn't been that much evidence of voter fraud and registering already provides some protection against that.
ReplyDeleteAndrea Campos Period 5
Requiring a minority in a state, where racism was heavily evident, to have to go through the process of obtaining an I.D card while suffering from poverty or other things is a method of trying to control elections. They are taking advantage of the hardship of minorities just like in the past with the literacy tax. Any form of identification should be sufficient enough for everybody. Also, voter fraud was proven to be minimal and therefore there shouldn't be a need to fix this "issue".
ReplyDeleteJeric Gaddi
Period 3
After reading this article, one thing in particular stood out to me. From 2000-2014, only 2 out of 35 million votes in North Carolina have been cases of voter fraud. If there were only 2 cases, why is there a need to hinder it? I understand how serious this offense is, but to attempt to stop it completely at the expense of minority votes, is ridiculous. The process of obtaining an ID, or filling out the "reasonable impediment" form, is time consuming and scaring off minority voters. We need to assimilate minorities into society far more efficiently, and this form of voter suppression is only dragging us back. I understand how states can view this requirement as reducing voter fraud, but I highly doubt that's where their intentions lie. These are voters who would likely vote against them if given the opportunity, so I see this as nothing more than another form of a poll tax, that lacks sufficient evidence to back it up.
ReplyDeleteNoah Rico
Period 5
"Voter fraud is exceadingly rare", with this there really is no need to worry about this sort of thing, the it re trouble government issued IDs is that it will create more fear amung the minority. The process is long, expensive, a d tedious, which will contribute to voter turnout lowering even more. Even thought this is a state's right issue, and it is, but this is a type of discrimination against the minority themselfs. Not many have the health, high enough education,low income, and how expensive the whole process is. This is another type of Jim Crow law/literacy test that has been placed infront of those that find it near impossible to obtain the government issued IDs; leaving Anglos as the higher voting participants. And this would do little for the turnout still, but the ordeal is just tedious and harmful and doesn't do much against voter fraud; not many will risk for something that insignificant.
ReplyDeleteAlexia Tejeda p.3
I personally feel like this photo ID isn't completely necessary because it's another process for people to go through if they don't already have one and it might be harder for the minoroties to get ahold of. I think regardless of theirs intention it's leaving more struggles for the minorities and it's similar to the poll tax, maybe not to that extent, but still similar!
ReplyDeleteLuz Cabada
Period 2
I understand both sides of the argument, but I do feel that a photo ID should be necessary for elections. It is just the logical thing to do in the case of voter fraud. Now, I don't think that many people would commit voter fraud by using the no photo ID loophole, but I also don't think implementing a required photo ID is targeting or suppressing minority voters. I think this debate is more of an issue on the communication of information to reach minority voters. Yes, a photo ID would hurt more minorities that have difficult circumstance, but that has more to do with the burden and confusion of registering to vote. Regardless however, everyone has to provide a photo ID. If anything, we should be talking about how to make information on voting and the tools to do so more accessible.
ReplyDelete-Rebecca Covarrubias
p.5
by the way, we also require a proper photo ID for taking the SAT and other tests, why is this application any different?
Deletehowever, it is easily attainable to do so
THAT is the difference
-Rebecca C
the statement "exceedingly rare" for fraudulent voters may or may not be accurate at to the real situation however, making the requirements more difficult definitely could affect voter turnout and discriminate against minorities which is wrong but if its up to the states, they have the right to implement it. in their defense, they should have the same opportunity to vote as everyone else and be given a fair platform. Whether ID's are hard to receive or not, I do think they should be required but the process to get them shouldn't feel impossible.
ReplyDeleteAn ID is beneficial when it comes to preventing voting fraud but I do believe the real reason to the ID requirement is so the Republican Party can cut out the minority vote. I can see how a state like North Dakota wouldn't want minority's to vote towards the democrats, to keep their republican state. One way to solve this problem would correct the hardship of making it difficult to attain an ID and update an old one. It states in the article that these are the major setbacks from keeping people in America to get their ID to vote. Preventing these setbacks will most likely lead to a more diverse voting group for elections.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I do believe that the states should have the right to decide the requirements for voting, I just find that ID photos are just a waste of our time. I know that they protect the ballots from fraud and other things but this just creates another burden for the voters. In past readings we have learned that the poll taxes also asked for photo ID and money in order to register, in which it discouraged voters because it was harder for many of the people. It discriminated the minorities and it just proved that there was no need for it, that's why The Voting Act of 1965 was created. Overall I believe that the states requiring ID photos in order to register is not necessary and just a waste of everyone's time.
ReplyDeleteMirna Munoz Period 5
Before reading the article I thought that providing a photo ID seemed quite logical to prevent fraud and such. And even so, if you truly care and want your opinion to be reflected in elections wouldn't you do all that you can to obtain an ID in order to vote? And even then, if you "don't have time" to fill out a reasonable impediment form then did casting your vote even matter that much to you in the first place? But at the same time what is the purpose of requiring a photo ID if there's no voter fraud occurring or there is only a very small amount? So if there's no purpose then what is the point of even requiring ID??
ReplyDeletenatalie tang
P.3
I understand both sides of the argument toward the need for identification to vote. However, I don’t think an ID is completely necessary. Voter fraud is extremely rare in this country already so I don’t believe making an ID necessary will make much difference. The amount of adults who are registered to vote in this country is already lower than the voter-age population due to individuals having to go out of their way to register. Having this ID be necessary in order to vote is just another barrier for people and might lower the voter turnout even more. I don’t think this law is necessary as it may cause more harm than good.
ReplyDeleteViviana Nunez
P.5
I believe that the requirement to show ID before voting is unreasonable, the only requirement should be that you are registered to vote in the first place. With the statistics shown the only 2 out of 32 million votes were fraudulent is not enough to prove that photo ID's are needed. Also, most minorities do not have the means to get an ID so this is definitely seen as an attempt to indirectly reduce the minorities ability to vote.
ReplyDeleteJurnee Joseph p. 2
DeleteI believe that photo ID should not be required in order to vote. If the person has registered and shows up up to vote, I feel like that should be enough. Also the article describes how photo ID has made it much harder for minorities to be able to vote. The very small voter fraud that photo ID protects from is less than how much it discourages.
ReplyDeleteJames Stock
p.3
In class, when we talked about the issue of IDs, I thought, why not? Who would be against it? And after reading, I still think this. Even if "voter fraud is extremely rare," why not just prevent it all together? Im not really sure if voter fraud can ever truly make a significant change in election results, but what it loosening voter allows allows that to happen in the future?
ReplyDeleteSo what I'm thinking is why cant the ID simply be showing a birth certificate or something in ones possession instead of enforcing a rule in which people need to buy or register for an actual ID.
If the debate is going to come back to say it discourages certain people from voting, I just think thats ridiculous. Literally anything can discourage anyone from voting. This just goes back to the joke you (Mr. Cavanaugh) said, "well they still have to pay for my gas to get there." That is what this sounds like to me.
Jumana Roufail, Period 2
I can understand why this topic is debated so fervently. I think that stopping voter fraud helps everyone. However it seems that by trying to stop voter fraud they have made it harder to vote. I also think that requiring photo ID seems to hurt more than it helps. Many people are not voting because of the hassle of getting a photo ID. I think that as long as you have the registration card you should be fine.
ReplyDeleteKyle Wurtz P. 5
Whaddup Wurtz . . . missed you in class.
DeleteThe requirement of an ID in order to vote seems similar to the poll tax to me. Although, the supposed justification for the ID requirement is to prevent fraud in the system, it seems that, according to the article, 2 out 35 million votes were considered to be fraud. I am fine with the ID requirement as long as it is used as a fraud deterrent and not as a tool for a majority party to gain control over votes or to prevent the minority from voting.
ReplyDeleteJames lee
Period 3
Before reading the article, I understood why it would be necessary to require photo identification- to prevent "voter fraud." However, afterwards, the article states how rare voter fraud actually is, only occurring a couple times in a span of severals of years. Now, the idea of photo identification seems pointless and just creates more hassle for those who want to vote. The minorities of North Carolina are already at a disadvantage with a majority of them having low income and such. It would be difficult not only to go through the process of registration, but also having to obtain a photo ID. An argument made in the article was that the Republicans of the state tried to weed out the opposition to their party, which I agree with, considering that these minorities would tend to lean more Democrat. Overall, this whole photo ID situation seems like it was intended to be another obstacle in the road to practice citizens' right to vote.
ReplyDelete(Charlize Villamin-De Leon, Per. 2)
While I can understand the protests and arguments presented from both sides, I do not think that the evidence provided points to a conclusive, obvious wrongdoing on the side of the states. While they may not have intentionally targeted minority populations, it was irresponsible of the states to pass such heavy legislature when they were ill equipped to provide what they were asking for.
ReplyDeleteKaitlyn Ortiz p.5
Throughout the article, it is understandable and reasonable why having a photo ID would prevent election fraud. However, I do not believe having an identification card would be the best way to prevent fraud when there are barely any frauds to begin with. For example, in the article it explained how 2 out of 35 million voters were reported with impersonation fraud in North Carolina; why should the 35 million people be punished for the actions of those 2? Shouldn’t the people who commit the crime be punished? Identification cards will also decrease voting participation which would not benefit the country’s reputation (for having almost the lowest voting participation among other countries) and would not be beneficial for the people as well. Many people do not participate in election voting because of the work of registration to begin with. Imagine if every state is required to obtain a photo identification card just to vote? People dislike inconveniences and with this photo ID inconvenience would only anger people like poll taxes.
ReplyDeleteAmanda Lor Period 5
I see how the requirement of an ID can be compared to the poll tax seventy years ago, and I also see why states think implimenting it might stop voter fraud. According to the article, the voter fraud issue is rare, so it's just unneccessary. It can be a burden on some. In class, it seemed logical to me to show identification for voting, but now I think that other people and minorities can have a harder time and be deterred from voting. To us, it might not seem like a big deal because most of us are able to easily show up on voting day with an official ID, but poorer, less educated, minority voters have a harder time because they don't have an ID or have more difficulty getting one.
ReplyDelete-Tiffany Inouye P.3
I believe that through this policy, North Carolina is trying to solve an insignificant problem. Evidence shows that there are 2 fraudulent votes out of 35 million. Therefore, North Carolina is creating legislation that would reduce the number of voter impersonation frauds. Ultimately, this legislation is causing inconvenience for many people and is not solving any real problem.
ReplyDelete- Gursimran Bains (Period 3)
Before I read the article, I thought that having photo identification prior to voting was logical. After all, we do show our ID when purchasing goods and even on campus when voting. Unfortunately, this can mask discrimination on voting rights. If it is difficult for certain people to obtain an ID, why require them? In the two articles the reason presented was voter fraud. Now this once again seems logical. Avoid voter fraud with ID's. But, with only 2 referrals out of 35 million made over the span of 14 years (specifically in North Carolina) something does not seem right. There should be no reason to require identification if fraud cases are so low. The only logical reason why one would support that is to ban certain people from casting a vote. Those who cannot obtain a valid form of identification tend to be poor and most poor vote democratic. It is not fair to shun down their vote. If they live in the United States then they should have a say in government. This relates to the infamous poll tax. They both are means of discouraging certain voters from casting their vote. Voter identification is not needed because there is no legitimate reason for it to exist.
ReplyDeleteMaya Domozetska
P.3
Hey Maya missed you in class today!
Delete:)
I believe that showing photo ID can stop voter fraud by a little bit but the evidence isn't there. Their just hasn't been many voter fraud cases that we can say that was because someone didn't show there photo ID. It's unnecessary because it puts stress on the voter to to have one and register which costs money and time to do. For that reason I think needing a photo ID is pointless and shouldn't be required.
ReplyDeleteEthan Aurangzeb
Period 2
The issue presented by the article is clearly a difficult topic to simply provide a concrete argument supported with cold, hard facts. This is an issue I would easily leave hanging in the air without giving an opinion on it. However, if it were my obligation to decide on this issue what would be most beneficial to the people of North Carolina, I would remove the requirement for a voter ID. I would do this keeping in mind the voter turnout of the state and the cases of voter fraud. It can be easily argued that having an ID requirement would decrease turnout because it introduces a new hurdle people can become hindered by. This hurts the state in that the results from votes would represent the leanings of fewer North Carolina residents. This may cause results to incorrectly reflect the people of the state. The second reason that would lead me to this conclusion is the number of cases of fraud. Fraud so scarcely occurs that it seems to me to not be a problem to worry about. In fact, the scarcity of fraud supports the effectiveness of the voting system without the requirement of photo ID. Even if states were to try to attack fraud until it was nonexistent, such efforts would be unproductive in that these small cases of fraud are not significant enough to change the result of a state's votes.
ReplyDeleteEmmanuel Mintah, P. 3
I like your reasoning . . .
DeleteThanks
DeleteEmmanuel Mintah, P. 3
I can see and argue both sides of this situation but I don't think this ID representation is targeted at minorities to prevent them to vote, it's simply used to protect against votee fraud, just as we need ID for using credit/debit cards to protect from fraud that way. Although it is true that some minorities are in a tough spot, they have the capability to get an ID if they take the right steps. All in all , the ID amendment does not aim at minorities, simply to protect everyone from fraud
ReplyDeleteEthan Cisneros
Period 5
Though I do agree with the fact that photo ID's reduce voter fraud, I understand the struggle that some may have trying to obtain one. I started reading this article with the opinion that using the photo ID for voting is no problem and a great idea, but as i read on i did see flaws with excluding minorities that may not be able to afford one and making it seem like a poll tax. Overall, I don't completely agree that making photo ID's necessary is a bad thing in terms of cutting voter fraud.
ReplyDeleteLitzulli Figueroa
period 5
The conservative in me says stop complaining and get an ID. It's not the law's fault that certain people can't get ID's. It's certain people's fault for not being able to get an ID. It's not the law's fault that a disproportionate amount of poor people, students, or minorities now have a harder time obtaining an ID. But the liberal in me says that voting should be as costless as possible. There should be as few regulations as possible without compromising the integrity of the process. Voting should be as accessible to a poor person as it is to a rich person; after all, we're not talking about owning a home or buying a car. We're talking about a basic democratic right. So as hard as it is to suppress the inner conservative in me, in this case (barring evidence of widespread fraud), I see no reason to add the additional requirement of a photo ID.
ReplyDeleteThe laws to bring photo ID's to the polls are unnecessary. It is very similar to a poll tax, because the new Identification is not free, and it discourages the poor (Which are disproportionately minorities), to vote, because they will need to get the new ID; essentially creating a cost associated with voting. If the states are so concerned about voter fraud that they will create new laws to stop 2 out of 35 million, then the least they could do is make the ID's free, reducing voter fraud and keeping all eligible voters registered. If they don't make the ID's free, then maybe they are using it to keep certain population groups from voting?
ReplyDeleteOmar Moiz
P.2
Personally, I don't believe that requiring some form of identification is necessarily a bad idea; however, the process of receiving an ID should be easy and accessible for all citizens. If the process of receiving forms of identification discriminates against citizens of any minority, then an ID should not be required during voting. As American citizens, we have the right to vote and have an opinion in politics, and this should not be limited if any part of this process is discriminatory towards any minority.
ReplyDeleteCassidy Wagner
Period 2
At first I thought that the voting rights ID's whole purpose was to prevent the voting fraud, but after I read the CNN article there's actually more in depth to the issue that I was surprised at. The opposing group actually sees it as a voting suppression of minority groups, which I completely understand now. Once the statement was stated that not that high of a percentage commit voting fraud, I had a question on why do so many have to lose their equality to vote because of what the little proportion might do.? A Texas law requiring a photo ID to vote does have the same effect as the infamous poll tax because its main alternative motive is to suppress minority votes. The ones who cannot afford it or access it are at the disadvantage, thus lose their right to vote. The fairness begins to turn murky.
ReplyDeleteAlyssa Hill
Period 2
Although I do believe that it is important to not have fraud in our elections I don't believe that the I.D. requirement is totally justified. If only 2 out of 35 million votes were proven to be fraudulent then I don't think a law requiring photo I.D. is necessary at all. Instead of benefitting elections by reducing fraud this law causes the already low voter turnout to decrease even more and creates an unfair barrier for miniorities who struggle to obtain a photo I.D.
ReplyDeleteSeth Casas
P. 5
While the states hold the right to require state-issued voter IDs, such a law seems redundant. I understand the argument that these IDs would reduce voter fraud, but as addressed in both articles, voter fraud today is extremely rare, and thus not a strong enough reason as to require such identification. The process of registering to vote, which differs in every state, is already a long and sometimes arduous process that hinders the possibility of voter fraud. Furthermore, these laws disproportionately affect certain groups, especially minorities, which is reminiscent of the effect of a poll tax. The process of acquiring the voter ID impedes these minorities from being able to vote, and by extension suppressing their voice in government. If these states want an accurate representation of its citizens' opinion, these laws will result in a distorted image of it, because certain groups would not be heard. All in all, the requirement of a voter ID will just be another hinderance to voter turnout, and appears to hold more disadvantages than benefits.
ReplyDeleteGianna Apoderado
P. 5
:)
DeleteI agree with the author that the need for an ID when voting is discriminatory and difficult for a minority to obtain, but I don't believe ID's should be necessary when voting. I understand that the purpose of an ID is to prevent voter fraud, but that is also what proof of citizenship, residency, and age restrictions do. If the states already have certain practices set in place for this reason, why add another law that just makes it more difficult for people to vote? Americans cannot complain about low voter turnout if they make it so tedious for minorities to get an ID and be able to vote.
ReplyDelete-Madison Rhind period 3
After reading the article, it seems as if the requirement of a photo ID for voting has more cons than pros. I understand that its purpose is to work to eliminate fraud, but fraud doesn't appear to be a major and growing issue. The fact that this requirement would make it that much harder for minorities to vote makes me feel that passing it would not be worth it. Minorities already feel like their voices are rarely heard, so increasing the difficulty of voting would make voter turnout get smaller and smaller. The Republican Party having an unfair advantage in voting because of the photo ID requirement seems very wrong.
ReplyDeleteLindsay Gonzalez Period 2
The I.D. requirement can serve to help the possible cases of voter fraud, and while they may be rare we should still work to reduce it to as close to zero as possible. However I do not believe it should be implemented alone, I think there needs to be some kind of work around to make it accessible to everyone, like the reasonable impediment form which I support. The fear in it shouldn't be placed where it is in my opinion, as the fear of fraud is exactly what such things are trying to prevent. I believe many of these states are doing the right thing, as long as they offer workarounds to increase accessibility.
ReplyDeleteHunter Mittelstaedt
Period 3
I believe that a photo ID should not be required in order to vote. As stated in the article, the voter fraud issue is rare and implementing a photo ID requirement is just unnecessary. Having a photo ID requirement to vote might not seem like a problem for many of us here. However, it can be a burden on some. Minorities can have a very difficult time acquiring these IDs as they might not be able to afford it or just be under difficult circumstances. Including the ID requirement can cut the minority vote.
ReplyDeleteSaketh Sadhu
Period 3
I can understand why states would want to require a photo ID for people to vote because it does prevent voter fraud and it doesn't seem like this law is trying to hinder any specific group from voting, but it also doesn't seem very necessary to have this law at all. Yeah it makes it harder to commit voter fraud, but is fraud actually an issue these days? From what the article said there were only 2 cases out of millions of votes cast between 2000 and 2004. This doesn't seem like some epidemic that we need to place laws on to make it even less of a nonexistent problem. These state governments placing these laws on voters are making themselves look racist and like they're trying to hinder some groups from voting. Is that really worth making a law to prevent something that's not actually a problem?
ReplyDeleteClaire Williams
p. 3
I find it funny how the article waits until the end to reveal the true motives. This isn't about decreasing "voter fraud" (which there is little evidence of) or the discrimination of minorities. This is about maintaining faction power plain and simple, just like when slaves were counted as 3/5 a person in the House of Reps. Its ugly and dirty but effective. Either keep voter turnout low for the opposition or find a way to increase your own voter turnout and maintain power. Its not much different than Democrats allowing Felons and legal residents (although not citizens) to vote. Not only that but hide it under the guise of decreasing "voter fraud", it targets minorities but really its for good and fairness. Congress could always propose a new Amendment to prevent this and call for a convention to ratify it (very doubtful it would pass however). I mean it's not like they made it impossible to vote, just very difficult for some who find the acquisition of a valid ID tough. This is just another turn in the great political game of shoots and ladders. If the other factions can't find a way to over come this...well then all they can really do is shrug their shoulders and tip their hats to a move well played. Don't get to hurt however, the Attorney General could always find evidence that an ID prerequisite denies or abridges the right of a citizen of the United States to vote on account of race/color, which means it would violate the 15th Amendment and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
ReplyDelete-Michael Diamreyan
Delete"Its not much different than Democrats allowing Felons and legal residents (although not citizens) to vote." Good call! Democrats can behave just as factionally.
DeleteBased on my knowledge, only U.S citizens are allowed to vote. Those who are not considered citizens of the United States can't vote and that should be the only restriction to the U.S population however, the article does lay out an interesting case that government issued photo ID would prevent voter fraud. The article does, however, state that voter fraud is rare. To issue a mandate that requires everyone to have some sort of government issued photo ID is extra work and also imposes a threat to minorities such as African Americans and Latinos in poverty, as the article stated.
ReplyDeleteJob Kimani
P. 5
ID's should not be required when it comes to voting. As stated in the article, it just seems like an excuse for the South to subtly remain solid by decreasing turnout for the poor. Voter fraud just isn't a big enough problem to include an extra buffer layer for people to go through in order to practice a basic right. It could decrease turnout and prevent minorities from having a say in the turnout of political events. Having an ID isn't going to help increase turnout for sure, and since minor voter fraud isn't a problem that can practically be fixed, I see no reason to require ID's.
ReplyDeleteRyan Cain Per. 3
I completely understand both sides of the argument, but I do believe photo ID should be necessary for the elections. It could help in preventing voter fraud but potentiallly hurt minorities that may have difficult circumstances obtaining it. I think no matter the situation, everyone should still have photo ID, but have the tools and opportunities to make it more easier accessible.
ReplyDeleteClay Reyes p. 2
At first I really thought that people shouldn't be complaining about getting an ID to vote, it didn't really sound like a big deal. But as I read more I noticed that voter fraud is really committed in today's world. So for the state to say it is needed to prevent voter fraud, it doesn't really sound like a strong enough reason to implement this new law. Also obtaining an ID would be extremely difficult for the poor, in this case being the African Americans and latinos. I think that voting is a basic right that should have as few restrictions as possible and still keep the integrity of the process at the same time. So I honestly believe that this law is only being put into place to suppress the minorities and not allow them to vote.
ReplyDelete-Rafael Cabrera Period 5
While the photo ID law goes have a similar effect to the poll tax, I don't think the North Carolina state legislature intended for this to happen. Voter fraudulence can have a significant impact in election results, especially in North Carolina where winning margins are narrow. I think North Carolina's laws are strict now because they are trying to determine what laws and regulations assist in preventing voter fraudulence. In the future, I believe some of the more unnecessary and hassle inducing laws will be removed.
ReplyDelete-Tiffany Lu
Period 2
Whereas a potential side effect of the photo ID requirement at polling places could target and hush minorities, that was not it's true intent when it was enacted. This could also have a very low effect on the outcome of the minority vote period. The ID requirement, however, does hurt a lot more than just minorities from voting, such as the disabled/handicapped, and for that I believe it should be repealed. Collectively, it keeps many valuable opinions out of politics without a valid reason.
ReplyDeleteLainey Gerber
period 5
I believe a Texas Law requiring a photo ID to vote will produce a similar result, including a more effective result than the the photo ID requirement used in North Carolina. A photo ID requirement in Texas will produce an extremely small voter turnout for illegal immigrants that come from southern America,leaving out votes coming from non citizens that may be biased towards benefiting themselves. It will lower voter fraud in which I believe is a beneficial part of the requirement due to a certain faction growing solely on the support of people who are not even citizens in the country.
ReplyDeleteCedrych Ramiro period 2
I would say that voter ID laws would not have as severe impact as the poll tax when concerning the discrimination of minorities. I do feel as though it does target minorities disproportionately and is an unnecessary law. It seems to me to be primarily a political maneuver by republicans to ensure their control of the south.
ReplyDeleteChandler Sallaberria P. 2
I don't think that the problem is in the identification requirement, per say... it's just that the process of obtaining such necessary and required documents is straining. There is nothing wrong with requiring photo identification, in my opinion, and states clearly have the right to set such requirements but there is always fault in how we tend to carry these procedures out. If someone has the liberty to vote, they should have just as much liberty to accessing necessary processes to fulfill said liberty.
ReplyDeleteThough preventing voter fraud is the main motif in this action, isn't blocking ready access through necessary process just as qualified to count as voter fraud?
Sharon Park, P.5
Great argument!
DeleteVoter fraud is insignificant in influencing the outcome of the total vote. Two our of thirty-five million votes were cases of voter impersonation. The requirement of government ID's are a hurdle for low income citizens that are inconveniences for people who do not have the time or money to take a day off work. The major problem that does require attention are the limits of early registration, same day registration, and preregistration. These are safety nets for people without the luxury of being able to take an off day to vote. Preregistration should be in every state because these are people entering the work force that should have a say in political issues.
ReplyDeleteEnrique Menjivar
P.3
The requirement to possess an issued photo ID to cast or register a vote seems to be an unnecessary state form of legislation. The restriction this requirement holds is a heavy burden on minorities that aren't capable or unable to register due to "reasonable impediment". Those in favor of this new law, say that it prevents fraud within electorate voting, which may be true to some extent, but hardly show any drastic effects. I do believe some sort of citizenship should be represented, but to a range where all people may be equally qualified and considered.
ReplyDeleteSabrina Amador
P.3
I can understand why they would put a law like this in place since voter fraud is a serious offense. However, like the article said, voter fraud is exceedingly rare. Also, the article added that the difficulty of obtaining the ID may also prevent the people from utilizing their RIGHT to vote. It is stressed that voting is a right, so I understand the attempt to prevent voter fraud, but if the process to take the precautions makes voting go from being a right to a privilege, there is a problem with the process. The article also said it burdens minorities more, so it IS like the poll tax in a discriminatory sense because the poll tax was directed towards blacks. Although access should be a lot easier to vote in modern day, it is interesting that it would be compared to the poll tax because the poll tax was one of MANY conditions and clauses which specifically set blacks up for failure to see to it that their votes did not count. If voting is said to be a right, it should be more easily accessible for citizens, despite race, gender, income, social class, etc.
ReplyDeleteKyla Wheeler, p. 2
I think that by making it a requirement to present a photo ID in order to vote isn't really necessary. As explained in the article, the process for obtaining a photo ID presents a hardship on minorities. They deserve to have the ability to voice their opinions and have the ability to vote without having to go through a process that could potentially drive them away from exercising their right to vote. We all have that right, and it shouldn't be tampered with. I think that maybe instead of pushing the idea of the photo ID requirement, another registering process should be brought up, one that benefits those who have a hard time obtaining a photo ID. I see why the federal government wants to make the photo ID a requirement for voting, but overall it's really useless. Yes, it can prevent voter fraud, but with only two referrals out of thirty-five million votes from 2000 to 2014, voter fraud doesn't really seem like an issue we should really focus on. Instead of focusing on something that happens rarely, we should instead focus on helping people who are finding it hard gain a photo ID to have that ability to vote. They have the right to exercise their right to vote just like us, so why withhold them from doing so?
ReplyDelete-Kennedy Madrid P.5
Although the states have the right to require photo ID for voting, I believe it is unnecessary. I understand the intended goal is to prevent voting fraud but the chance of it actually occurring is so low, as shown in both articles, that it's not worth it. Depending on the state, the process of registering to vote can already be long enough so why create another hurdle? This is especially true for minorities who already struggle to get through the process. In the end, it will only hurt the state itself because this could deter potential voters. The results of the vote may not reflect what the people actually want. In addition, this only adds to the low voter turnout in recent years. It would be hypocritical of us to make it even more difficult to vote and continue complaining about lower voter turnout.
ReplyDeleteMatthew Johnson-P.2
I believe that the requirement to show a photo ID before voting is unnecessary. Before reading the article, I thought it would be important to show an ID in order to prevent voter fraud. However, after reading, it is clear that voter fraud is very rare. The article talks about how officials in North Carolina made “just two referrals of cases of voter impersonation fraud out of 35 million votes cast.” The requirement of an ID just seems pointless and might cause the voter turnout to be even lower, because it just adds on to the list of things people have to do in order to vote.
ReplyDeleteJuliann Salinas, Period 2
Voter ID laws do not have as large of an impact as poll taxes, but they still disproportionately affect minorities, the poor, young and elderly. Considering that voter fraud is extremely rare, there is no need for legislation that slaps a Band-Aid over undamaged skin. Thus, the motivation for this legislation is clear--to deter minority voters, who are likelier to vote Democratic, from voting.
ReplyDeleteThe problem is, motivation can't be definitively proven, and no constitutional obstacles really lie in the obstacle's way; Republican legislators can very well claim that the effect on minorities was unintended or insignificant, and so the laws would likely stand. But I digress.
Voter ID laws will have the same effect as poll taxes, in that they target particularly minority voters, but they will not be as overt or severe.
Arthur Kim, period 2.
Wait, why did I write period 2? I meant period 5.
DeleteArthur Kim, period 5.
Great observation on the difficulty of proving intent. In court the question becomes whether or not you have to prove intent of discrimination of effect of discrimination.
DeleteI do believe that requiring a photo I.D to vote is perfectly necessary; however, I also agree that requiring it would lead to lower voter turnout. As a whole, the US already has a relatively low voter turnout, so I feel like requiring something just to vote would be seen as inconvenient and unnecessary by potential voters. As stated in the article voter fraud is very rare, so taking extra precautions just seems like a waste of time.
ReplyDeletePeriod 5 - Andrés Garcia
Showing one's ID should not stop someone from exercising their right to vote, yet, through this article, we can see that it heavily impacts the incentive to practice this civil duty. It's similar to the poll tax and other limiting regulations, in which minorities are singled out, with different reasoning. And while yes, people should just go out and get their IDs, it's a difficult and tedious process to get an ID. If these people are imminent on making sure people who vote have their IDs, perhaps they should make it so that obtaining one is easier- that way, they'll be able to keep their phot ID law, and minorities will be able to cast their vote. However, all in all, I do agree with many of my classmates- photo ID is not necessary.
ReplyDeleteFrancesca Vista, pd 5
I have never really supported the idea of requiring a photo ID, because I knew that it has the possibility/tendency to be a sort of roadblock for minorities. However now that I read the article, I am able to see both sides. Although I still stand against the need for a photo ID, I understand that the states want to prevent voter fraud to the fullest extent. But with voter fraud being such a rare occurrence, I just do not think that it is necessary. It just seems like another obstacle for minorities (that tend to vote democrat in a typically red state) to actually get in and cast their vote -- comparable to how the poll tax did in earlier years. It seems like an easy, insignificant thing for people who can easily obtain an ID, but for those with limited resources (transportation, money, unusual work hours, etc) it puts them at an unfair disadvantage compared to those with more privilege.
ReplyDeleteAlysa Quijada
p. 2
I feel that the ID requirement is unnecessary. The argument that it might help to prevent voter fraud is logical, but it is also somewhat unrealistic given the already minute occurrence of fraud. And because of the narrow margin of Republican victories in North Carolina in recent years, and the greater likelihood of those who do not have photo IDs to vote Democratic, the ID requirement simply seems like an attempt to suppress the Democratic vote.
ReplyDeleteJulia Hernandez P.3
I feel it is not necessary for a form of ID to vote. The article shows that it leads to a disadvantage to minorities in voting. Also this is another barrier that makes the already lower voter turnout even lower because now they must do more things in order to just vote, this is just another roadblock people have to go through in order to vote. California has proven that a form of identification is not necessary to vote, so I feel it is not necessary and people should still be able to vote without an ID.
ReplyDelete- Wyatt Lemoine period: 2
Before reading the article, I believed that requiring a photo ID was necessary. After reading it, however, photo IDs seem unnecessary.
ReplyDeleteThroughout 2000 to 2014 in North Carolina,
only 2 out of 35 million votes were "cases of voter impersonation fraud". This issue is similar to poll taxes, which deterred minorities from voting.
Jessica Lee, p.2
Before our in-depth discussion on this issue in class, I thought that it wouldn't be too harmful to require an ID when voting. However, after the discussion and reading this article, I see where the problem arises. Requiring an ID to vote is very similar to when poll taxes were required, making it even more difficult for many to vote. Additionally, it will only decrease the average turn out because it requires more citizens to jump through more hoops to vote.
ReplyDeleteChristopher Jordan, P.3
I personally do not believe that the new I.D requirement has the same effect as the poll tax BUT the underline motive may be similar. The states that are adopting these policies do have a history of attempting to oppress minority groups by establishing barriers that manipulate the constitution therefore it is not completely preposterous to assume that these states would again be twisting the law to their advantage as a form of oppression. In this case i believe that this I.D requirement is in a way supposed to be utilized as a way to create a certain voting outcome, so in some sense it can be seen as a from of oppression due to the fact that getting an I.D requires a fee and process that is not always necessarily the smoothest. This in turn can be compared to that of a fee or test to vote as it can prove to be an obstacle to those with less resources that tend to be minorities. In conclusion the requirement can prove to be an impediment to minority voters but it is not as outrageous as the prior poll taxes and test of the past
ReplyDeleteIsaac Addai P.3
Yes. I think the motive of the poll tax was to suppress the black vote. But the motive of the ID law may just be to suppress Democratic vote, not any particular race.
DeleteI believe that requiring people to show photo ID before they vote isn't a bad practice to an extent. I think it may limit voter fraud. But that being said I don't feel that voter fraud has such a big effect on the elections as it did in the 1800s when people would vote for the dead. The requirement would make it extremely hard on undocumented illegal immigrants from voting but there should be a middle ground. The extent that North Carolina goes to make their citizens go to prove their identification matches their name on the registration is by all means too far. I believe the middle ground is found within states like Michigan, where any photo identification that appears to be legal is accepted. Yes it may be used the wrong way and may not stop voter fraud but it provides less of a hassle for the voters themselves. Why make citizens jump through hoops to vote when voter turnout is already dwindling slightly over 50%? There is no point, but I do like the idea of showing ID to prove your citizenship, since that is a requirement to vote in every single state within the union.
ReplyDeleteWill Montgomery Period 2
I think that requiring voter's ID does discourage people from voting. The process of voting is already tedious enough and to add one more requirement is just another reason not to vote for people who just want to get it over with. And the data is present in the article that voter fraud isn't even that monumental of an issue. It just provides issues. People will just use obtaining a voter id as another reason not to vote. Also gathering all the needed materials to obtain this voter's ID poses another significant challenge because if they don't have the documentation, the finances or the knowledge needed to get a voter ID then they simply wont bother.
ReplyDelete- Chloe Kasozi p.5
Before reading the article I saw no reason why we should not have an ID to vote. But after reading the article and further researching the topic I have concluded that having an ID as unnecessary since voter fraud is rare (two out of 35 million in North Carolina) and it prevents minorities from being able to vote.
ReplyDeleteAndy Garcia P.2
As a strong liberal I cringe everytime I hear a requirement introduced for citizens to vote. This to me seems to specifically target groups that already have low efficacy (who might I add tend to vote more liberal), which is inherently in opposition to my view of how voting should work. I can absolutely understand the desire to implement this extra step in order to decrease voter fraud. However, it seems to me that the type of voter fraud that could be prevented by requiring an ID to vote is to miniscule that it is really a non-issue. I also do no think that this additional burden on those with low efficacy will impact elections so much that it could impact the results; HOWEVER, it is the principle of this idea that I cannot support. If the state government took extra steps to help the poor so that these extra requirements didn't impact their efficacy then I could possibly get on board, although I do not believe that conservatives would agree on spending taxpayer money to help the poor to be able to vote more easily. (this isn't a diss, Mr. Cavanaugh. Based on your description of the conservative view, it seems as though they would be in favor of each person having enough personal responsibility to get their own ID).
ReplyDeleteMadeline Casolari :)
Period 3
In the first line I meant to say "additional requirements introduced"
DeleteWell argued!
DeleteIt kind of seems "logical" to have people show an ID while voting but as I read on through out the article, I realized that this is only a way to keep minorities from voting. As well as keeping eligible voters away, due to the fact that some might just not carry an ID. This burden amongst voters will stray away the common/minority vote away.
ReplyDeleteArturo Escamilla
Period 5
This article is basically talking about the state implementing a very unnecessary and unfair poll tax... esp. if it's used mainly towards the minorities of this country? it put them in an even more difficult situation aside from the long, boring, and annoying process of voting. needing to participate in voter id is just making it harder on the states seeing as people will then start to use this as an excuse to not vote as well. this is just one more hoop needed to be gone through to do something everyone is forced to do anyway.. so why make it harder on both parties ?
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, I believe that having a photo ID in order to vote should not be required. Yes, it should be a state's right but all in all, I think it will effect voter turnout in a negative manner. Even obtaining a photo ID is not free, there is a fee. So the title "A Poll tax in Disguise" is an appropriate name for this blog post. Many people who are impoverished may not be able to afford to purchase an ID or even have the means to get to the DMV to buy one. Also, similar to the article, just because you may not have the proper legal forms to get an ID is not a fair factor to count people out on their eligibility to vote.
ReplyDeleteAdrianna Sandoval Period 3
Okay, I honestly don't see what the big deal is? If minorities can provide ID's, photo ID's to buy alcohol and cigarettes why is it any different for this? It is not that hard to get a photo ID and it will not put them in debt so their should be no issue. If they wanted to and cared about voting that bad they would have no issue in getting a photo ID. If it is that big of an issue to provide an ID, then just don't vote. It's not like the state officials are making you get one if you don't vote. The whole issue can be resolved easily, if you cant provide photo id or it is an issue to get it, then don't vote.
ReplyDelete-Abeegail Meyer p.3
It appears that the photo ID requirement does have a similar effect as the poll tax. Luckily, in this case the intentions were not quite as malicious as trying to suppress the minority vote. It is clear that legislators were just trying to make a good policy which in the process revealed possible discrimination. This parallels the controversy over the sentencing over possession crack. Despite appearing to be rational policy, legislators can never truly know its effects and are not disposed to constantly consider racial inequality especially when the policy appears to be neutral. This seems to be case for the photo ID requirement. Interestingly, the seemingly simple photo ID is not as universal as one would suppose. I am a bit speculative of the check boxes scaring away voters considering how people disregard faceless crimes; illegally downloaded films and lying on federal tax forms. Despite carrying a good purpose, photo ID requirements are difficult to keep if they are not fulfilling their intended goal. A failure to produce significant evidence demonstrating a reduction in fraudulent voting makes the requirements discontinuation appealing as it would simplify the already complex voting process.
ReplyDeleteRobert Snyder Period 2
Great comparison with the crack laws.
DeleteI believe that a photo ID should be required to have present will voting. With this security regulation, it would make voting fraud more difficult to commit. I completely understand how this requirement may affect certain minorities due to financial reasons or social issues, obtaining an ID is not impossible and quite easy. If they feel so strongly on the matters at had during voting, they would find and do anything they needed to have the "okay" to vote. Something as simple as showing your ID to the poll worker is not something that should be over analyze.
ReplyDelete-Dorian Cardoza: Per. 5
Boths sides of the arguments have good points, having photo ID’S can prevent voter fraud but on the other hand photo ID is also an inconvenience. More people will have to go out of their way in order to vote and not only does it discourage the minorities but in the past it has been seen as ineffective in the past. If photo ID’S are discouraging voters which should not be the goal. However having the minorities the disadvantage at voting could lead to the majorities taking over the state
ReplyDeleteJosette Yasay Period:2
I feel like with this topic it's so difficult to really decide what is the right choice. But, I do believe in this day and age there should be no excuse for anyone to not be able to receive an appropriate ID with all the access to technology and multiple resources in how to obtain an ID if utilized in the voting process. I also think that it's kinda weird to compare the use of ID to the poll tax and the literacy test. I feel that the ID is a method of ensuring that the people who went to vote were given a greater but equal chance (no fraud) to choose the person they want elected in office and not so much trying to prevent minorities from being able to go and vote as seen in the objects above.
ReplyDeleteLyndsey Chu P2
It seems absolutely reasonable that states require a Voter ID in order to cast a vote. And if you don't have enough time on your hands to fill out a reasonable impediment form (if necessary), what makes me think that you will even vote?
ReplyDeleteBut then again, it's unsurprising for Democrats to believe that the latter party is trying to skew their votes. So the question here is: Does voter fraud have a statistically significant effect on the outcome of the polls? At least according to the article, voter fraud is extremely rare these days.
This is a difficult topic to stand on. The already rigorous process of becoming a legitimate voter doesn't really need to become any harder. This can actually affect the total outcome of voter turnout and can significantly hurt both parties.
Giuseppi Pelayo
Period 2
The new law in North Carolina is unnecessary and more will cause more hassles for its citizens rather than benefit them. The reasoning behind this law is that it is to eliminate voter fraud, but voter fraud is so scarce and hardly strong enough to make an impact in the overall outcome, so I don't see what the fuss is about. The process required in order to attain an ID is ultimately deterring many voters from registering, but it most affects the poor and lower income citizens of the state. The process of getting an ID is long and time consuming and some simply do not have the money or time to skip work for a couple hours to get an ID. I do believe some sort of proof of identity is important, but North Carolina requiring a government issued ID is unnecessary. The right to vote should be as accessible as possible to the citizens of our country. Rather than adding on extra barriers and limitations making it harder to vote, he government should instead encourage all citizens to exercise their rights and vote.
ReplyDeleteSharen Moniqca
Period 2
What stood out to me most in this article is how Rosanell Eaton said: "...the struggle to obtain ID is a hurdle that might prevent some from exercising their right to vote." Even though the requirement of photo ID is not as absurd as the Jim Crow laws, the reasoning for it is flawed. Fraudulent voting is not a large enough issue in the U.S. to require photo I.D. without fully making states' citizens aware and capable of fulfilling this requirement. Obviously, the government realistically will not go to everyone's house, give them the ballot, pick it up for them, and turn it in; however, they can do what they can to make sure everyone can easily do it for themselves.
ReplyDeleteVoter ID laws doesn't seem to help fix voter fraud. The voter fraud created by not allowing one to vote without an ID, is very small and isn't actually a problem. The states in question here are the ones that tend to be more conservative and this voter ID law could be used by conservative groups to target minorities, as an effort by conservatives to remain in power. I wouldn't put it past some of these states as they have had a history of twisting voter laws and amendments in their favor to limit minority votes.
ReplyDelete- Samira Torna
P. 3
After reading this article I still believe a photo ID should be required. The main purpose of this is to deter voting fraud not hut the minorities. It may be true that North Carolina only stated 2 cases of voting fraud but was that ALL the cases of voting fraud? The article doesn't even give statistics to prove that only two voting frauds occur. They just said North Carolina used two cases. And even if it was a small percentile it is still considered unfair and this law can help reduce the chances of it happening. In addition to that I was kind of surprised that minority groups have a "hard time" accessing a photo ID. Drivers Licenses, passports, birth certificates, etc. are all examples of photo IDs. A drivers license or passport are two of the most accessible and obtainable forms of photo IDs for all American citizens. Keep in mind that you need to be an American citizen to vote. It might hurt the minority group in the short run but in the long run it can help prevent voting fraud.
ReplyDelete-Christopher Tong Per. 5
I believe that yes, the voter ID requirement has the same effect as the poll tax. They both, in one way r another, discourage people to vote and as a result, the election will have fewer voter turnouts fro, that state. The state of North Carolina claim that the ID requirement is to reduce voter impersonation and fraud, but the stats show that only 2 cases of voter impersonation in 35 million votes from 2000-2014. The main reason behind this law in North Carolina is to discourage the Democrat vote, as North Carolina is a Republican state, because the minorities that will least likely have an ID to vote would most likely vote the Democrat vote. So, i believe the photo ID requirement should be removes as it served no benefit and discourages the people to vote.
ReplyDelete-Joseph Mikhail p.2
As a non-citizen who has lived here most her life, I do feel as if the laws on who should vote should be reevaluated a little bit. If the person is a lawful, intelligent and wholesome being; their race, age or gender shouldn't matter. The article states, "As more states tighten voting laws, legal experts say that both sides often face challenges in coming up with adequate evidence". So the fact that they want to require photo ID to vote is just illogical. The state governments complain about their decreasing voter turnout but then they want to give more hoops for the voters to jump through? It doesn't add up. Voting is a liberty given to us by the founding fathers and I think the easier it is to be a voter the more likely the government will hear the exact voice of the people. Instead of manipulating the system to sway votes away from certain minorities, social classes or even genders. I'm not sure but that's just my personal opinion.
ReplyDeleteLauren Hartogh
per.3
If North Carolina is truly doing this to stop their nonexistent issue against voter fraudulence, how come they don't do more to make the photo ID registration more defined and accessible. Whether that means putting stations to register closer to communities, or even considering to offer free registration to those who qualify, would all help ensure that the state is trying to not deter potential voters-especially minorities. But due to their lack of instruction and their aggressiveness, it makes the entire idea of photo IDs feel uneasy.
ReplyDeleteParis Barraza, P5
It appears to me that the ID requirement in order to vote is unnecessary. It limits minorities that are unable to obtain an ID and it deprives them of a basic right. I understand the state’s concern for voter fraud but as one study shows there is one case of voter fraud per 14.6 million registered voters. I don't believe that voter fraud is an imminent threat to the voting system but this law might be. Since it is limiting the amount of minorities that turn out to vote. In my opinion this law does more harm than good.
ReplyDeleteAdriana Ortiz
Per. 5
Although the reason for requiring a photo identification has been stated as trying to reduce voter fraud, I do think that beneath all the fluff and sugar coating, the requirement of a photo I.D. does carry the same ulterior motive that poll taxes did; to restrict or decrease the participation of minorities who may sway the outcome of the state as a whole. My reason for thinking this is because the idea originated within states that are known to vote republican and allowing minorities an opportunity to vote may change this. It is clearly stated even within the article that it is extremely difficult and costly to gain a photo I.D., especially for those who are not as well off or lack access to the right materials and resources. If the issue at hand is to try and reduce voter fraud, I think that voter identification could be a reasonable solution as long as it wasn’t bound to a state granted photo I.D. and instead could be anything like a school I.D., a birth certificate, passport, etc. I think opening up the options for how to identify oneself would aid not only in identification, but would also ease the process for those who do not carry and cannot gain an entirely new I.D. This way, minorities could justly vote and would not be slyly discriminated against with barriers that are almost impossible or increasingly difficult to overcome.
ReplyDeleteShowing photo ID should not be strictly enforced because it tends to dissuade voters from voting due to the extensive amount of steps needed to manage in order to vote. According to the article, voter fraud does not happen frequently so there is really no need to create stern laws to which people already find the rules too demanding and nerve-racking. Enforcing photo id will give people a negative vibe that their opinion is only valid if they present a photo ID, causing minorities or people that do not have the legal forms to feel detached and isolated from the affairs of the government, especially towards the desires and needs of the people.
ReplyDeleteMikayla Teves Period 5
The photo ID law in North Carolina is likely not an attempt to reduce minority turnout to improve Republican odds in the election. Any person who is likely to vote either has a state issued photo ID or can easily obtain one. The only issue with the law is in how it was implemented. The poor instructions given to state workers leaves people scared of an accidental error the could possibly lead to a felony. This is not an attempt to create another block for minorities, but an attempt at cleaning up elections that was poorly executed.
ReplyDeleteNicolas Goodling
P. 2
The states can have good intentions about why they want voters to have a photo ID, but that doesn’t take away the fact that the voting registration process is such a hassle for everyone. It takes away the voice of the poor by making the entire process expensive and tedious, and those that might not be able to get an identification can’t cast their votes on a ballot. They even provided us an example of a woman who had to “drive more than 200 miles and make more than 10 trips to correct her identification”, when she didn’t even need to do that (according to attorneys for the state??). This even further proves the point that all of the vague requirements for an ID-less ballot confuse everyone, who knows what sort of miscommunication happened when the woman tried to register herself to vote, and couldn’t because her maiden and married names weren’t on her ID. Now, I do think that presenting an ID when voting can prevent voting fraud, but also make the process easier and less expensive for those who can’t get one.
ReplyDelete-Erick Martinez p3
On the same note that the article ended on, requiring photo ID is too small of a technicality for either side to muster strong enough evidence for it to be defended or overturned (At least at the time because the verdict wouldn't be reached in time for the presidential primary). With that being said, I believe that the bigger argument lies on which one of these is the bigger issue: Voter fraud or the factional manipulation of politics? Based on the evidence presented in this article, 2 cases of voter fraud out of the 35 million votes is a ridiculously weak argument compared to the blatant inequality faced by minorities ESPECIALLY in the South because of their liberal leanings. Bitter racist sentiments inevitably managed to find its way back into this argument, but in this case it's not about race. It's all about who wins at the ballot box, and HOW political parties aim to succeed in winning sacrifices democracy for their self-interest.
ReplyDeleteSebastian Arceo P-5
On the same note that the article ended on, requiring photo ID is too small of a technicality for either side to muster strong enough evidence for it to be defended or overturned (At least at the time because the verdict wouldn't be reached in time for the presidential primary). With that being said, I believe that the bigger argument lies on which one of these is the bigger issue: Voter fraud or the factional manipulation of politics? Based on the evidence presented in this article, 2 cases of voter fraud out of the 35 million votes is a ridiculously weak argument compared to the blatant inequality faced by minorities ESPECIALLY in the South because of their liberal leanings. Bitter racist sentiments inevitably managed to find its way back into this argument, but in this case it's not about race. It's all about who wins at the ballot box, and HOW political parties aim to succeed in winning sacrifices democracy for their self-interest.
ReplyDeleteSebastian Arceo P-5
I see reason in the fact that an ID would be a benefit to the voting process, but with the information in this article we can see that this producing a hardship on minorities which could change the outcome of elections. As stated in the article, voter fraud is rare, and maybe instead of the ID requirement, measures can be taken that would appeal to all groups of people while also benefiting the election itself by preventing that very rare voter fraud.
ReplyDelete-Ashley Quintana
P.3
I do agree that this is another way to secretly restrict our rights to vote due to the fact that it leaves out the minority. Like the person in the article, she's not able to be heard just because a state lost her birth certificate. That really isn't her fault and now she's not able to be heard or make a difference with her vote. It does prevent voter fraud I guess but the percentage of that is really low and no matter what there's always going to be at least one fradualant voter.
ReplyDelete-Justin Andal per. 3
Personally I believe that a photo ID is unnecessary for the voting process, and that this is in fact intended to cause slip ups with misinformation. While it may seem to be disproportionately hurting the minority vote I feel as though this was not the intent.
ReplyDeleteThrough my understanding of the article, as well as my own judgment I have deduced that personally, I believe the necessity of a valid photo ID within the voting process is questionable. Voter fraud is extremely minute in comparison to the grand scheme of voting; the percentage of error that comprises fraud is ultimately insignificant due its rarity. I do believe that if this restriction is lifted then the minority vote will in turn increase, however I personally deny that this requirement was created in a feat to pursue racism and undermine minorities.
ReplyDeleteKenechi Ikeanyi (Period 5)
Before reading the article, I would've said that showing photo ID at the polls is a brilliant idea and should be practiced all throughout the country to avoid fraud attempts, but after reading, I quickly realized that it's not as simple as that. As the article dove deeper into the controversy, it started to become a race and political party issue. The fact that North Carolina even came up with this innocent looking scheme to essentially keep people who would most likely vote democratic from voting just shows how far behind some parts of this country are.
ReplyDeleteThe officials of North Carolina say that showing photo ID is merely to prevent voter fraud (which has been proved otherwise in the article) isn't even a good enough excuse due to the rarity of fraud. I do not believe that the strictness with North Carolina and voting is going to end anytime soon, but it is good that it's being addressed and talked about now, so they can (hopefully) change and improve upon it in the future.
Sitembile Sukuta (P.5)
I think that the requirement of a photo ID and the stricter voting laws passed by states like North Carolina are an impediment to people's right to vote. These hindrances make it harder for minorities to vote and suppress their voice and makes them feel like they don't have a say in what happens to their government. According to the article, voting fraud is exceedingly rare then why are Republican dominated states, like NC, requiring photo IDs and enforcing stricter voting laws?
ReplyDeleteNo one really disagrees that states have the right to require an official photo ID when people go into vote. However, this requirement can counteract and even discourage many from trying to vote. While many are claiming that this photo ID's purpose is to protect us from voting fraud, even though there's only been 2 accounts out of 35 million in North Carolina from the years 2000-2014, it is not a necessity at the moment due to the lack of fraud as well as all the unnecessary hoops many have to jump through to obtain their ID’s.
ReplyDeleteJocelyn Ayers Period 3
When first reading the article it seemed to make the most sense to use photo ID's to prevent voters fraud.As i looked up more about these requirements towards voting in these states, I discovered that they don't have a big problem with voting fraud so it seemed odd that they would make this a requirement. All it will lead to is less voter turnout and drive minorities away from voting.
ReplyDeleteKaleigh McCloskey Period:2 (absent)
Reading the argument provided by the article gives me many conflicting of requirements. As one part of me says to just get an ID, sure its another hurdle but not a brick wall, another part says theres no clear reason to need one taking in consideration that such little voter fraud occurs that would substantially affect the overall vote of the state. However if we look into modern society and peep into what requires photo ID we can it is actually quite logical to require it for votes seeing that we need it to take national tests, vote at our own school, basically provide verification of who you are. Which is why i believe more in requiring photo ID cause sure you can look at it as targeting minorities, but theres just not enough evidence that such a little hurdle would completely determine whether they get encouraged or discouraged and I bet if they feel real strongly for a nominee they WILL get their vote in cause they'll believe every vote counts when in reality it doesn't but that's another topic for a different day.
ReplyDeleteTwo statements really stood out to me.
ReplyDelete"Voter fraud is exceedingly rare" and "the real motivation is to make it harder for those likely to vote Democrat to vote"
It is a very true fact that voter fraud is rare, therefore the supporters of an ID requirements present quiet a weak case. If indeed the voter ID law affects minorities more then the second statement that I quoted is true. Minorities are more likely to vote democratic and a law like an ID requirement will only decrease minority turnout in voting. If voter turnout is such a dilemma to many states then they should be figuring out how to get minorities to vote more not vote less.
Claudine Elremawy, Period 3, (hospital excuse)
So I understand that people want to prevent fraud but that is extremely rare and uncommon so this argument is soft. This will probably be a problem for minorities making the issue with their turnout even worse. Our number one thing is to increase the turnout so this seems a little counterintuitive.
ReplyDeleteDiante Lowe
P.3