The Department of Justice on Friday deemed South Carolina's new law requiring voters to present a state or federal photo ID "legally unenforceable," arguing that it could be discriminatory against minorities in violation of the Voting Rights Act.
The proposed law, signed by Gov. Nikkie Haely in May, would require voters wishing to vote in person to present one of five forms of photo identification. The current law does not require a photo ID. The stated intention in changing the current law was to reduce the amount of voter fraud caused by impersonation of another voter.
While state concerns are noted and deemed legitimate,the current voting law already addresses these problems with voter identification.
South Carolina can and may appeal this decision to the US District Court in Washington but untill then "the submitted change continues to be legally unenforceable."
NAACP named this state as one of the 14 that passed laws restrcting voting or voter resgistration process in ways that it says disproportionately impacts minorities. In the NAACP report, it is claimed that such restrcitive laws "assault Americans' voting rights.
The report, released December 5, calls the laws "coordinated efforts to suppress the growing voting strength of communities of color, the poor, the elderly, the disabled, and the young."
Haley slams the decision as "outrageous" in a statement provided to The State newspaper in Columbia, South Carolina.
What is your opinion? Do you think that this law is preventing voting fraud? or is it violating and assaulting our American rights?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I think that this law is one that every state should have. It takes away the ability for illegal aliens to vote (without an ID) and should reduce the amount of voter fraud. I do not really follow how this impacts minorities because if you have an ID because you are a legal immigrant then you can vote. If anything this, I think, gets at what rights do illegal citizens have
The problem with the ID's is that you have to get one from the state and pay for one. Many minorities don't have the money or the time to get one of these and that is why the law indirectly discriminates against them. I understand that it can also help to eliminate the number of illegal aliens, but these people live here, go to our schools, they cannot be shut out of policy completely. Plus I think it's very unfair that children who were brought by their parents when they were young and had no control over it would never be able to vote under this law. As Calvin said, the current law already protects against voter fraud so any more regulations are unnecessary.
While I think that in an ideal world there would be nothing wrong with requiring voter ID. I think the current applications of it here cause some problems. Besides the obvious issue of it taking time and money which the NAACP claims minorities lack (is it ok to stereotype if the NAACP does it too?), there's always the possibility of historically racist states in the south passing literacy tests and whatnot to keep minorities away from IDs. Whereas the amended constitution guarantees everyone's right to vote, it doesn't protect our right to own or carry ID cards, something states could exploit.
In South Carolina alone, over 200,000 registered voters do not have an appropriate ID. This law is affecting way more than just illegal immigrants.
A disproportionate percentage of minority groups such as students and African-Americans do not own ID cards, and because these groups tend towards the democratic, many believe this law (and those like it in other states) is a strategic move by the Republican legislatures in those states. However, regardless of hidden motives, it takes time and money to procure an ID card and therefore this law is in direct violation of the amended constitution.
As many previous commenters have stated, it takes time and money to procure an ID. The way ID systems currently work, this would be harder for certain minority groups. However, I think that claims of attacks on rights are a bit overblown. The intent of the law clearly was not to prevent minority groups from voting. A law to prevent voter fraud is perfectly legitimate; restricting minority groups' voting ability is an unintended consequence that ought to be worked out separately.
Post a Comment