Voting rights have been a topical issue this summer, both at the federal and the state level.
Read over this information about the Supreme Court ruling in the case Shelby County v. Holder.
Then read about voter ID laws proposed in North Carolina.
Answer questions on the form linked here, and leave your comment below. Happy reading!
When it comes to the NC voter ID bill I must completely disagree with all versions of the bill. I understand many people see this bill as a way to build confidence in elections, but I see this bill as a way to steer people away from voting. By taking away forms of photo ID many people may not be able to vote. Although Republicans state they are willing to help provide people that will no longer have ID receive ID, there is no definitive plan on how this will be carried out. I question whether plans that are made will really be made to help these people receive proper ID. On the Voting Rights Act decision I have to say I think the case was left kind of open ended. A coverage formula was ended, but a other one wasn't created, this is in part because the Court does not have that power only Congress does, but my question why keep Section 5 without a definitive Section 4. In my opinion it should've been all or nothing and this case probably nothing would have been better.
ReplyDeleteI don't think the question of whether states are trying to suppress voting or limit corruption has a clear-cut answer. While I'm sure some are just trying to keep elections more legitimate, there are also those who will try to pursue measures to benefit themselves; they might accomplish this by suppressing a group that may be more inclined to vote for their opponents, for example. There's been a large amount of partisan finger-pointing involving the North Carolina proposal, and not all of them are unfounded.
ReplyDeleteI don't agree with the justices' opinion that parts of the VRA are no longer necessary. We've progressed a lot in the past few decades, but there are still politicians and groups out there who will not hesitate to suppress voters in order to remain in office. It's less about race at this point, but the problem remains.
- Nathanial Y.
I agree with the House version of the NC voter ID bill; I think it is good to require some type of photo ID at the polls. I don't really see an issue with it as long as there are many different types of photo ID that are accepted. For example, college ID's, passports, licenses, and employment cards should all be accepted at the polls. But, I think it is has gone too far when types of photo ID are required to be federal or state issued. College students should definitely be able to use their student ID. I believe it is definitely a move by Republicans to try and limit the Democratic push that college students provide in elections. For the new ruling on the VRA, I agree with Jordan B. when she said that the case was left open ended; there is still the section that mandates the requirement for some states to use these “preclearances”, but there is no new formula for deciding which states to must adhere to these rules. Discrimination levels in some states have changed since the VRA was passed in 1965, and so, I believe the judges made the right decision for our changing country. I think that the new formula for this section of the VRA should not judge states on their past history of discrimination, it should reflect the current levels of discrimination in their state today.
ReplyDelete-Samantha D.
The NC voter ID bill may be intended to prevent voter fraud, but I think the the lawmakers who wrote the bill are also aware that it has a side effect of suppressing voter participation, particularly in demographics that happen to be more Democrat. It's a cheap tactic, but things like this are not uncommon in the realm of partisan politics, coming from both sides.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with the the Supreme Court's ruling in Shelby County v. Holder. While I think the provisions in the VRA have fulfilled their original goal, they can still be useful in preventing new forms of voter discrimination.
Voter fraud is a difficult issue to discuss. Several studies have been made showing that it is or is not a problem within the United States. Ultimately, it seems that we cannot be totally certain if voter fraud poses a major problem or not. Because of this uncertainty, I do not see much reason to be proposing strict laws that would require photo id while at the same time restricting the types of id that can be used such as student ids. There is already evidence that shows voter turnout in the US is low in comparison to other democratic countries. Usually, this low turnout can be attributed to the already complicated and time consuming process that is registering for voter eligibility. Given this fact, the prospect of adding to these complications in order to combat something that is not clearly a problem seems unnecessary.
ReplyDelete- Spencer W.
In my opinion, the Supreme Court made the right decision. The states have been regulated for a long enough time, and now must be returned their rights. If any state begins to pass discriminatory laws again, they can be placed back under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. However, just like a child cannot be punished continually for something they have done in the past, the states cannot be kept under this regulation forever. They must be given back their rights.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the law that is trying to be passed in the NC legislature is a good example of the possible outcome of taking away this regulation. Whether or not the Republicans are purposely trying to limit college voters, the law they are trying to pass will have this effect. While it does limit voting corruption, I believe it does more harm than good.
I agree with Jordan, and I think that any State government plan to reduce the number of acceptable forms of photo identification are terrible proposals. I think the purpose of a photo ID is to confirm someone's identity, and this can be accomplished by college or employer IDs. Although this may prevent a few cases of hypothetical voter fraud, in reality I view this as a way to make voting even harder for youth. The government should be willing to work with people and not force them to carry around another from of ID, especially when college students mainly carry around their school ID as their main form of identification.
ReplyDeleteThe Voting Rights Act decision was correct in assuming that parts of the legislation were no longer necessary. I do think there are still many who would restrict voter rights and the goal of the Voting Rights Act served a good purpose, but I agree with the court's decision that states that new rules are needed. Times have clearly changed. Federal oversight should not significantly slow approval of state legislation regarding elections, and I think that was the purpose of the court's decision. It was not supposed to harm voter rights, but supposed to spur creation of a new system that enhances voter rights and increases efficiency in dealing with state government's legislation. The decision still allows Congress to create new rules regarding this issue.
-Henry K.
I agree with the state government plan limit usable forms of photo ID. The bill is intended to place more confidence in election results, and prevent out of state students from voting twice. If someone really wants to vote, then they will make a conscious effort to obtain some form of photo identification, rather than a student ID. The state will be providing young voters with a way to obtain an ID, so if someone truly wants to vote, then they will find a way to do so. If they are unmotivated to get a new ID, I don't think they should be able to vote in the first place because it obviously is not enough of a priority to them. (I'm probably the only person who thinks this, I know)
ReplyDeleteConcerning the VRA, I think that the Supreme Court has made the right decision concerning what our country needs at this moment. Our world is very different since the VRA was passed many years ago. Things have changed, and voting laws should be changing along with it.
-Nathan M.
I definitely disagree with Senate's proposal, it's just an attempt to limit student voting because of how that demographic typically votes. I'm on the fence about it being required at all because there's people who ride the bus and there's people who are unemployed and may not have a license, but overall requiring some form of ID seems reasonable. I thought that Justice Ginsburg had a stronger argument for her opinion and the other Justice's opinions seemed a little too vague. I've seen a lot of attempts by NC legislators to limit voting, particularly in youth and other groups that tend to vote liberal. Examples include cutting early voting by a week and ending the ability of teenagers to register before they are 18 " http://www.citizen-times.com/article/20130725/NEWS/307250056/NC-Senate-passes-voting-restrictions ".
ReplyDeleteI agree with Samantha D. in the voter ID issue. The House version includes many accepted forms of ID that all age groups would have: cards from colleges and community colleges, local governments, employers, etc. I think it shows that the Republican members of the House are trying to compromise by adding options for what type of ID a voter can use. The Senate version strictly limits which IDs can be used, just for them to offer to pay for everyone without these IDs to have one. This is a waste of money when UNC system schools and state community colleges are run by the state and already give their students IDs that could be used. As far as the ruling on the VRA, I agree with Jordan B. in that it's hard to have section 5 without section 4. Justice Clarence Thomas writes, "Congress has failed to justify ‘current burdens’ with a record demonstrating ‘current needs.’” I agree, and I think that Congress will have a hard time writing a new formula for which state and local governments must have preclearance.
ReplyDeleteWhile I believe that the proposed requirements for voting are meant with (some) good intentions, I believe that the waste of taxpayer dollars and amount of votes that will be not cast because of them highly outweigh the intentions of the bill. There were only 121 alleged cases of voter fraud in NC out of the 6,947,317 votes cast in 2012 (http://www.wncn.com/story/22934120/widespread-voter-fraud-not-an-issue-in-nc-data-shows). I don't know about you but I would much rather have 121 fraudulent cases of voting than thousands of citizens losing their right to vote over not having proper ID or the time to get one. I definitely think the House bill is better than the Senate since it allows more flexibility with identification but I would still rather both of them not become law. The pursuers of these bills boast that it will increase confidence in elections, but I along with probably most of the state have never really felt insecure about the voting process in NC. Regarding the Section 4 ruling, I believe that it was a bad idea to scrap a law that was such an important for stopping voter discrimination. Talk about increasing voter confidence, huh? Like Jeffrey C. said, the bill may have served out its purpose, but it is still nice to have a safeguard against any future attempts. It is sort of ironic how the same people who are cheering that there are less barriers for states and municipalities to create voting laws are the same ones who want to add them to something so incredibly important to our democracy as voting.
ReplyDeleteI think the Supreme Court made a huge mistake in the Holder case. Since 2000, the VRA has been invoked 74 times, proving that it is still necessary. Furthermore, only 2 hours after the ruling, Texas announced plans for voting measures that had previously been deemed "strict, unforgiving burdens on the poor" (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/26/john-oliver-voting-rights-act-decision_n_3502307.html). With both of these facts, I don't see how anyone can believe that the VRA is outdated or unnecessary. Yes, times have changed, but that is because of the VRA. Eliminating it is like putting away your umbrella in the middle of a rainstorm because you haven't gotten wet.
ReplyDeleteI also think that the NC bill is a huge mistake. To Nathan M., the problem may not be apathy, but an inability to get a photo ID. "... more than 300,000 registered voters lack driver's licenses or other forms of state-issued ID, most of them elderly or low-income minorities." (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/25/north-carolina-voter-id-bill_n_3656084.html) Many of these people don't have the time, transportation, or energy to vote, even though they may want to. Plus, there is much more included in the bill that works to keep people from voting, including shortening early voting, eliminating straight-ticket voting, and ending same day registration. It is an extremely partisan and harmful bill.
-Keegan B.
I agree with Samantha D on the voting ID proposal. There are definitely voters out there that have faked there ID and this proposal is trying to make the voting more legitimate. I do also believe that college students should be allowed to use their school ID's. At a lot of colleges freshmen aren't even allowed to have cars, so why do you need to have your drivers license with you when you have your student ID that tells who you are? As for the Shelby County v. Holder case I would have to agree with Jordan B when she says the case was left open ended. The supreme court doesn't have the power that congress has to make new legislation and you really cant simply take out an Act that's right in the middle. It will take some fixing if they want to get the VRA fixed so Act 5 isn't just thrown into a completely different spot.
ReplyDelete-Katie Finger
Like Samantha D, I agree with the House version of the voter ID bill. I definitely think that some form of photo ID should be required at the polls to prevent voter fraud. Student IDs should be accepted though, since they provide confirmation of identity just as well as other IDs. I agree that not allowing college students to use their student IDs is a move by Republicans to limit the typically Democratic votes of many college students. Since our country is changing and the VRA was passed back in 1965, I think the justices are correct in stating that certain parts of the VRA are no longer necessary. Nathan M made a great point when he said, "Our world is very different since the VRA was passed many years ago. Things have changed, and voting laws should be changing along with it." A new formula needs to be created for the VRA based on current state levels of discrimination, not based on the state's past.
ReplyDelete-Annie M
I like the idea of requiring an ID to vote, prevent voter fraud and ensure only state residents cast ballots, not out-of state people who seek to get their neighbor to vote for a specific party in the election. But what I don't like is that college students are unable to use their school ID to vote. That’s preposterous! Sure I can use my driver license, but will I need it when I go to college and find out I don't need a car on campus? That will pose a problem if I don't always carry my driver license with my school ID during the day. It will also be an issue of fairness; Democrats may have less influence on state/local elections than Republicans, which is obviously unfair.
ReplyDeleteI think the Supreme Court made the wrong decision. The Voting Rights Act kept states from discriminating against minority groups at the polls and now with the restrictions relaxed, states that have had histories of voting discrimination can surely exploit new loopholes and prevent specific groups from voting. If I were a Court justice, I would have kept Section 4 in place. It’s doing its job, why strike it down?
- Keenan T.
I agree with several of the points made by Samantha D. and Zach M. The bill may have been made with good intentions--as house republicans state, voter fraud is a frightening aspect that could possibly be a problem, and added guidelines could be a pleasant reinforcement of security--or with shady intentions. I believe that at the North Carolinian level, republicans such as Senator Tom Apodaca are trying to make it as hard as possible for typically democratic voters like college students and the poor to have easy access to their right to vote and the possible renewal of their newly specified voter identification. While the nation has taken a considerable turn for the better since the days of the original enactment of the VRA, we need to remember that racism and prejudice still exist in our country, and that the VRA, as referenced by Keegan B., is still completely utile and not at all 'unconstitutional.' I hope for the speedy return of Section 4, or at least for a suitable addition to the bill that will not permit discrimination in our polls.
ReplyDeleteVivian C.
While I support some aspects of the new voter ID bill, I find some essences of it to be both unfair and unnecessary. I agree with what Samantha D. stated earlier. I am in support of having to present photo ID’s when at the polls, but think there should be more leniency than just those provided by the state or federal government. As many have stated, it seems unfair to eliminate the use of college, private business, law enforcement and many other valid forms of identification. Ideally, we would like to cut out fraud during voting times, but I think that this is the wrong way to approach the situation. When looking at this bill, you must consider the large amount of college aged voters it has the potential to eliminate. When looking at the ruling of the Supreme Court in the case Shelby Counter v. Holder, I disagree with the removal of Section 4. I feel that this may have negative results, and parts of the country (that haven’t changed as much as others) may be able to create new voting laws that discriminate towards minorities. The presence of Section 5 allows for some approval methods, and in the future I believe that will be put into action if state and local governments take advantage of the courts decision.
ReplyDeleteOverall I support the new voter ID bill. I think that it is a legitimate way to prevent fraud and I do believe that if put in a vote that will affect the government one should what the government has issued in order to vote. It is the same as going out to buy alcohol when one reach the age of 21. In order to buy alcohol one must present a government issued ID that has their date of birth on it as proof. The concern I have is that in order to get an ID it will cost money which some people in NC cannot afford to do if they are only to use it for voting once in a while.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the Supreme Court case i disagree with the Courts decision. The Court should not just take away section 4 when it is doing fine just they way it was. It is an important section in the act as it kept discrimination from taking place when voters place their votes. There is no use in getting rid of an section of an act when there would be no benefit when it is gone.
While I do believe certain parts if the voter ID bill is valid, other parts seem quite unfair. I understand that voting fraud may happen but I also think that the solution should be fair too all. Not allowing college ID's and ID's of private business seems far fetched. As Julia D. said above it would be great to eliminate fraud but there has to be another way. The way this was done does seem a little partisan as stated in the text.
ReplyDeleteAs for the Supreme Court I disagree with the decision of the Court. Section 4 was in place for a reason and in areas that may not be as forward thinking it may still be necessary.
-Taylor B
I agree with Zach M and Taylor B that the proposed voting fraud solution has an extremely high cost which is the fact that it will discourage many voters from participating in elections, and this high cost comes with a small benefit which is the fact that the few voter fraud cases that exist North Carolina will be decreased even more. I disagree with the fact that student and college IDS will not be accepted because young aged voters already show up the least to the polls and if this small convenience is deprived from their our voter turnout will fall even lower that it already is. Personally I think this bill is somewhat partisan because it is obviously going to effect young, middle class workers who tend to vote democratic by placing a few more hurdles in their away on election day which should give republicans better chances during the 2016 election. In regards to the supreme court decision I think that the case was not given enough attention in the media which in my opinion could have negative effects when issues regarding voting rights arise because their is no strong public pressure on congress to create a new section 4 formula.
ReplyDeleteYosef S.
I strongly disagree with the NC voter ID bill. While it’s understandable that the Senate would try to stop fraud in whatever ways it can, voter fraud is actually not a big issue in North Carolina. “Of the 7 million ballots cast in 2012, only 121 cases of voter fraud were reported to the appropriate district attorneys office.” That accounts to about .0000174 percent of ballots in North Carolina being fraudulent a year. (http://www.wncn.com/story/22934120/widespread-voter-fraud-not-an-issue-in-nc-data-shows). The bill seems to just be an attempt to prevent democratic voting. Data shows that the passing of the bill would inhibit minorities, college students and the poor from voting, and they all tend to generally vote democratically. But, even if the intention was NOT to limit the voting of some demographics, the fact that it does cannot be ignored. Everyone deserves an equal opportunity to vote.
ReplyDeleteWhile you can talk about how these types on bills prevent voter fraud all you want, the reality behind it all is that it truly suppress voter participation. Mike S makes a great point that voter fraud is a VERY minor problem in the North Carolina voting system. With that being said, passing a bill like this with the justification that it "prevents voing fraud" just makes no sense and makes that explanation for this bill being passed almost irrelevant. There is no way around it that this is clearly a way for Republicans to prevent the youth from voting because of the known statistical fact that the youth votes Democrat. Elections are supposed to represent the people's opinion, and if you put restrictions like this then it truly fails to represent the people as a whole. Bills like this are exactly why parts of the Voting Rights Act should not be said to be unnecessary. Had the Shelby County v. Holder case been reversed, then proposed legislation like this would have to be reviewed by the Federal Government and likely be overturned. The Voting Rights Act is needed as has been for nearly 50 years now, and bills like this are a prime example of why.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Mike S. and see the NC voter ID bill as a partisan attempt to influence voting. The photo identification clause restricts the use of college ID's as validation to cast your own ballot. This makes it significantly less likely that college students vote, a group that is already known to have low voter turnout as a whole. But, this demographic group is also known to lean Democratic in their voting habits. Next, the ban on same day registration, the removal of a week from early voting, and the prohibition to extend voting hours appears to make voting more difficult for people who work very long shifts or have circumstances that make it hard for them to leave their house for an extended period of time. People with these conditions tend to be lower class citizens, a demographic that is strongly Democratic. The bill also provides assistance to the elderly and those in nursing homes to get out and vote. While I fully support a way to help people vote, the fact that this bill seems to hurt lower class and college citizens, a Democratic demographic, and help the elderly, a Republican demographic, makes me suspicious that the goal is to protect political positions, not to prevent fraud.
ReplyDeleteFor The Holder case, I agree with Keegan B., that the decision is, in fact, a mistake. Even in current society, there seems to be voting discrimination against groups of people, as seen with his case example of Texas and mentioned above with our home state of North Carolina. With the removal of Section 4 we are attempting to treat all the states fairly, when those some of those states appear to not be treating all of their own citizens fairly at all.
-Isaac N.
I see the NC voter ID bill as complete voter suppression. The bill is clearly looking for a problem, not trying to fix one. The bill is going to suppress the ability for young adults to vote because they have to go out of their way to get new identification. Building off of Isaac's point, why would we want to make it more difficult for the young generation to vote, when they already have a very low voter turnout. As to Nathan M.'s point to being able to make a "conscientious effort", I believe that is wrong. The United States government was founded on democratic principals. While we have a republic, one of the most important principals is that citizens vote to be heard. When the government restricts their citizens from voting with more strict identification and registration requirements, this is creating unnecessary barriers, especially when North Carolina as a state has a very small problem with voter fraud. Like Zach M. said, there were only 121 cases of voter fraud out of 6,947,317 votes, which comes out to a percent of 0.0000174. (http://www.wncn.com/story/22934120/widespread-voter-fraud-not-an-issue-in-nc-data-shows.) This does not seem like a fraud issue to me. This is a pure partisan move by the Republicans in the legislature, and should be viewed as one.
ReplyDeleteAs to the Holder case, I agree with Keegan B.'s point in that it is like putting away your umbrella in the middle of a rainstorm because you have not gotten wet yet. I think with the removal of Section 4, we will see voter discrimination cases, like Texas, because that law is just not there to rule.
I definitely agree that sections 4 and 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 are outdated. There isn’t enough discrimination in this country to keep these voting regulations on certain states. States’ rights are a huge part of our Constitution and we should be able to move past certain things like discrimination at this point.
ReplyDeleteI don’t believe the voter ID bill should pass. I understand that Republicans are trying to eliminate any type of voter fraud in this country but, there is a very slight percentage of voter fraud going on. A big thank you to Mike S. for the math on voter fraud. There just isn’t enough fraud to make it so that we need to create guidelines that seem to discourage college students from voting.
-Richard E.
Zach makes a fantastic point about the amount of alleged voter fraud cases. There are so little of them that it won't make an impact. However if we look at the issue that way then it sends the message that one shouldn't vote. One vote is less then the 121 fraud votes so it for sure wont make a difference. I agree with Jeffrey the law makers are clearly aware of the impact it will have on voting demographics and they used this opportunity to gain an edge (that's politics). So while the intentions may be questionable I believe that the stated intention is a valid point. No one should get an extra vote even if those extra votes don't have much of an impact.
ReplyDelete-Mackenzie Pidgeon
I disagree with every bit of this bill, it mostly shows the partisan goal of the republicans like mike s. said. Even if they were trying to resolve this problem I don't think they are doing it the right way. The voter ID system would limit alot of college students from voting without being able to use their student ID. But the fact is, you can easily make a fake ID on a drivers license just like a student ID. So I think they should rethink the way they are trying to come down on voter fraud in NC.
ReplyDeleteThe Shelby County v. Holder ruling was split right down the party line. The five conservative judges voted that Section 4 of the VRA was unconstitutional and the four liberal judges voted that it was constitutional and still necessary. I find myself agreeing with the minority. Honestly, I don't know if it's still necessary or not. I don't think that just because it's no longer in play states will try to make voting laws that discriminate against racial minorities (It's very clearly stated that they can't in the constitution). However, I can't say I'd be surprised if they did considering earlier this year a bill was proposed in N.C.'s legislature to establish a state religion (seriously? First amendment people!) The part I do agree with is that Section 4 IS constitutional. Yes, the 10th Amendment states that all powers not given to the federal government are given to the states, which includes the right to regulate elections. Nevertheless, the elastic clause would technically give the federal government the right to make its own regulations to ensure that the 14th and 15th amendments are being followed.
ReplyDeleteNow to address the NC Voter ID bill. I don't think it's as big of an issue as people are making it. Yes, you would now have to carry something with you to the voting booth, but is it really a hassle to slip your driver's license (or other form of ID) into your pocket? No. Yes, some people don't have IDs, but the state is going to give FREE ones to those people. Also, I doubt this rule will really stop anyone from voting. The people who want to go out and use their right to vote, making a difference in who their country's (and state's) leaders are, will go out and vote. Those who don't care, probably wouldn't go out and vote no matter how easy it was. I don't have any sympathy for the college kids whining about how much easier it is to carry their college ID versus their driver's license. Just carry both, it's not a big deal. The positive side to this bill is that it will help stop at least some fraud, maybe not all of it, but at least some and every little bit counts.
I agree wholeheartedly with the points that the article makes about the voter id bill being partisan. The Republicans know that a lot of college students tend to vote Democrat and it seems like they're just trying to make it easier for themselves to win. The "voter fraud" concern sounds more like an excuse for them to be able to get this bill passed. Mike S. hit a point hard with the statistics of how voter fraud is extremely rare in our state. We're always hearing about how youth don't always care enough about voting or getting involved in putting their political opinions out. Sean J. is right when he says that this bill would in a way suppress voter participation and not represent "the voice of the people as a whole".
ReplyDelete-Shannon H.
The Republicans new Voter ID bill I think is a good idea. I think that the Voter ID bill will help keep elections fair and cut down the number of voter fraud incidents. The Voter ID bill will also make sure that there could be no false ballots anymore. The Democrats argue that college students carry around their college ID’s more than their Driver’s License but the students and others would only need their license on voting day. It is not that hard to put your Driver License in your wallet or purse one day to go vote. Now that section 5 of the Voting Rights Act is not useful anymore, states can make their own voting laws. I hope that the decision on the Voting Rights Act will be a good thing for the country, after the decision, other states have done the same thing that North Carolina has done with its voting laws.
ReplyDelete-Arrik W.
I personally agree with needing some form of photo ID to vote, but the fact that college IDs will not be accepted is a clearly partisan and biased part of the law. In my opinion, there is NO REASON, besides stopping youth from voting, not to allow these forms of identification. Furthermore, not all people in today's society drive or go out of the country, so they would not even have the required form of identification on hand. They would have to make a time consuming trip down to the DMV or wherever these "Government IDs" would be issued. Just the sheer annoyance of jumping through these unnecessary hoops would discourage many people from voting, which is the exact opposite of what a democracy is supposed to be doing! The point of this form of government is to get the people's opinion on new laws or regulations, to do what they think is best- to move forward into a "more perfect" society, not discourage people from voting! The fact that such a biased measure is being considered makes me lose some of the little faith I have in out governing body. Maybe I'll move to Canada- at least they have free health care.
ReplyDelete~Cat S.
I believe the only reason Republicans are trying to pass the photo identification bill is to lessen the amount of democratic voters because this bill will statistically impact more democrats. Voter fraud like Michael Spears stated is statically very low. This bill is completely partisan and is will do nothing to help the citizens of North Carolina and has no upside for anyone except the Republican politicians that benefit from the bill. I think the justices are accurate in their opinions with the exception of Clarence Thomas. But I agree with Chief Justice Roberts who explains that section 4 at the time was very beneficial but now it is too much and out of date.
ReplyDelete-Connor L.
To me it does seem like the prohibition of use of student ID's is a political tactic to reduce democratic votes, though I'm not sure how effective it would be. I'm not well versed on voter fraud, so it very well may be that student ID's are easily to be fraudulent with. In addition, I find it very hard to believe that any significant number of students are without any sort of state or federally issued identification. While students who don't have cars on campus may not carry their license with them at all times, it seems like common sense to carry it to a voting booth. The whole thing seems overblown to me as I don't think it will have a great effect on election outcomes. This seems like an excuse for democrats to get mad at republicans while it also seems like a somewhat superfluous measure on the part of the GOP. I'm not sure I understand the argument about the supreme court case entirely, as to me it seems like its simply a matter of how hard it is for a state to change its voting laws, not anything related to the actual content of those laws. The VRA was primarily created to prevent racial discrimination in elections, which to me it seems to have achieved. I'm no expert on voting discrimination, but I don't know of any large scale examples in which it occurs, certainly not to the degree it once did. This being said, I don't think the supreme court's decision will have a greater impact than to ease the process of passing voting related laws for states that were previously under more scrutiny.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Henry H. and River P. that these new voter ID propositions are an effort to limit college voting participation because of the trend that college students vote Democratic. This voter suppression is obviously partisan and should not be passed through our legislature. I believe that yes, having a person show some photo ID before voting is a necessary requirement, but limiting which forms of identification count and which do not is going too far and making the process far too complicated.Voter fraud is not common enough to place these extraordinary limitations on identification, which would limit more voter participation that protect against fraud. I agree with Zach M. that I would personally rather have 100 fraudulent votes in an election than limit thousands of people from casting their votes because of lack of identification. Also, many people will not keep up with current events like this change in laws of voter identification. Thousands of people could wait 3 hours in line to cast their vote, and when they reach the polls be told that their photo identification is no longer valid. This would cause many people to miss out on their constitutional right to vote in important elections just because they do not have proper identification according to new absurd laws.
ReplyDelete-Olivia W.
I agree with Kalin Fraker, especially considering the Shelby County v. Holder ruling. I’m not sure if it’s necessary for Section 4 to still stand, since we have progressed a lot with racial discrimination. However, what if the Democrats and Republicans decide to make voting laws that would obviously benefit their party? There’s not a very clear-cut answer about this, and both sides can make a good argument concerning it. However, I also agree with Jordan B. that the decision was very open-ended. The Court is still giving a lot of say to Congress on what they can do, allowing them to make a new formula for what states should still be under Section 5 of the VRA. However, I think the Court could have at least given some guidelines to Congress so that they don’t go power hungry and try to keep all of the power concerning voting laws.
ReplyDeleteWith the voter identification laws, I feel that the Republicans should allow more kinds of ID. While they will make free photo id cards for people without a form of photo identification from state or the federal government, it seems like it will be a very costly endeavor. However, I definitely agree with requiring a form of photo ID to vote. You need a form of photo ID to buy alcohol, why not to vote? They both have age limits. It would also cut back on however much voter fraud there is.
-Kayley B.
I believe that these new voting restrictions are an attempt to suppress voting. One contributing factor to why the Democrats won the 2012 election was by appealing to the student voters. I think that Republicans took this into account, and are taking action against it by not allowing college ID's as valid source of ID. Republicans may think that this might discourage college students from voting, but I don't it will work. I agree with Arrik when he said that its not hard to grab your license and go vote, because most college students are driving anyway and have their licenses at the ready.
ReplyDeleteOlivia W. is smart to comment that the new voting restrictions could discourage voting and could even be a constitutional violation. I think it's silly to completely outlaw certain types of identification. There are other ways to reduce voter fraud without totally banning some IDs. It should also be in the interest of politicians to get-out-the-vote, simply because they're American, and voting is an American right. Whether Democrat or Republican, politicians should support voting as a principle of government by the people. Since young people are the least active age demographic in terms of voting, banning their primary form of identification (as said by Emmie Horadam) is not going to encourage participation from this group. Sadly, politicians are ore likely to think for themselves or their party rather than support basic American principles. The Republican's claim that the new law is in place to reduce voter fraud may be legitimate, but the Democrats are not likely to believe so. In order to reach a compromise, I think the Republican's should abandon the idea of banning certain types of IDs and focus instead on cutting closer to specific problems of voter fraud. Take for instance the example given in the article of college students voting in two different states. A simple way to fix this problem would be to identify out of state college students on their IDs for voting purposes. If the Democrats and Republicans stop pointing fingers and throwing blame, they could come to intelligent and nonpartisan compromises.
ReplyDelete-Erin S.
To me the voter ID's seem like a poll tax in disguise. I think that it would just keep poor or underprivileged citizens from voting, and therefore benefit only the conservative parties, since members of those groups tend to be more liberal. As well as this, as poll taxes are restricted from use according to the constitution, ruling that voter ID's should be in use is entirely unconstitutional. All citizens have the right to vote, and should not be discouraged from doing so because of the needed voter ID's that their state has placed, or any other factor which could sway them from doing so.
ReplyDeleteI believe the NC voter ID law is a clear cut case of voter suppression. Republicans are targeting young voters by not accepting college ID's and only accepting identification that is often very hard and inconvenient for a college student or other young person to come by. It is known that young voters very often vote democrat, if this wasn't the case republicans would not be trying to stop them from voting. Given the very small number of voter fraud cases the bill seems unnecessary and harmful to the right to vote. In addition, the bill would shorten early voting which is something Obama's success is directly linked to.
ReplyDeleteElijah B
I strongly disagree with the incoming Voter ID bill and with the ruling in the Shelby county v. Holder case. Chief Justice Roberts himself even admitted that "Voter discrimination still exists" while writing his opinion on the case. If any kind of voter discrimination still exists I can not see the reasoning behind removing this precautionary law which ensured that voter discrimination could not happen. The fact that a law has risen up in our legislature which is clearly made to keep certain kinds of people from voting is ridiculous and outrageous in itself, but the notion that this law is being put into effect sickens me. This is yet another example of our right wing legislature attempting to move our state further and further back in time with these archaic policies.
ReplyDeleteThomas V.
The new voting ID bill seems unfair to certain people. Who it is unfair to was well though out by our states general assembly. This act will be responsible for the lack of political participation among college student. With the trends that college students tend to vote more democratic it seems reasonable to think that the Republican majority would push to make college ID's invalid. American suffers from political apathy due to acts like these that discourage political participation. I don't think having section 4 &5 of the Voting Rights Act declared unconstitutional would lead to any problems, however I don't get why they were voted unconstitutional. Even though there probably won't be problems, I don't know why congress would take the chance. I'm interested to see how this all turns out.
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with you. To me i feel that the bill does seems unfair to people. Some argue about discrimination by Chief justice, Robert. He stated that it is used today. So people face these tough challenges in Id voting. I feel its bad way to identify those who want to vote based on the of discrimination level. The wrong doings of republicans are trying to push down democratic's.Reason is that this big issued occurred that college students will not vote if they have a identification of a drivers license. Its crazy because some college students don't have a driver's license. I feel that it discriminating against college students. Its destroying the constitution because people can have the right vote. So this Id voting shall stop, were not moving forward unless this idea is canceled.
ReplyDeleteI think that while there is some truth to the bill as a protection against voter fraud, but there is a large part that is placing another barrier between voters and the polls. The groups that would be affected by the new restrictions are groups that tend to vote democratic, and most of the supporters of the bill are republican. There is too much evidence to be overlooked as a coincidence. It is kind of ironic that the Voting Rights Act was in part made to protect the under-educated voters and now shortly after part of that same act is repealed, a law is passed that could restrict highly educated college student voters.
ReplyDelete- Annalise H.
The republicans and Democrats have their own opinions on the voter ID issue. I agree with the Republicans because if a college wants to vote for a certain candidate they shouldn't be allowed to use their drivers license in one state and use their college ID in a different state, that would be fair to the opposing candidate. The Democrats want to allow from the young generation to vote for them just because the can vote in different areas. The law for the voting Id should be the types of ID in example, driver license, passport, non drivers license, military and veteran IDs .Peter S.
ReplyDeleteStates that are trying to get the type of ID needed to change are definitely trying to suppress voting. They are only using the excuse of ending false ballots to cover up trying to get in office for another term. I think that the civil rights act of 1964 will always be necessary. While I don't think that discrimination happens at the same level today it still does occur. I think that if something isn't broke then don't try to fix it. There isn't a problem with the act being place so why are republicans saying its unnecessary and that I should be kept a law. The government should leave it a law just in case it is needed again one day.
ReplyDelete