Article source: http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/4/15/north-carolina-votinglaweducationcampaign.html
Picture source: http://abcnews.go.com/US/doj-sue-north-carolina-voter-id-law/story?id=20415868
Last summer, North Carolina Governor Pat McCory signed a new voter ID bill, which has earned the nickname the "Monster Law." This new law requires voters to have a North Carolina ID issued by the government in order to vote, cuts back the early voting period by seven days, invalidates ballots that are cast in the wrong precinct, eliminates same-day voter registration, and requires people to register to vote at least 28 days before going to the polls in a primary or general election. The reason that this law has been able to become a harsh reality for voters in North Carolina is the decision of the Supreme Court case
Shelby County v. Holder; in this case, the Supreme Court struck down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which contains the coverage formula of the Act that determines which jurisdictions are subject to the Act's special provisions based on their history of voter discrimination. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court's decision has also rendered Section 5 of the Act moot since the implementation of preclearance, which requires that covered jurisdictions receive federal approval before implementing changes in election laws, on the jurisdictions it covers depends on the formula provided by Section 4. If there is no formula to determine which jurisdictions are exhibiting voter discrimination, then they cannot be subjected to preclearance, which means that they can pass laws such as this one without having to receive federal approval. Chief Justice John Roberts claims that these sections of the VRA are no longer needed because times have changed, and discrimination in the jurisdictions once covered by the Act is not as bad as it used to be. The law has been met with several legal challenges, and voting rights activists in North Carolina are now working hard to educate people on the impact this law will have; they are preparing to accept this new law since they are unsure of whether or not it will be repealed, and they are attempting to educate the groups that the law will affect the most on what it does and what they will have to do in order to vote. These groups mostly consist of the elderly, minority communities, low-income voters, and young people. North Carolina legislators are now arguing that this new law is needed to combat fraudulent votes, but do you think that this is what they are trying to fight against? Do you think that this new law is discriminatory, and, if so, do you think that the efforts being undertaken by voting rights activists to educate minority groups on the new law will be of much use?
6 comments:
Voter fraud should be eliminated, but I think the implementation of this voter ID has a lot to do with targeting certain groups by making it more difficult for them to vote. Elections should be clean and easy to access by all the people - that's an essential component of our government. It seems as though advocacy groups are focusing less on the policy, making it sound as if the law is here to stay, at least for now. I think the increased education about these new laws and how to properly access the ballot will be important to reach out to communities that are disadvantaged by this law. It will be interesting to see the demographics of voter turnout in future elections after this law is put in place. I'm sure the increased education will be helpful, but I don't know if it can maintain the current level of turnout. I also don't agree with Chief Justice John Roberts' statement that sections of the VRA are not necessary. Helping people get to elections and making sure states are holding fair elections is a necessary safeguard for all voters. In my opinion, the government certainly has a obligation to fight against fraudulent voters, but at the same find ways to assist voters who have more challenges casting a vote.
I understand the motivations behind trying to make the laws stricter to prevent voter fraud but when it becomes a hassle for voters to vote, I think voter turnout could decrease. I don't think voters should be penalized for voting at the wrong precinct if it was more convenient for them to access. This kind of reminds me of the stricter laws about the SAT test and how all test takers must have photo I.D. to get in and take the test which is a good thing in order to prevent cheating.
I think that voting restrictions is an expensive, unnecessary and meddlesome in a "time of fiscal crisis." It has been noted from studies by the ACLu that the actually catching of "voter fraud" is extremely rare. In fact, the ACLU reported that only 26 individuals had guilty pleas of fraud form 2002-2005. While I still stink its better just to vote early than to actually vote on election day, I think voter restriction laws are ridiculous. And I do think that they discriminate people because those without photo ID are disproportionately low-income, disabled, minority, young, and older voters.
I do think that voting rights activists efforts will be effective in the long run. The Aclu is on it.
I think that these voting laws are unessecary and while they do try to make it so that its harder for voter fraud it just makes it more difficult for everyone. It has been reported that in 2011 republicans advanced photo id legislation in at least 35 states. If those states enacted the laws they would have to collectively spend about $276 million dollars of tax payer's moeny. Doing this just wastes a huge amount of money to restrict the freedom of citizens to vote, when it could be used for many others things that are actually beneficial. I think that these laws do discriminate, and it negatively effects large percentage of americans that dont have proper photo id. And like keith said this affects people that have low-income, are disabled , are minorities, are young or are older.
I’ve sort of been of the opinion that voter fraud is an unproven phenomenon. Any sort of voter fraud would take an enormous amount of dedication, effort, and time. But furthermore, there hasn’t really been much documented evidence. The motivations of voter ID laws instead seem to point towards voter suppression—minority groups and lower income individuals who lack education are arguably hurt. And in the spirit of democracy, marginalizing the competitiveness of elections is a highly politicized move. Still, it’s arguable that these laws do improve the security of the entire process — requiring ID honestly should improve it, but in communities where the incentive to vote is already less, then I really don’t think it does anything.
Here are a couple articles pointing out actual numbers. Apparently there are about 35,000 people who voted in the North Carolina general election who had the same name as somebody in another state. Additionally, there were also 765 people who matched social security numbers with somebody in another state. People are pointing to these results as justification for the “Monster Law” that was passed. While it seems somewhat sketchy, I’m still skeptical about the fears of voter fraud simply based on the fact that it would require somewhat ridiculous coordination and dedication to truly skew election results.
http://www.dailytarheel.com/article/2014/04/study-finds-765-cases-of-nc-voter-fraud-in-2012-election
http://www.dukechronicle.com/articles/2014/04/09/allegations-voter-fraud-emerge-nc
Previous studies have shown that blacks have disproportionately casted their ballots in the first week of early voting, and also tended to register to vote during the early voting period. The new North Carolina law, as a result, would disproportionately affect the percentage of black (and other minority) voters compared to white voters, and decrease turnout and voter participation. I feel efforts to educate people about the law, despite advocacy groups' best efforts, will not alter an overall decrease in turnout by much, if at all. No matter what, education about the law will not reach everyone, as well as not everyone who casted their ballots during early voting and/or registered during the early voting period who are now affected by the law. Even with education, they will still tend to vote even less than before, as additional effort is required.
Post a Comment