Richu 1

Nicholas Richu
English 111
Ms. Jennings
May 1
st
2014
Voter ID laws: Disincentive or necessary?
For a country that takes pride in all things freedom and voraciously supports the democratic
process, even going as far as pushing it to other countries around the world, it's had quite the
history when it comes to voting. The fifteenth amendment gave blacks the right to vote 1870,
took roughly 50 years for women to get that same right with the nineteenth amendment, twenty
third further extended that right to those residing in the nationsnations capital, twenty fourth
amendment made sure minorities would not get discouraged from voting through illegitimate and
unfair taxes and/or test and finally the twenty sixth amendment lowered the voting age to what it
is today; yet nearly 140 years since the fifteenth amendment, voting controversy continues to
rear its ugly head. Voter ID laws epitomize this controversy in present day America; Voter ID
laws being nothing but a single or multiple laws that change the way voting is done, some
requiring a legal state ID others going further and restricting certain days when people can vote
like early voting for instance. But why the controversy? For some, having a required form of ID
is nothing but preserving our democracy, for others itsits to prevent widespread voting fraud,
others view it as nothing but an attempt to skew elections by limiting specific minority
demographics right to vote. In addition, one must assess the political consequences for
supporting the law.
One fundamental right every American citizen has in common (among many) is the right
Comment [DS1]: Run on sentence. Separate your
ideas to achieve/improve clarity
Comment [DS2]: This is good! Successfully
introduces your audience to the issue
Richu 2
to vote, provided you reach the age quota. ThatsThats a way every American influences and in
most cases, tries to better their future. People have a voice, and they want to be heard, if it wasn't
for that very same reason the colonist would never have left to find the new world or fought the
British for their independence. With that being said, the emphasis here is on 'every
AMERICAN', as in, only Americans have this right and this right alone. Further
moreFurthermore, you cantcant trump others voices so-to-speak by voting multiple times for the
same candidate, it defies what a democracy should be, equal representation. Norm Coleman from
the Washington-Times writes Elected officials govern with the consent of the governed. If there
is a question of whether that consent was truly given, the credibility of our democratic system of
government is called into question. This reason and in truth, a valid one, is why Voter ID laws,
at least from some advocates, are why they were conceived to begin with. It's utterly unfair, not
to mention illegal, to drown out others voices in favor of onesones own and onesones self
interest by using fake or dead individuals to commit voter fraud. Norm goes further and raising
quite a surprising point as well as she quotes a Mr. Carter Some critics of voter IDs think the
government cannot do this job, but Mexico and most poor countries in the world have been able
to register and give IDs to almost all their citizens. Surely the United States can do it, too.
Surely its nothing but simple to make sure every citizen has a legal government ID, especially
considering Mexico, a country with significantly less resources has managed to accomplish this
feat, surely the United States can as well? Unfortunately itsits not quite so simple, especially
considering the division in power between the federal government and the State government.
States and not the federal government are the ones that issue an ID and usually thatsthats almost
entirely dependent on whether one drives or can drive. Take the elderly, most likely a good
Richu 3
portion of that demographic haven't driven in years and some may have expired licenses simply
because they have no reason to go to the DMV and get a new one because they cant drive or
don't need to. Take this for instance, according to kiplingers retirement report About 18% of
U.S. citizens 65 and older lack a current, government- issued photo ID, versus 11% of the
population overall. So over a tenth of the United States population lack a government ID and
nearly a fifth of seniors lack an up to date copy meaning for those in states that have Voter ID
laws, would not be able to vote provided their citizens if an election was held tomorrow.
Critics of Voter ID laws see this as nothing but an attempt to skew elections in favor of
one party instead of the other. Take Florida and Iowa which have passed and enacted some of the
most severe voter id laws in the nation. Both states have passed provisions withingwithin the law
that make it illegal for ex-felons to vote, effectively clearing 200,000 and more from the voting
pools (Robert Schlesinger). According to AmericanProgress.org, African Americans are arrested
significantly more times than whites. A voting bloc that predominately votes democratic in red
states that enacted voter ID laws. In Texas, gun permits are considered valid photo ID but
university ID and government employment cards are not. Some states have enacted specific voter
ID laws that force those in an out of state institution to return back just to vote, again most of this
voting demographic vote for Democrats instead of Republicans. It makes it even worse
considering that most if not all Voter ID laws were passed with a majority state republican
congress for most of the United States.
The most popular argument for Voter ID laws stems from the fact it allegedly reduces the
frequency of voter fraud. However, its important to note that critics of the law often times cite
conviction rate of fraud as proof the laws creation has nefarious means. Take shlesingers
Comment [DS3]: Sentence fragment. Incomplete
thought.
Richu 4
argument, he claims that the previous administration could not find one case were a voter was
impersonating another. In addition, between 2002 to 2007, only 86 people were convicted of
voter fraud. However, just because so few were convicted, doesn't mean itsits not widespread.
As peter nelson and Harry Niska put it, Opponents minimize the evidence of voter fraud. But by
its very nature, evidence of fraud is anecdotal and difficult to quantify with precision. They go
on to use Minnesota as an example, While hard to detect, there is evidence of fraud. And in
2008, according to data obtained from the state by the pro-Photo ID group Minnesota Majority,
6,224 voters who registered on Election Day provided addresses that could not later be verified
by the U.S. Postal Service. Though itsits true that conviction rate only tells a specific side of
the story and doesntdoesnt paint the whole picture, neither does verification by the US Postal
Service. A wide range of things could prevent the postal service from verifying, like for instance
human error;. Bothboth on the person who gave the address and the one who received it. Lack of
up to to date addresses is another among many. With no solid evidence of voter fraud present, it
hard to justify disenfranchising voters based on hypothetical situations.
One must accessassess the damage of voter ID laws towards those who favor its
implementations, mainly republicans. Republicans consistently grab white, elderly voters almost
every election cycle, especially mid termmidterm elections. Making it harder for the same
constituents who put them in office to vote works directly against their interest. ItsIts worth
mentioning minorities and young, college students who generally vote democratic wontwont be
persuaded to vote republicans if it works against their interest. The push to grab the minority
vote by republicans would ultimately end in vain if those same voters see this as an attempt to
keep them home.
Comment [DS4]: Good transition and synthesis.
Comment [DS5]: Fragment.
Richu 5
So people have to ultimately ask themselves a few fundamental questions. For republican
legislators, what good is preserving the legality of the democratic voting process if the party
forcing voters to stay at home? What good is trying to capture minority voters if itsits the same
voting bloc the party is trying to disenfranchise? With arguments that are largely anecdotal and
purely hypothetical, itsits insane to justify depriving someonessomeones right to vote. I urge
republican legislators to forgo this push for voter ID laws. It not only hurts the people who are at
home, but hurts the party by punishing the constituents that voting for them to begin with.
Be sure to create an accurate works cited page.
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/race/news/2012/03/13/11351/the-top-10-most-startling-
facts-about-people-of-color-and-criminal-justice-in-the-united-states/
http://eds.b.ebscohost.com.durhamtech.idm.oclc.org/eds/detail?vid=3&sid=043c0bc9-a81b-
4704-8125-
5049cd820c2c%40sessionmgr110&hid=102&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmU%3d#db=bth
&AN=66640515
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/sep/13/voter-id-laws-preserve-
democracy/?page=all
http://eds.b.ebscohost.com.durhamtech.idm.oclc.org/eds/detail?vid=3&sid=043c0bc9-a81b-
4704-8125-
5049cd820c2c%40sessionmgr110&hid=102&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmU%3d#db=f6h
&AN=79598837
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/08/without-proof-the-unpersuasive-case-against-
voter-identification
Comment [DS6]: Remove the I. reword this
objectively.