When states exert their Tenth Amendment rights to regulate the voting process, occasionally they've gone too far (see poll taxes, literacy tests, etc.). Have states gone too far this time by requiring voter identification before casting a vote? Liberals see discrimination; conservatives claim they're just reducing voter fraud. Your take?
Voter ID laws facing court challenges
I personally feel mutual about this argument. Although I don't think states have gone too far this time by requiring voter identification before casting a vote, I don't think it's completely necessary. While it does reduce voter fraud, there was not a big issue with this to begin with but I do not see requiring photo identification as discrimination. If a citizen has legitimate reason as to why they are not able to provide an updated photo I.D., I think that an address to their residency should be enough to cast a vote.
ReplyDeleteKamrin Entrikin p.3
While requiring voter ID may be on the stingy side, I personally don't think that it is a way of discriminating against minorities. Presenting an ID is a standard method of validation all over America. If I have to show ID to check out a library book, or buy groceries, then it shouldn't be some heinous thing to require ID for voters. Doing so also clearly lowers the risk of fraud, which is only and exclusively a good thing.If the state requires it then you need to put in the effort to get an ID if you want to vote, no matter your race or any other limiting factor.
ReplyDeletePer.3 Joel Bolton
Voter ID should not be required to vote, the claim that voting fraud is the main motivation to place this restriction isn't logical or true, 2 cases of voting fraud in 14 years doesn't give reason to put such a restriction on voting. With this voting ID restriction if not millions, thousands of people will not be able to vote in our future elections. I don't believe everyone that supports this restriction is motivated by discrimination or racism, however the act of making the Voter ID a requirement to vote will mostly affect the minorities in America, therefore not letting them have a voice and leaning toward what we've all been trying to avoid for hundreds of years, a majority rule.
ReplyDeleteAlyssa Urbina P.2
Personally, I believe a voting ID should be required for everyone to vote. However, from the article, I also see the rationale for why voter ID is not necessary. Despite this, I would still stick with requiring voter ID as there is still a possibility for fraudulent voting to occur, albeit a small possibility. With a voter ID requirement, it will raise the security and integrity of the polls, but in all honesty, I am decisively split between not having and having the requirement. I can definitely see how it can defer a person from voting as it adds yet another "prerequisite" to the list but as the article even stated, there has yet to be evidence "demonstrating that the new law would have a disproportionate impact on turnout results based upon race". So, in regards to the alleged "discrimination" towards minority voters, I believe the harm is nearly nonexistent. If I had to choose a side, though, I believe a voter ID requirement should remain in place; I say keep the voting security up.
ReplyDelete-Mark Yu
Period 3
I do not think states have gone too far by requiring voter identification as it allows for verification of a citizen to suppress voting fraud. There are also various forms of voter id which can be used in order to allow someone to vote although I do think that some states are more strict on what they allow as voter id and should validate any form of identification if it presents the voters name and picture.
ReplyDeleteMatthew Wellendorf P3
I do not feel that the state has gone too far by requiring voter identification, as it is a simple enough request. However, after being given some insight by Eaton in the article as to how difficult it was for her to obtain an ID, I do see the concern. In which case, I don't believe the problem is with requiring voter ID, which is a minuscule request that also prevents voter fraud, rather the process to acquire a government issued ID must be reformed.
ReplyDeleteSarah Hidayat P. 2
In my opinion, I don't think that requiring an ID is unconstitutional just only a nuisance for multiple reasons. One reason for it is it discourages people of minorities to vote due to the difficulty to obtain a form of ID. Eaton described her personal troubles to get a photo ID. The main reason as to why an ID is being asked for is to eliminate voter fraud. Voter fraud is not a big enough issue for the states to be asking for a form of identification from each voter. In North Carolina, only 2 out of the 35 million votes cast in the past 14 years were impersonated. This statistic proves how needless identification is when voting. Also, 49 out of the 50 states require voters to fill out a form with personal information when registering to vote. This form alone discourages many to vote, another hurdle doesn't need to be added.
ReplyDeleteSahar Yazouri P.2
I personally feel that voting ID's should be required in order to vote. I don't think that it is to hard to have and bring an ID. Its just like everything else you have to do like when you try to get a license you have to bring your birth certificate and many other things in order to receive that license. Making people bring an ID will also lessen fraud. However, I do see the other sides point of why people should not have to bring an ID. I do see that voting fraud is usually rare and it would be no point to make people get and bring a voter ID if no one really commits fraud. However I still believe that people should be required to have a ID in order to vote.
ReplyDeleteShannan Martinez P.3
I believe no state has gone too far with their voting identification requirements because these requirements help stop voter fraud and make voting a more serious matter. The fact that you may walk into a voting center and say your address to verify yourself in so many states startles me because in my opinion why would such a big decision in the government like a presidential election be so easy. It makes you think if your vote actually counts because of how easy the process was. Voting ID's will truly make no huge difference in voter turnout and are not a way of stopping minorities to vote because if they really do want to vote getting an ID is no problem.
ReplyDeleteFelipe De La Rosa P.3
I feel that both sides are lacking real statistics to back their argument. The state tries to argue that the whole point of the law is to reduce voter fraud, but there is not a significant problem with fraud during voting so basically they are trying to fix something that isn't broken; there only being two reported cases of fraud out of millions of votes. On the liberal side, they argue that it would only add inconvenience to minority voters but they use an example that doesn't even meet their argument since the lady doesn't actually need to renew her license! I do believe that what the state is trying to enact is a little fishy since their actually motive is very unclear and they are focusing on an unnecessary issue. They have no business causing even more steps since registration is already mandatory.
ReplyDeleteChika Ezeh Period 2
I feel that presenting an ID when going to cast your ballot is a reasonable request by the states. This exercise of the tenth amendment by the states is only to prevent voter fraud, not to prevent any minority's from voting. However it is evident that the process to obtaining a formal ID is too difficult and needs to be fixed. It may appear that the intentions of requiring an ID are not for sincere reasons according to Eaton. Overall, I think it is just another precaution to preventing voter fraud.
ReplyDeleteCassidy Latham p.2
Though there is less than 2% voting fraud, that is only accounting for the percentage they actually caught. And regardless, every vote counts. I do feel that we should keep the photo ID requirement for voting, but people might argue that it's biased against the poor. Firstly, photo ID is actually needed to apply for welfare and other government assistance programs. And anyhow a state mandated phot ID only costs $29, and free for anyone over the age of 62. I do feel that the government should provide photo ID for citizens that can prove they financially cannot afford it, so every citizen can truly vote. But I still feel that it should be required regardless.
ReplyDelete-Issa A. Sweis
Per. 2
DeleteI think that a voting ID should be required when voting in order to have added security in the sense that the person who's coming to vote is truly that person. Without an ID, it can open up opportunities for people to vote under someone else's name. However, after reading the article I think that North Carolina is taking the requirement of having a voter ID too far. In my opinion, Eaton's struggles in order to obtain one were unnecessary. Since all of the other 49 states do not have voter ID laws, maybe North Carolina should consider getting rid of this law or at least making it easier for minorities to obtain a voter ID. 2 of the 35 million votes casted in North Carolina in the past 14 years were fraudulent votes and that could possibly be because of the voter ID law. However, one needs the statistics of the fraudulent votes in the other 49 states as well in order to try to make a conclusion.
ReplyDeleteMary Saba P2
I am unable to grasp how requiring identification to vote is discriminatory. I do not believe that states have gone too far in requiring voter identification. I believe it is just like the common practice of asking for id at the cash register. However, I do believe why some say it is unnecessary. Because arguing that identification is required because of a small occurrence of fraud seems extreme. So maybe states just need a better explanation of why? Obtaining an ID might be difficult, however I believe not having id comes with more complications than actually getting one.
ReplyDeleteBianca Alonso-Bermudez P.2
To be honest, I don't really understand why states requiring ID is "going too far"... when in a mall in Nevada, my mom had lost something, and for us to retrieve it in the lost and found, they required her an ID. It's a source of valuable information from a reliable source. I really thought ID being carried around everywhere was an overt given; why is photo identification for voting in such opposition? Maybe I can't really understand it, because I'm from a position where driving to a place to take a proper ID picture isn't really a nuisance; circumstances may vary. However, I struggle to detect a link between requiring photo identification, and suppressing minorities.
ReplyDelete-Eunice Choi p. 2
I do think it is good to have voting identification so people do not vote more than once, but why do all the paperwork when you can scan a thumb print like at the dmv? I do not really understand the point of all the paperwork, but I do understand why the states want you to identify yourself.
ReplyDeleteAlyssa Fejeran
Period 2
I think it would be a good idea to require voter ID. Voter ID's are used in an attempt to prevent voter fraud not to suppress minorities. Though I do see, through Eaton's explanation, why it may be harder for a disadvantaged minority may have a harder time getting a voter ID but in that case the process should be changed before the law gets called unconstitutional. Voter ID's aren't suppressing minorities they're only trying to limit voter fraud and I think it should be required.
ReplyDeleteCarissa Martinez P.3
I do not believe the states have gone too far in requiring a photo I.D. Actually, I never even knew that this was an issue until today. I fail to see why having to obtain an ID is such a deal breaker in voting participation. Sure it can be a hassle, but I believe doing so would benefit you in the long run. Maybe there needs to be stronger evidence and examples to support how ID leads to discrimination, because i don't seem to spot the correlation. Even at school we are required to show our ID before voting for court. If you didn't have an ID and therefore were not able to cast a vote, wouldn't that give you the incentive to get one? It's just one extra step in exercising your right to vote, so isn't it worth it?
ReplyDeleteJohanna Oen per 2
I believe that it should be required to show an ID when voting. I myself have to show a photo ID when I buy certain things with a debit card, I don't how showing an ID at the voting booth is so "unconstitutional" of the states. This isn't discriminatory in my opinion and I actually believe that every state should require an ID. IDs aren't very difficult to get either, so to me there's nothing wrong with requiring a person to show an ID when voting.
ReplyDelete-Jacinda Clay P. 2
I support the concept of photo IDs to vote. The article failed to offer any reason why we shouldn't allow IDs other than an exaggerated worst case scenario. Voting plays a crucial role in our government. Who we vote determines what policies we adapt and what laws we pass. Therefore, it is important for us to ensure that it cannot be abused to elect candidates of a certain party. I think carrying IDs are a small price to pay to ensure that our government officials are actually the ones we voted for.
ReplyDeleteAustin Yuan P2
States have the right the excise any judgements they may have unless it breaks any law made by Congress or the Constitution. Therefore, states have the right to use photo I.D for identification purposes if necessary. "Going too far" is based on what the majority of the population thinks. Even though many would think poorly of this new law, if the state believes that it is necessary, then the law is ok. Even though it does not agree with the majority, the majority does have the right to change it when they agree on a solution. Taking a photo I.D is a nuisance to some but it is just like a driver's license or school I.D; both are necessary to have on at all times. I don't believe states have taken this too far constitutionally; BUT, my personal feeling also believes that it not really necessary to carry around a voting I.D but rather the state should use a driver's license or school I.Ds. to allow someone to vote. With the law in place, less citizens would take the time and effort to take another I.D and in time would have a change in demographics voting for a certain party.
ReplyDelete-Ronald Law P.2
In my opinion, I do not believe states have gone too far in requesting that Identification is necessary to vote. I can see the connection as to how it could be seen as discriminatory, but it is quite a stretch of an argument. It is common to be asked for identification amongst other things so I do not think it is discriminatory. With that being said, I do understand the argument that identification is unnecessary and somewhat of a hassle. Fraud is rare and it is not a true concern when voting. Nonetheless, I do not believe the request for identification is one that is too extreme.
ReplyDeleteMarina Leyvas-Bruce
Per. 2
I don't see why it is even a question that we need voters to show their ID's or at least reasonable documentation before they can vote. I understand the concern that some persons may have trouble obtaining photo ID, but I think that these people have at least a social security card or birth certificate, or some form of government or certified identification. I'm pretty sure that even persons from a minority group will have one these largely issued documents. Having and requiring some proof of ID, along with the signature, will help decrease the voter fraud cases. A fraudulent voter will most likely not go through the time and hassle of forging a certified ID card in order to cast an extra vote. Any voter fraud crime will likely be a crime of opportunity in a place where no such law is required. If some sort of law is implemented, it would make it more difficult for fraud, and may likely discourage it to the point where it is immeasurable. As far as the whole minority point, they are given equal opportunities under law to go to the DMV, county courthouse, or Social Security Administration and obtain an official piece of paper with their name, number, possibly an address or birthday, and show it on election day.
ReplyDeleteGrant T. Sipos Per. 3
Mr. CAV I'm confused, It states that a Government issued ID which is a license is supposed to be used but then it says that its difficult to obtain a voter ID so which one is it?? If it is to obtain a voter ID then yes i believe that it makes it harder to obtain the privilege to vote because it creates a barrier. This BArrier acts as discrimination because it could be easily obtained by majorities but do to the fact that minorities are usually more less fortunate they cant obtain this privilege. Voter ID does make it easier to stop voter fraud but there are so many more better ways to solve that problem as well without discrimination and creating obstacles.
ReplyDeleteViktoria Kuladzhyan period 2
I cannot hide my conservative views when it comes to this issue. All I keep thinking of is "personal responsibility." I frankly don't feel bad that some people don't have IDs. Go get one. Why does the state have to lessen its standards because you have chosen to go without an ID? How about raise your standards to meet the demands of the state? Rather than cry foul with a victim mentality, why not step up and take the same steps that every other person has taken to meet the requirements of casting a vote?
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, how many of you without an ID (I know, most of you have an ID but these states require a government-issued ID not a school ID) would go pay the $29 to get an ID for the sole purpose of voting? Many of you would not bother. Bottom line is that voting is just not that important enough for most people to jump through even the most simple of hoops. It's unfortunate that as a society we have to make voting so incredibly costless and easy to the point that even asking someone to present an ID is too much of a burden.
This whole agreement on not wanting to show a photo ID to vote is crazy. In my eyes if you want to vote you should show some type of ID that you are who you claim you are. Without showing a photo ID anyone can just walk up and say oh hey I'm so and so and, and the people at the voting booth will believe them. Now true that is a form a fraud, and most people won't do it. However, that doesn't mean that some people still won't try and do it. And if you don't have a photo ID then you could a.) go get one or b.) check off a box saying you don't have one because of x y and z. To me it's not that hard. Almost every citizen should have some type of form of ID especially if they drive. So what's so hard about showing the people at the voting booth this form of ID so you can have a say in politics? Also, to me retaliating by not going to vote because you don't want to show a photo ID is also crazy. It's really crazy if you have an ID to begin with. I understand you might be "exercising your freedom", but sometimes it's worth it giving up a little bit of freedom. And to me in this case, it's worth it to give up that little bit of freedom just so you can have a say in politics.
ReplyDeleteTyla Jones P.3
I do not think states have gone too far by requiring identification at voting polls. Eaton argued that obtaining photo ID would be harder for minority voters and is therefore aimed discrimination at them. However, I do not see the correlation between these statements. All US citizens have the right to exercise their vote in public polls. Even though the process to obtain legitimate photo ID may be long, all American citizens have to undergo it the same way. I do not see how this would be aimed discrimination towards minority groups such as African-Americans and Hispanics… If people genuinely wanted to exercise their vote, they would go through the same process everyone else has to gain photo ID. It is merely a precaution to prevent potential fraudulent voting, not suppress rights from certain demographics.
ReplyDeleteRoberto Martinez P.2
I can't see how the states would be in the wrong so deeply by requiring ID for voting. Requiring ID for anything is basically how America runs. You get ID'd from buying alcohol to seeing movies, all the way to shopping with a credit card and checking out library books. I get that a government issued ID is harder to maintain then a school ID or library ID, but it is possible. I see that the inconvenience and hassle to make identification mandatory for all has an effect on minorities more so than majorities. It's understandable that it could and is being manipulated into the idea of discrimination, but based on the fact that its very possible to obtain ID, I dont believe this is the case. I also dont believe that identification during voting is to take fraud by the horns and throw it out of the picture. I've concluded this because there is about I don't know, almost NO fraud even in the picture! 2 cases of fraud out of millions is pretty amazing to me. So if there is no discrimination AND no intention of destroying fraud (since fraud is hardly alive), then what is the real purpose of requiring ID? Maybe the purpose is cynical and not good-natured. I don't know. I can see both sides but ultimately, I dont believe the states are abusing their power by requiring ID for voting.
ReplyDeleteMicaela Fiedler p.2
I am stuck in the middle between the whole voter ID issue because on one hand, I believe it is more efficient for the accuracy of our votes, but on the other hand, I have a suspicion that it may be used as a discriminatory weapon against minorities. Since many minorities may not have acquired some sort of identification, they would be required to fill out some sort of form that claims they have a “reasonable impediment” like transportation problems etc. to explain their reasoning behind not acquiring an ID. However, if any of these claims were to be found false, they would face serious prosecution. Like the author stated, they may have kept the “reasonable impediments” pretty broad in order to keep the amount of opposition minimal. Therefore, if ever questioned in a court case, they could fit the terms according to their biases based on their general explanation of “reasonable impediments.” In accordance to the efficiency, I believe having a voter ID would benefit us considering it would prevent voter fraud. I feel like if we didn’t require some sort of ID it would become problematic as time progresses. Again, I see both point of views, but I am stuck between the two.
ReplyDelete-Britney Koh P.3
I don't think having to show some type of form of I.D is discrimination against minorities. Most people if not all have some type of I.D. Even if you show proof a residency by bringing a bill when you vote is good to me. I don't really see the big issue.
ReplyDeleteTayari Venable
per.2
I believe a voting ID should be required for everyone to vote, as there is still a small possibility for fraudulent voting to occur. A voter ID requirement will raise the security and integrity of the polls, however it can defer a person from voting as it adds yet another prerequisite to the list. If NC could make the process of obtaining a voter ID easier, there should be no problem. There is little to none discrimination towards minority voters so therefore, a voter ID requirement should remain in place.
ReplyDeleteAngie Perez P3
I do not understand why this is a topic of debate. Having and showing ID at the polls is not discriminatory in any fashion seeing that it may aid in abating voter fraud. The states who have these laws in place are not acting unconstitutionally or unjustly, therefore I support and applaud their attempts at creating more legitimate election processes.
ReplyDeleteTanner R. (Period 3)
Simply reading the title of the article I believe it should be required that a person presents voting ID on the day of an election. The voting ID doesn't compare to other voting laws in the past such as poll tax, the literacy test, or the grandfather. The state simply requires a form of identification to prove that you are, who you say you are in order to prevent fraud. However, the author presented the side against the voting ID law and showed the struggles of some people in some areas of the country who view the law as a form of discrimination. These people are prevented from voting because they can not provide a form of identification. My opinion still stays the same, I do believe voter ID should be required but in some aspects of the law it should be revised in order for people who view this law as form of discrimination to have an equal chance to vote.
ReplyDeleteLauren Casillas p.2
In my opinion a voter's ID is not truly necessary. Fraud is not a large problem within our system that needs a specific law to fix it. If it has occurred it's occured under small instances, North Carolina for example. Just like any form of ID it takes some time and work to receive one for whatever reason it is. Voting in this country isn't exactly a priority for most Americans and with the inclusion of a voter ID I believe participation among citizens would decline. Our problem at hand isn't fraud but rather how we can increase citizen participation among all classes, races, and ages.
ReplyDeleteJoseph Slmani
P2
In my opinion I believe that it does help to eliminate voter fraud by requiring an ID to vote. A lot of things in America require one to have an ID, so why should it be different for voting? However, I also can support the opposing argument that it promotes discrimination because, like the article said, minorities have a greater difficulty obtaining an ID. Although requiring ID seems like a law that was meant to keep the minorities from voting, I cannot see that that was the intention. The only intention was to eliminate voter fraud.
ReplyDeleteMary B. P3
Before reading this article I would have said my stance on the issue was mutual to both sides, either one doesn't produce much of a result. However after reading the article, I do see the validity of minorities concerns. Personally, I think in the case of North Carolina in particular, the extensive restrictions and steps that would be put in place by the law in question were unnecessarily extensive, and could have been to limit voting of minorities, such ans Africans Americans or Latinos. I doing think the law is necessary, voter fraud is such a rare offense, action like this doesn't really solve a big problem, and with the extra inconvenience this law adds to voting, I think the law is pointless and, as I've said unnecessary.
ReplyDeleteAshleigh Correz (period 3)
I support the law passed that requires a person to present photo ID in order to vote. Today the agreement against this law is that some people are unable to vote because they don't have a photo ID. This select few people see the law as an act of discrimination. Personally I see presenting photo ID as an easy requirement to fulfill in order to vote. As for the people without photo ID, yes they don't get to vote but if they really had a desire to vote they would go out and make it a priority to get some source of photo ID.
ReplyDeleteNoah Gentry p.3
I think that a voter I.D should be required and while I do see why there are legitimate reasons not to have one from the evidence displayed in the article i do think it should be required. Despite the difficulties with obtaining an identification the best way to address this, isn't to get rid of the I.D requirement but amend the process.
ReplyDeleteDaniel Enriquez p.2
Presenting ID for voter identification is very important to have. I believe it is not a discriminant act to do. People need to be independent thinkers, the only way to be independent is to grow up. ID identification required from States is just a simple request. In fact have ID identification will prevent fraud.
ReplyDeleteOlivia Lu
Period 2
I don't really get the whole argument as to why its such a big deal to provide some form of identification for voting. America literally runs off of this idea of showing your ID. What, are people going to start getting mad that you have to show your ID to buy alcoholic beverages and argue that its discrimination? Its what we've done our whole lives. We need to show our ID for almost everything you do. Even just buying items with a credit card sometimes requires you to provide identification, and in many cases a passport can suffice as an ID. I don't partially understand how it may discourage minorities to vote and how it makes it hard for them to even obtain an ID. I also understand how it could keep minorities voting democratic from participating in elections, but its just simply a ridiculous argument. We should be thankful that people even make the time to make sure we are who we are and we are not committing voting fraud or even trying to steal someone's identity because trust me, someone trying to pose as you is not a fun process to go through. I have second hand experience with this. Its just something we have to do and i don't really understand why people are complaining about it, we've had to do it for all theses years and people are just now starting to say its not right? i do see both sides of the arguments and how many this required act for voting could somehow be related to personal passions for power or some kind of corruption, but in all honesty the state is just asking for our ID's, they aren't violating any laws or rights.
ReplyDeleteChloe Pena P. 2
I don't think it's too much for states to ask for I.D. when voting but frankly, I don't disagree or agree with either side too. Those who argue for this voting regulation say its a necessary measure to prevent voter fraud but voter fraud is so rare that it shouldn't be considered significant enough for a law to be made in order to stop it which makes me feel like maybe there was a double-agenda in those who proposed this law. However, I can sort of see how some would argue that this law discourages voting among minorities but if voting really meant that much to you I think you would make sure you had a valid form of I.D. before voting even began.
ReplyDeleteScarlett Alvarez P. 3
I do not believe that the states have gone too far by requiring voter identification. It is definitely not as bad as other voting laws in the past. It is Just showing you are who you say you are in order to vote and to reduce the voters fraud. However saying this, i do not believe the fraud is even that bad at the moment with the registration people must go through to vote. While there may be loopholes in it, it shouldn't affect the outcome very much. Reading the article shows me the difficulty of obtaining an ID which makes me believe that that process is the problem and not the actual requirement to have an ID. Therefore I think the states have not gone to far and can keep the requirement, but the ID process must be made a bit easier for the minorities.
ReplyDeleteCollin Chouinard p.3
Personally, I find nothing wrong with needing to show I.D. before voting. Voting should not be taken lightly, and if just asking to see an I.D. is too much for some people, then that says something about our system. Having an I.D. prevents fraud, and we should not make exceptions for people because they cannot do something as simple as obtaining some form of identification.
ReplyDeleteChris Weiland P. 3
I do not believe that the states have gone too far by requiring voter identification. It is definitely not as bad as other voting laws in the past. It is Just showing you are who you say you are in order to vote and to reduce the voters fraud. However saying this, i do not believe the fraud is even that bad at the moment with the registration people must go through to vote. While there may be loopholes in it, it shouldn't affect the outcome very much. Reading the article shows me the difficulty of obtaining an ID which makes me believe that that process is the problem and not the actual requirement to have an ID. Therefore I think the states have not gone to far and can keep the requirement, but the ID process must be made a bit easier for the minorities.
ReplyDeleteCollin Chouinard p.3
People fail to realize this more than just ID. While ID may act as a deterrent to voters, the real injustice may be the shorting of the time allowed for early voting, ending of preregistration for 16- and 17-year-olds, and elimination of same-day registration. Judges have said that mostly black and Democrat voters use these abilities. Many people just don't have the time or knowledge on how to register. These abilities allow them to get the registration process done on their own time. Republicans will say its to stop voter fraud but there has been extremely low cases of voter fraud already. This was specifically designed to stop current groups from voting. And in a nation with only 50% voter turnout shouldn't we make the process easy as possible.
ReplyDeleteEshawn Singh P.3
I don't think that requiring an I.D. to vote is the states taking their power too far. However, I do think it is unnecessary. If people forget to bring I.D., or just don't have one I don't think it should limit you to vote. It is bad enough that people don't register to vote,and requiring an I.D. will just make it even harder for people to vote, especially minorities. I get how in North Carolina the law is to protect people from fraud, but I think it also limits people actual vote and choice to vote.
ReplyDeleteJonathan Maly P2
I personally don't feel that states have gone "too far" with requiring voter identification when it comes to casting a vote. Although there are the reasons stated in the article that voter identification is not truly necessary, I believe voter ID requirement should be in place due to voting frauds from occurring and increasing more security and more moral principles on the polls. As for obtaining these voter IDs JUST for the sake of voting, it is a 'dramatic' burden towards the people to purchase one giving the sense that voting is not THAT important to them just because people would not go out of their way to purchase one. Just as much as it is important to carry a driver's license/school ID at all times, they are a requirement for certain things such as purchasing alcohol or taking a school bus just like the voter IDs are a requirement for casting a vote. SIMPLE and STRAIGHTFOWARD in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteAnnalyn Arevalo p.3
I can see to why states ask for voter identification. They're only trying to make sure only registered voters are who they say they are, so i agree with their. However I don't agree with their sudden crack down on new rules and regulations, and how they suddenly change them. It really is discrimination to voters who had registered to vote and are refused the right to vote.
ReplyDeleteStephanie Lam P.2
Well from what we went over from today in class it is constitutional for the states to require you to have an ID and that rule could be very different in each state. So what this article saying that they are just trying to make it harder for minority voters to cast their democratic votes in a republican state. I don't necessarily believe that they would go out of their way to do all that but on the other hand with its past history it wouldn't be surprising finding out that's the reason. But overall about the agruement of whether its constitutional i have to go with the state because states have complete control over that part of our lives because the federal government has no power to interference.
ReplyDeleteJason Jones p.3
Although requiring Voter IDs would not be pushing the states' power it is counter intuitive to impose such restrictions as the main problem with voting currently is the low turnout rates, not fraud. The roots of the law being focused on discouraging those who would most likely vote democratic is the real motivation of this legislation, and just like all major legislation come unintended and intended consequences, one of which being a much lower voter turnout as many would be discouraged from the extra barrier added to voting.
ReplyDeleteAnthony Noyola P.2
I understand the reason on why identification is needed for voting to lessen the chance of fraud, and on how is difficult for the minority to get identification. In my opinion states have taken it far to have identification because it gives minority the possibility not able to vote. So I would agree with the liberals but I believe that using the word discrimination is a bit to much and they are taking this problem out of proportion.
ReplyDelete- Anarika Camba per2
I think that presenting an ID when going to vote is not too much of the states to ask for. I think it is a good way to prevent voter fraud and collect all of the votes faster and more accurately. However I do not think it is as huge of a deal if it has to involve an extreme amount of paperwork and fees. If this is the case then no ID presentation is necessary as the goal of elections is to get as many people to vote as possible. Immense paperwork would detract many voters and we want to increase voter turnout not discourage it.
ReplyDeleteJoseph Murad p. 2
I think that presenting an ID when going to vote is not too much of the states to ask for. I think it is a good way to prevent voter fraud and collect all of the votes faster and more accurately. However I do not think it is as huge of a deal if it has to involve an extreme amount of paperwork and fees. If this is the case then no ID presentation is necessary as the goal of elections is to get as many people to vote as possible. Immense paperwork would detract many voters and we want to increase voter turnout not discourage it.
ReplyDeleteJoseph Murad p. 2
In my opinion, a requirement to show ID when going to vote is rather unnecessary, especially considering there were only two cases of voter fraud in 35 million total cast votes. On the other hand, I didn't really see much of a problem with regards to how requiring voter ID or how it could be a discriminatory tactic to discourage certain groups or minorities from voting. Then, after reading the article, I was able to understand that it can be a burden for some people to get their IDs. This could definitely lead to a decrease in the number of people actually voting but I think the decrease would be very small. Requiring a photo ID would definitely make it easier for voter fraud to be prevented but honestly, like I said before, it just seems unnecessary. Why make people who still need to an acquire an ID go through all of the hassle to get one in an attempt to prevent something that is only happening on rare occasions? I still don't really think requiring a photo ID would be discriminatory but I don't think such a requirement is needed.
ReplyDeleteAbby Salmon P.2
Though I do believe that asking for some form of identification from voters is reasonable, I can see the potential issues that could spring from it. Having to find a way to go through the motions for getting an ID could definitely be an issue for a lot of people, with factors like distance from the proper facilities making the entire process a huge hassle. However, I still believe that it's better for identification to be required to make sure that no form of voting fraud can occur (whether fraud is "rare" today or not). It just seems obvious to me that voters should be checked to make sure that they are who they say they are before they're allowed to participate in the polls.
ReplyDelete-Adrienne Sanchez, p. 2
I think that states haven't gone too far by requiring voter ID because it is a fairly simple requirement. After reading the article I do see that both sides of the argument have their reasons. One being that voter fraud is rare and therefore requiring voter ID is to try and discourage minorities from voting. But one of the bigger problems from the article is that the process of getting an ID is what is having people turn away. Though the law was modified, officials have not informed people of the requirement and guidelines. So I don't think that states have gone too far, but that they need to properly inform the people about getting a voter ID.
ReplyDeleteEmberly Reyes Per. 3
In all honesty states asking for a form of identification before voting is simply just another way to prevent voter fraud. The argument could be made that voter fraud is already extremely rare, but it still does happen. And the only reason that it is so rare is that precautions like this are taken to prevent it…adding on something like this would lower the risk even more and has no negative outcomes. Anyone saying this is a form of discrimination doesn't have any real evidence to prove this and is most likely just looking for controversy.
ReplyDeleteColton Lynch P.2
Personally, I believe both arguments are inefficient when explaining their true intent. Regarding the requirement of identification, it does not seem too extreme of a demand... however voting fraud isn't common, so the true intent of this requirement is unclear. Also, I do not see why ID requirement is so controversial, it's very simple to possess one. I do not believe this issue should be as problematic as it is.
ReplyDelete-Myana (period 3)
This article seems to be leaning more towards the democratic bias but it does support it with actual examples of why minorities may struggle to receive their ID's. I do feel that while it gives a little amount of examples that there isn't enough evidence to use this article to fight for either side with a lack of statistics. While I do agree that this may discourage minorities, who tend to lean more towards the democratic party, this isn't enough information to proves that minorities are discouraged to get an ID to actually vote due to a this Identification law.
ReplyDelete-Antonis P. Christodoulou
per. 2
I personally don't find a problem with showing I.D. in order to vote. I think there is some logic in showing I.D. because it makes sense to prove who you are so you don't vote more than once or simply to prevent fraud when voting and also to prove that you are over 18 years of age. Maybe the rules of certain states are a bit too strict and could be a good idea to loosen up because on the other hand, it really isn't that big of a deal to have some sort of I.D. or not. I feel like if the majority of people have an I.D. then it could make things easier, but it shouldn't prevent lots of those who cannot obtain one for some sort of reason.
ReplyDeleteSammie Soto
Period 3
Although I understand the potential benefits that would come with requiring voter identification before casting a vote, I have come to believe that it is far more likely that this is a form of discrimination rather than an act of reducing voter fraud. The article itself states that voter fraud is exceedingly rare. This requirement perpetuates voter suppression and trickery as well as racism. It disregards the plight of the poor and almost sets standards as to which citizens can vote. For many African Americans and Latinos who have become more susceptible to poverty and lower rates of education and health, each stage of the photo ID process imposes great hardship. Not only are they less likely to possess an official photo ID, they are also less likely to obtain one. There may be ulterior motives to the creation of this requirement like making it harder for those likelier to vote Democrat to vote. Voter identification seems to be directed at specific groups rather than all of America. It is more of a hassle than anything, and in the long run, will not be as effective as it is being made out to be.
ReplyDeleteTasmia Hussain
P3
Requiring a Voting ID to be shown seems to be a completely reasonable method of regulating voters/ voter fraud, especially in comparison to previous methods such as literacy tests and the grandfather clause. When you delve deeper into the effects of the ID requirement, you see a parallel between it and the poll tax of the late 1800's.
ReplyDeleteDisproportionately, this discourages those who are poorer (typically minorities) from voting. By the domino effect, less minorities and poor votes favors the rich, white, republicans. This feeds the cycle which we can't seem to get ourselves out of in America: all people need to be accounted for and there must be a way to eliminate the discriminations against those whose voice is not heard. The Voter ID Law is a step in the right direction for ways to regulate "voter fraud" (which may or may not even be a significant problem); however, the bias against minorities cannot be overlooked.
Kristina Heisser
Period 3
I am leaning more towards the view that states should be able to require voter IDs because it is a way of ensuring that the voting process is fair, and it does prevent against voting fraud despite this not being the main motive. I can understand why some say that it is a form of racial discrimination because the article does say that minorities such as African Americans and Hispanics are less likely to have an ID. However, I think that if a person who does not have an ID really wants to vote, then he or she should take the time to go make and pay for the ID especially since IDs are used widely in this country and would be beneficial not only for voting but for other purposes as well, such as the use of credit cards. The states who require government-issued IDs in order to vote are not in the wrong.
ReplyDelete-Susu Le P.2
I do not think that requiring voters to have a voter ID is an act of discrimination against minorities. It may be a burden to obtain one, but that burden is placed on everyone. Obtaining a voter ID is just another duty that one must fulfill. Many people are used to getting things the easy way and are therefore discouraged from voting by the need to obtain a voter ID. We should realize that not everything can be done the easy way; if we want to do something, we must put in the effort to get it done! If we want to vote, we should be able to put in the effort to get a voter ID. Even though there is not much evidence of voter fraud, as seen in the article when it states that there were only 2 cases of voter impersonation out of 35 million votes cast in federal elections between 2000 and 2014, I believe that any prevention of fraud is worthy. In the article, Richard Hasen says, "there do not appear a huge number of people who lack ID, can't get the ID and actually want to vote." Therefore, if a citizen would like to vote, he or she should be able to put in the effort of getting a voter ID.
ReplyDelete-Susi Le, P.2
i think that implementing the requirement of a vote ID is a complicated issue, because if you say "yes: require it" you can come across as insensitive, whereas if you vote no on the voter ID it can appear that you support enabling people who are voting illegally. Voter fraud seems to be an issue that isnt extremely relevant today, many people dont even vote due to the long registration process, they arent going to try to play the system to get an extra vote in anyways. my opinion on the matter is that some states may implement the voter ID system if they have a history of voter fraud, but the voter IDs have to be evenly distributed between minorities and social classes, primarily across races and income. the IDs need to be easy to come by.
ReplyDeletekieran jackson p3
I am a former student of Mr. Cavanaugh’s who heard about this assignment and would like to share a small experience of mine regarding the relevant topic of voter identification. On June 7, 2016, I was strolling about my college campus (that is very liberal, might I add), and noticed a primary voting area set up. The problem was that it would close at precisely 8:00 pm and it was less than five minutes to the deadline. I did not have ANY identification on me.
ReplyDeleteI walked in empty-handed and no one asked to see my ID. Even after I told an elderly woman there that I was not affiliated with any political party, she still gave me the Democratic ballot and I was able to exercise my right to vote with the ballot receipt and the “I Voted” American flag sticker to prove it. (Maybe my experience would have been different if I had an accent or if I was in a less liberal setting.)
What my experience taught me was that voter identification applies only to less educated, perhaps less privileged demographics, and serves to disenfranchise their votes. The voter still has to fill out the ballot with his/her name, address, and other relevant information.
Nabila Hussain
(formerly in Period 3, Class of 2013)
Nabila! Great to hear from you. This experience you recount is a bit alarming to me. It sounds like anyone could have walked up and received a ballot that evening. Doesn't this reinforce the article's argument against voter fraud? Without proper ID, couldn't both parties be guilty of trying to get as many votes as possible?
DeletePersonally I think this is a fraud. There were only two significant cases of voter fraud in the years 2000 to 2014 out of 35 million general/federal votes, although there is room for more or less with these two cases... twos cases are still just that... TWO cases. The fact that these restrictions for voting and such are put into action because they want to prevent voting fraud, a rare case during voting, just seems suspicious to me. I see that blaming it on voting fraud is just a cover up. Telling people its to prevent such rare cases they other wise wouldn't care about unless it had an ulterior motive. Voting fraud is the scapegoat, I feel, for a more sinister (okay maybe not pure evil, but unjust) motive. However I don't think this comes to par with voter restrictions such as the literacy tests and grandfather clauses of back then. I don't see anything bad about having voter identification, and I can see why they would need it, but for the reasons they are claiming to have it make me just a bit suspicious. I can see the good in it, but my gut is telling me there's more. I'm not sure if I entirely believe if they are trying to limit the democratic vote as well, I feel it could be something else.
ReplyDeleteAshley Abalos per 2
I feel as though while requiring an ID isn't really unreasonable, it's not necessary either. Voter fraud is already committed very rarely and all this law does is potentially open up the door for states to be able to pass more restricting voting laws. I do think it is fair though to require some form of identification like a birth certificate etc. but again I don't see it as a pressing issue.
ReplyDelete-Adam Witkowski P.3