Debate on Voter IDs

Readings

Background
Voter ID laws in the United States are laws that require a person to provide some form of official identification before they are
permitted to register to vote, receive a ballot for an election, or to actually vote.

At the federal level, the Help America Vote Act of 2002 requires voter ID for all new voters in federal elections who registered by
mail and who did not provide a driver's license number or the last four digits of a Social Security number that was matched against
government records. Though state laws requiring some sort of identification at voting polls go back to 1950, no state required a
voter to produce a government-issued photo ID as a condition for voting before the 2006 election. Indiana in 2006 became the first
state to enact a strict photo ID law, a law that was upheld two years later by the U.S. Supreme Court in Crawford v Marion County
Board of Elections. As of September 2016, 33 states have enacted some form of voter ID requirement. Lawsuits have been filed
against many of the voter ID requirements on the basis that they are discriminatory with an intent to reduce voting by traditionally
Democratic constituencies. Parts of voter ID laws in several states have been overturned by courts.

Proponents of voter ID laws argue that they reduce electoral fraud while placing only little burden on voters. Opponents argue that
electoral fraud is extremely rare in the United States and has been magnified as an issue to create barriers to voter registration, and
that requiring voter ID in effect discriminates against minority groups and those who are less likely to possess photo IDs. Critics
have argued that the barriers could result in the disenfranchisement of black, Hispanic and other minority voters.

Research has shown that the type of voter fraud that would be prevented by voter IDs is extremely rare; research is mixed as to
whether voter ID laws reduce overall turnout or minority turnout; and research has shown that Republican legislators in swing states
and districts with sizable black or Hispanic populations push the hardest for voter ID laws.

There is no empirical evidence that voter fraud occurs often enough to have any plausible impact on elections. One study,
commonly cited by President Trump and other Republicans, purported to show that non-citizens vote in large numbers in the United
States, but the findings of the study were later shown to be driven by measurement error and have been comprehensively rebutted.
The authors of the study have conceded that measurement error "may have biased our numbers", and have also rebuked President
Trump for claiming that millions voted illegally in 2016.
Instructions

In class, we will be debating the constitutionality of Voter IDs in the American system of
government.

You are presented with several documents that present supporting and refuting
positions on Voter IDs. Read through them. As you read, take notes to help support
your position. Come to class with a position (for or against voter IDs) and at least ten
pieces of evidence from which you can provide commentary in class. You should also
identify the three most compelling reasons from the counterargument and a way for you
to neutralize your threat. Outside research is welcome in the debate, just gather its
bibliographic material.

You will be allowed to have this document and a prepared notes page with you.

Debate Rules

On the day of the debate, you will be seated in groups of six, which is comprised of
three debate groups of two. You and your debate partner will rotate through three
distinct roles in these groups of six. A copy of the scored rubric that you will be graded
with is found on the last page of this packet.

 Pro-Voter ID: You will debate against the anti-voter ID side in a 10-minute scored
debate.
 Anti-Voter ID: You will debate against the pro-voter ID side in a 10-minute scored
debate.
 Scorer: You will spend 10 minutes critically evaluating the other team’s debate
using the scored debate rubric.

The debate will go as follows:

 Pro-Voter ID: 3 minutes to present your argument; no interruptions.

 Anti-Voter ID: 3 minutes to present your argument; no interruptions.
 Crossfire: 4 minutes of question and answer from the Pro- and Anti-Voter ID side.
Document A

Underhill, Wendy. Voter Identification Requirements – Voter ID Laws. National Conference of State Legislatures. June 5,
2017. Accessed November 8, 2017. http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/voter-id.aspx

Document B

Levitt, Justin. “A Comprehensive Investigation of voter impersonation finds 31 credible incidents out of 1 billion votes
cast.” Washington Post. August 6, 2014. Accessed November 8, 2017.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/08/06/a-comprehensive-investigation-of-voter-impersonation-finds-
31-credible-incidents-out-of-one-billion-ballots-cast/?utm_term=.b9054a2fbac9

Voter ID laws are back in the news once again, with two new opinions from the Wisconsin Supreme Court late last week dealing
with the state's ID requirement, which would allow people to vote only if they provide certain forms of government-issued ID. The
Court made some minor changes to the law but otherwise upheld it. However, the ID requirement is still on hold pending a federal
lawsuit.

Part of this litigation — and any rational debate about the issue generally — hinges on two things: costs and benefits. The costs of
these sorts of laws vary, because the laws themselves differ from state to state (some are far more burdensome than others). The
ostensible benefits, though, are all the same. And in addressing these purported benefits, the Wisconsin Supreme Court blew
it. Twice.

First, the court cited the idea that ID laws could enhance public confidence--that is, in theory, the laws might make us feel better
about elections in that they might provide some security theater. It turns out, though, that this effect is hard to spot. People in states
with more restrictive ID laws don’t generally feel better about their elections than people in more permissive states. People who think
elections are being stolen, and people who think they’re not, each hold on to that opinion no matter what the governing ID rules in
their area. The factor that really influences whether people think the elections are fair? Whether their preferred candidates win.

Second, the court said that ID laws can help stop fraud. It then cited an example of recent fraud … that ID laws aren’t designed to
stop. Specifically, it mentioned a case in which a supporter of Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker was charged with 13 counts of
election fraud, including "registering to vote in more than one place, voting where he didn't live, voting more than once in the same
election, and providing false information to election officials," according to an account by Talking Points Memo. Wisconsin's ID law
would not likely have prevented any of the alleged violations.

This sort of misdirection is pretty common, actually. Election fraud happens. But ID laws are not aimed at the fraud you’ll actually
hear about. Most current ID laws (Wisconsin is a rare exception) aren’t designed to stop fraud with absentee ballots (indeed, laws
requiring ID at the polls push more people into the absentee system, where there are plenty of real dangers). Or vote buying. Or
coercion. Or fake registration forms. Or voting from the wrong address. Or ballot box stuffing by officials in on the scam. In the 243-
page document that Mississippi State Sen. Chris McDaniel filed on Monday with evidence of allegedly illegal votes in the Mississippi
Republican primary, there were no allegations of the kind of fraud that ID can stop.

Instead, requirements to show ID at the polls are designed for pretty much one thing: people showing up at the polls pretending to
be somebody else in order to each cast one incremental fake ballot. This is a slow, clunky way to steal an election. Which is why it
rarely happens.

I’ve been tracking allegations of fraud for years now, including the fraud ID laws are designed to stop. In 2008, when the Supreme
Court weighed in on voter ID, I looked at every single allegation put before the Court. And since then, I’ve been following reports
wherever they crop up.

To be clear, I’m not just talking about prosecutions. I track any specific, credible allegation that someone may have pretended to be
someone else at the polls, in any way that an ID law could fix.

So far, I’ve found about 31 different incidents (some of which involve multiple ballots) since 2000, anywhere in the country. If you
want to check my work, you can read a comprehensive list of the incidents below.

To put this in perspective, the 31 incidents below come in the context of general, primary, special, and municipal elections from
2000 through 2014. In general and primary elections alone, more than 1 billion ballots were cast in that period.

Some of these 31 incidents have been thoroughly investigated (including some prosecutions). But many have not. Based on how
other claims have turned out, I’d bet that some of the 31 will end up debunked: a problem with matching people from one big
computer list to another, or a data entry error, or confusion between two different people with the same name, or someone signing in
on the wrong line of a pollbook.

In just four states that have held just a few elections under the harshest ID laws, more than 3,000 votes (in general elections alone)
have reportedly been affirmatively rejected for lack of ID. (That doesn’t include voters without ID who didn’t show up, or
recordkeeping mistakes by officials.) Some of those 3,000 may have been fraudulent ballots. But how many legitimate voters have
already been turned away?

Document C

Scalia, Antonin. Concurring opinion in Crawford v Marion County Board of Elections. 2008. Challenging the use of Voter
IDs at the time of voting in Indiana. Law was found constitutional.

To evaluate a law respecting the right to vote – whether it governs voter qualifications, candidate selection, or the voting process…
we [apply the standard that calls for] application of a deferential “important regulatory interests” standard for non-severe,
nondiscriminatory restrictions, reserving strict scrutiny [a legal process that makes it very difficult for states to use classifications of
citizens in the execution of law; reserved for race and a few other categories of classification] for laws that severely restrict the right
to vote… The State [of Indiana] draws no classification, let alone discriminatory ones, except to establish optional absentee and
provisional voting for certain poor, elderly, and institutional voters and for religious objectors. Nor are voters who already have photo
identifications exempted from this burden, voters must maintain the accuracy of the information displayed on the identifications,
renew them before they expire, and replace them if they lost. The Indiana photo-identification law is a generally applicable,
nondiscriminatory voting regulation, and our precedents refute the view that the individual impacts are relevant to determining the
severity of the burden it imposes.

Document D

Ginsburg, Ruth Bader. Dissenting opinion in Veasey v Abbott. 2014. Challenging SB 14 which requires a voter ID for the
purposes of voting in Texas. The bill did require the purchase of birth certificates until it was amended to allow citizens to obtain free
birth certificates. Law was not overturned, but Justice Ginsburg is dissenting on that decision.

Senate Bill 14 replaced the previously existing voter identification requirements with the strictest regime in the country. The Bill
requires in-person voters to present one of a limited number of government-issued photo identification documents. Texas will not
accept several forms of photo ID permitted under the Wisconsin law the Court considered last week. For example, Wisconsin’s law
permits a photo ID from an in-state four-year college and one from a federally recognized Indian tribe. Texas, under Senate Bill 14,
accepts neither. Those who lack the approved forms of identification may obtain an “election identification certificate” from the Texas
Department of Public Safety (DPS), but more than 400,000 eligible voters face round-trip travel times of three hours or more to the
nearest DPS office. Moreover, applicants for an election identification certificate ordinarily must present a certified birth certificate. A
birth certificate, however, can be obtained only at significant cost—at least $22 for a standard certificate sent by mail. And although,
for voting purposes, reduced-fee birth certificates may be obtained for $2 to $3, the State did not publicize that option on DPS’s Web
site or on Department of Health and Human Services forms for requesting birth certificates. On an extensive factual record
developed in the course of a nine-day trial, the District Court found Senate Bill 14 irreconcilable with Section 2 of the Voting Rights
Act of 1965 because it was enacted with a racially discriminatory purpose and would yield a prohibited discriminatory result. The
District Court emphasized the “virtually unchallenged” evidence that Senate Bill 14 “bear[s] more heavily on” minority voters. In light
of the “seismic demographic shift” in Texas between 2000 and 2010, making Texas a “majority-minority state,” the District Court
observed that the Texas Legislature and Governor had an evident incentive to “gain partisan ad-vantage by suppressing” the “votes
of African-Americans and Latinos.”

The District Court further found that Senate Bill 14 operates as an unconstitutional poll tax—an issue neither presented by any of the
recent applications nor before the Court in Crawford v. Marion County Election Bd., Under Senate Bill 14, a cost attends every form
of qualified identification available to the general public. Texas tells the Court that any number of incidental costs are associated with
voting. But the cost at issue here is one deliberately imposed by the State. Even at $2, the toll is at odds with this Court’s
precedent. And for some voters, the imposition is not small. A voter whose birth certificate lists her maiden name or misstates her
date of birth may be charged $37 for the amended certificate she needs to obtain a qualifying ID. Texas voters born in other States
may be required to pay substantially more than that. The potential magnitude of racially discriminatory voter disenfranchisement
counseled hesitation before disturbing the District Court’s findings and final judgment. Senate Bill 14 may prevent more than
600,000 registered Texas voters (about 4.5% of all registered voters) from voting in person for lack of compliant identification. A
sharply disproportionate percentage of those voters are African-American or Hispanic.

Document E

McCarthy, Justin. Four In Five Americans Support Voter ID Laws. Early Voting. Gallup Polls. August 22, 2016.
http://news.gallup.com/poll/194741/four-five-americans-support-voter-laws-early-voting.aspx

Document F

Frey, W. H. (2015, August 3). Voting rights, minority turnout, and the next election. Retrieved from Brookings
Institutions: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2015/08/03/voting-rights-minority-turnout-and-the-
next-election/
Document G

Wheaton, D. (2016, February 15). Voter ID laws suppress Democrats and minorities, researchers find. Retrieved from
San Diego Union Tribune : https://www.sunherald.com/news/politics-government/article60535351.html

Document H

Building Confidence in U.S. Elections: Report of the Commission on Federal Election Reform. (2005) American University.
Washington, D.C. https://www.eac.gov/assets/1/6/Exhibit%20M.PDF

Effective voter registration and voter identification are bedrocks of a modern election system. By assuring uniformity to both voter
registration and voter identification and by having states play an active role in registering as many qualified citizens as possible,
access to elections and ballot integrity will both be enhanced. These steps could help bring to an end the sterile debate between
Democrats and Republicans on access versus integrity.

The most common problems on Election Day concern voter registration (see Table 1 on page 17). Voter registration lists often are
riddled with inaccuracies because Americans are highly mobile, and local authorities, who have maintained most lists, are poorly
positioned to add and delete names of voters who move within or between states. To comprehend the magnitude of this challenge,
consider the following. During the last decade, on average, about 41.5 million Americans moved each year. Of those, about 31.2
million moved within the same state, and 8.9 million moved to a different state or abroad. Young Americans (aged 20 to 29),
representing 14 percent of the U.S. population, moved to a different state at almost three times the rate of the rest of the population.
6 The process of registering voters should be made easier, and renewal due to a change of address should be made still easier.

In addition to statewide registration systems and provisional ballots, Help America Vote Act (HAVA) requires that states insist on
voter identification only when a person has registered by mail for the first time in a federal election. This provision, like the others,
was implemented very differently across the country, with some areas not even applying the minimum requirement. Since HAVA, an
increasing number of states have insisted on stringent, though very different, ID requirements for all voters. This, in turn, has caused
concern that such requirements could erect a new barrier to voting for people who do not have the requisite identification card.
Georgia, for example, introduced a new law in July 2005 that requires all voters to show a government-issued photo ID at the polls.

Although there are 159 counties, only 56 locations in the entire state issue such IDs, and citizens must either pay a fee for the ID or
declare indigence.

While states will retain principal responsibility for the conduct of elections, greater uniformity in procedures for voter registration and
identification is essential to guarantee the free exercise of the vote by all U.S. citizens. The EAC should facilitate greater uniformity
in voter registration and identification procedures and should be empowered to do so by granting and withholding federal funds to
the states. If Congress does not appropriate the funds, then we recommend that it amend the law to require uniformity of standards.

A good registration list will ensure that citizens are only registered in one place, but election officials still need to make sure that the
person arriving at a polling site is the same one that is named on the registration list. In the old days and in small towns where
everyone knows each other, voters did not need to identify themselves. But in the United States, where 40 million people move each
year, and in urban areas where some people do not even know the people living in their own apartment building let alone their
precinct, some form of identification is needed.

There is no evidence of extensive fraud in U.S. elections or of multiple voting, but both occur, and it could affect the outcome of a
close election. 19 The electoral system cannot inspire public confidence if no safeguards exist to deter or detect fraud or to confirm
the identity of voters. Photo IDs currently are needed to board a plane, enter federal buildings, and cash a check. Voting is equally
important.

The voter identification requirements introduced by HAVA are modest. HAVA requires only first-time voters who register by mail to
show an ID, and they can choose from a number of different types of identification. States are encouraged to allow an expansive list
of acceptable IDs, including those without a photograph, such as utility bills or government checks. These requirements were not
implemented in a uniform manner and, in some cases, not at all. After HAVA was enacted, efforts grew in the states to strengthen
voter identification requirements. While 11 states required voter ID in 2001, 24 states now require voters to present an ID at the
polls. 20 In addition, bills to introduce or strengthen voter ID requirements are under consideration in 12 other states.

[T]he Commission recommends that states use “REAL ID” cards for voting purposes. The REAL ID Act, signed into law in May
2005, requires states to verify each individual’s full legal name, date of birth, address, Social Security number, and U.S. citizenship
before the individual is issued a driver’s license or personal ID card. The REAL ID is a logical vehicle because the National Voter
Registration Act established a connection between obtaining a driver’s license and registering to vote.

The REAL ID card adds two critical elements for voting — proof of citizenship and verification by using the full Social Security
number. The REAL ID Act does not require that the card indicates citizenship, but that would need to be done if the card is to be
used for voting purposes. In addition, state bureaus of motor vehicles should automatically send the information to the state’s
bureau of elections. (With the National Voter Registration Act, state bureaus of motor vehicles ask drivers if they want to register to
vote and send the information only if the answer is affirmative.)

Reliance on REAL ID, however, is not enough. Voters who do not drive, 22 including older citizens, should have the opportunity to
register to vote and receive a voter ID. Where they will need identification for voting, IDs should be easily available and issued free
of charge. States would make their own decision whether to use REAL ID for voting purposes or instead to rely on a template form
of voter ID. Each state would also decide whether to require voters to present an ID at the polls, but our Commission recommends
that states use the REAL ID and/or an EAC template for voting, which would be a REAL ID card without reference to a driver’s
license.

For the next two federal elections, until January 1, 2010, in states that require voters to present ID at the polls, voters who fail to do
so should nonetheless be allowed to cast a provisional ballot, and their ballot would count if their signature is verified. After the
REAL ID is phased in, i.e., after January 1, 2010, voters without a valid photo ID, meaning a REAL ID or an EAC-template ID, could
cast a provisional ballot, but they would have to return personally to the appropriate election office within 48 hours with a valid photo
ID for their vote to be counted.

Document I

Article 1 Section 4, US Constitution

Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at
any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing [sic] Senators.

Document K

Amendment 24, Amendments to the US Constitution

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for
electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United
States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation

Document L

Article I Section 2, US Constitution

...the Electors [For the House of Representatives] in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most
numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

Document M

Amendment X, US Bill of Rights

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people.
Document N

Kobach, Kris. (2011, May 23). The Case for Voter ID. Retrieved from The Wall Street Journal.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704816604576333650886790480

Drafted by my office, Kansas's Secure and Fair Elections Act combined three elements: (1) a requirement that voters present photo
IDs when they vote in person; (2) a requirement that absentee voters present a full driver's license number and have their signatures
verified; and (3) a proof of citizenship requirement for all newly registered voters.

Immediately after the Kansas law was signed in April, critics cried foul. They argued that voter fraud isn't significant enough to
warrant such steps, that large numbers of Americans don't possess photo IDs, and that such laws will depress turnout among the
poor and among minorities. They are wrong on all three counts.

Voter fraud is a well-documented reality in American elections. To offer a few examples, a 2010 state representative race in Kansas
City, Mo. was stolen when one candidate, J.J. Rizzo, allegedly received more than 50 votes illegally cast by citizens of Somalia. The
Somalis, who didn't speak English, were coached to vote for Mr. Rizzo by an interpreter at the polling place. The margin of victory?
One vote.

In Kansas, 221 incidents of voter fraud were reported between 1997 and 2010. The crimes included absentee-ballot fraud,
impersonation of another voter, and a host of other violations. Because voter fraud is extremely difficult to detect and is usually not
reported, the cases that we know about likely represent a small fraction of the total.

My office already has found 67 aliens illegally registered to vote in Kansas, but when the total number is calculated, it will likely be in
the hundreds. In Colorado, the Secretary of State's office recently identified 11,805 aliens illegally registered to vote in the state, of
whom 4,947 cast a ballot in the 2010 elections.

Evidence of voter fraud is present in all 50 states, and public confidence in the integrity of elections is at an all-time low. In the
Cooperative Congressional Election Study of 2008, 62% of American voters thought that voter fraud was very common or somewhat
common.

Fear that elections are being stolen erodes the legitimacy of our government. That's why the vast majority of Americans support
laws like Kansas's Secure and Fair Elections Act. A 2010 Rasmussen poll showed that 82% of Americans support photo ID laws.
Similarly, a 2011 Survey USA poll of Kansas voters showed that 83% support proof-of-citizenship requirements for voter
registration.

Critics of these laws nevertheless make outrageous arguments against them. New York University's Brennan Center, which
stridently opposes all photo ID laws, claims that a whopping 11% of the American voting-age public—that means tens of millions of
people—don't possess a photo ID. It bases this number on a survey it conducted in 2006.

However, we don't have to rely on implausible estimates when the actual numbers are readily available. In Kansas, my office
obtained the statistics, and they tell a very different story. According to the 2010 census, there are 2,126,179 Kansans of voting age.
According to the Kansas Department of Motor Vehicles, 2,156,446 Kansans already have a driver's license or a non-driver ID. In
other words, there are more photo IDs in circulation than there are eligible voters. The notion that there are hundreds of thousands
of voters in Kansas (or any other state) without photo IDs is a myth.

Some opponents of election security laws also declare that they are part of a sinister plot to depress voter registration and turnout,
especially among minority voters who are more likely to vote Democrat. Here too the facts do not support the claim. Georgia's photo
ID requirement was in place for both the 2008 and 2010 elections, when turnout among minority voters was higher than average.
Likewise, Arizona's proof-of-citizenship requirement for registration has not impeded minority voters from registering.

If election security laws really were part of a Republican scheme to suppress Democratic votes, one would expect Democrats to
fight such laws, tooth and nail. That didn't happen in Kansas, where two-thirds of the Democrats in the House and three-fourths of
the Democrats in the Senate voted in favor of the Secure and Fair Elections Act. They did so because they realize that fair elections
protect every voter and every party equally.

No candidate, Republican or Democrat, wants to emerge from an election with voters suspecting that he didn't really win. Election
security measures like the one in my state give confidence to voters and candidates alike that the system is fair.

.
 Voter IDs notes page
Name Period
Directions: Take notes on your debate on this worksheet. This will be turned in. You should incorporate at least ten vocabulary
words from the unit we are studying, if not more. You are also permitted to use your text and outside resources as necessary.
Please cite your outside resources in the space provided below.

We will do a student-scored debate in class next time. You will take turns presenting both sides of the debate and take a turn at
scoring the debate of your peers. For each round, you will have three minutes per side to present your arguments followed by four
minutes of crossfire. There will be three rounds.

Supporting Voters IDs Challenging Voter IDs

Supporting Voters IDs Challenging Voter IDs
 Scored Discussion: AP Govt

Name of person scored _________________ Name of scorer ___________________

Positive Negative
Taking a position on a question. (+2) not paying attention (-2)

Making a relevant comment. (+1) distracting others (-2)

Using evidence to support a position or presenting factual interruption (-2)

information from a specific document (+2)

Drawing another person into the discussion. (+1 irrelevant comment (-1)

Recognizing contradictions in another person’s statements. (+2) monopolizing (-3)

Recognizing when another person makes an irrelevant comment. personal attack (-3)
(+2)

Making an analogy. (+2) Cannot respond to the argument of another -1

Asking a clarifying question or moving the discussion along. (+1) Uses evidence incorrectly -1

Total pts given (+ and -) from the activity Feedback (give one positive, one negative)

‘Positive or Negative scoring item and pt. For example: Drawing another person in, +1

Scored Discussion: AP Govt

Name of person scored _________________ Name of scorer ___________________

Positive Negative
Taking a position on a question. (+2) not paying attention (-2)

Making a relevant comment. (+1) distracting others (-2)

Using evidence to support a position or presenting factual interruption (-2)

information from a specific document (+2)

Drawing another person into the discussion. (+1 irrelevant comment (-1)

Recognizing contradictions in another person’s statements. (+2) monopolizing (-3)

Recognizing when another person makes an irrelevant comment. personal attack (-3)
(+2)

Making an analogy. (+2) Cannot respond to the argument of another -1

Asking a clarifying question or moving the discussion along. (+1) Uses evidence incorrectly -1

Total pts given (+ and -) from the activity Feedback (give one positive, one negative)

Positive or Negative scoring item and pt. For example: Drawing another person in, +1
Argumentation FRQ

Develop an argument that explains the constitutionality of Voter Identification Cards.

In your essay, you must:

 Articulate a defensible claim or thesis that responds to the prompt and establishes a line of reasoning
 Support your claim with at least TWO pieces of accurate and relevant information:
o At least ONE piece of evidence must be from one of the following foundational documents:
 US Constitution
 Bill of Rights
 Constitutional Amendments
o Use a second piece of evidence from another foundational document from the list of from your
study of voting rights
 Federalist 10
 Brutus 1
 Use reasoning to explain why your evidence supports your claim
 Respond to an opposing or alternative perspective using refutation, concession, or rebuttal

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________
Develop an argument that explains which of the following our Republican democracy requires more: popular
sovereignty founded upon wide-spread civic participation or popular sovereignty founded upon rule of law in which
majority rule is supreme.

In your essay, you must:

 Articulate a defensible claim or thesis that responds to the prompt and establishes a line of reasoning
 Support your claim with at least TWO pieces of accurate and relevant information:
o At least ONE piece of evidence must be from one of the following foundational documents:
 US Constitution
 Bill of Rights
 Federalist 10
 Brutus 1
o Use a second piece of evidence from another foundational document from the list of from your
study of voting rights
 Use reasoning to explain why your evidence supports your claim
 Respond to an opposing or alternative perspective using refutation, concession, or rebuttal

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________