Friday, July 27, 2012

Voter ID Laws, Where's the Justification?


     The media urges people, all people, to get out and vote. As elections draw closer the average American citizen will hear increasing statistics about voter turnouts and how each person can make a change. The promotion of voting and participation from every American creates confusion when it comes to the proposed voter ID law. If every citizen is encouraged to vote and we want to increase participation, then why is Texas making voting more difficult?
     ID requirements are restricted to particular government issued cards which excludes even student IDs. Texas officials argue that government issued IDs are free and require documents that citizens should already have such as a birth certificate. The fact is that all citizens do not have IDs and would be penalized just for the sake of protecting voter identification fraud. Only six people have been convicted for identification fraud in the past decade and compared to the vast number of citizens who would also be kept away from polls, a law which would only help to reduce fraud seems more harmful than helpful. As Nathaniel Persily, a voting law expert at Columbia Law School, states, “There is fraud and there is some voter impersonation fraud but you’re trying to kill a fly with a bazooka with these kinds of laws…There’s a lot of collateral damage.” 
     Attorney General Eric Holder compares voter ID laws to the poll taxes once imposed and which were eventually deemed unconstitutional. Such laws prevent minorities from taking part in the voting process as the highest percentages of people without IDs are within such minorities and would be hindered in comparison to other races. If identification fraud was more of an issue then legal identification could be justified but because there have been so few issues, a voter ID law seems more excessive and restricting to the people we should be encouraging. 

2 comments:

Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Unknown said...

In reading Jess’ post against the Texas’ voter ID law that has received federal scrutiny, I instead found myself in favor of such a law. Jess begins her argument with the rhetorical question, that if the government wants more people to vote “then why is Texas making voting more difficult?” to which I can give a number of not so rhetorical answers. Such as the fact that Texas’ elections are plagued by voter fraud—a problem the law aims to limit. And as according to USA Today--that history actually shows “voter turnout has increased after voter ID laws were enacted, and because Texas provides voter ID cards free of charge, no Texan's voting rights will be affected.”

The post then continues onto pointing out the fact that the proposed required IDs are restricted to “particular government issued cards which excludes even student IDs.” However, is it so hard to see why non-government issued IDs, such as student ones that could be fraudulent, are not acceptable as proof of identity to vote in government held elections? Jess then continues on to say that “all citizens do not have IDs and would be penalized” under the law, which is a fair statement. However, in Texas can you not obtain a suitable ID at the DMV, where you already register to even be able to vote? In answering such a question, you find that by no means is Texas asking too much of its voters, especially considering Texas is well within its constitutional rights in seeking to identify its voters for the sole reason of ensuring the integrity of elections.

Jess’ post finishes with the idea that the ID law prevents “minorities from taking part in the voting process” since the “highest percentages of people without IDs are within such minorities.” Which is an idea I hold to be irrelevant, and see more so as an attempt used by those opposed to the ID law to use racial discrimination in their favor. As well as the fact that the statement Jess makes fails to note, that the minority groups who have a higher percentage of people without IDs, also have a comparably high percentage of members who are not eligible to vote, which is why such an argument among other reasons is irrelevant.