Recent orders
Voting Rights Act
Voting Rights Act
Name
POSC 1113
Instructor
Date
Voting Rights Act
Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act
The Voting Rights Act was legislation in the U.S. constitution enacted in 1965 to overcome prejudices at all levels of government that prevented African Americans and other minorities from voting. The Voting Rights Act is one of the most influential pieces of legislation that resulted from the efforts of the Civil Rights movement. The Voting Rights Act Section 5 required 16 states to present the U.S. Department of justice with redistricting plans for clearance. Preclearance was a process that sought the preapproval for all the changes associated with voting. Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act contains this provision, which suggests that a panel of three judges or the Department of Justice was to preclear any suggestions to change the requirements to vote or voting prequalification or any standard, practice, or system with anything to do with voting.
The 16 states that were especially required to submit changes for preclearance were those that had a history of discrimination and low minority turnout. These states were required to prove that the changes they proposed did not in any way target the minority in a discriminatory manner. Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act was aimed at minimizing voter discrimination, improve turnout, and guarantee each citizen equal opportunity to appoint their choice candidates. Preclearance was, however, enacted as a temporary act and has been renewed four times since 1965. In 2013 it was rendered unconstitutional under the 10th amendment and was repealed.
The Shelby County decision
In 2013, the Supreme Court concluded that Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act was no longer constitutional under the 10th amendment (Bathija). This shifted power back to the States to regulate elections (Department of Justice). This decision has already attracted negativity, such as the enactment of photo I.D. law in Texas. This act by Texas provided ammunition for people that think preclearance should remain a function of the federal government. In their defense, Texas immediately enacted one of the strictest laws in the country that required voters to provide very few and targeted forms of identification while ignoring the most common types of identification. In 2014, less than a year after Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act was repealed, the rate of turn out in Texas dropped 5 points in comparison to 2010 (Brandeisky, Chen, & Tigas). Those for the repeal of Section 5 argue that the victory under section 2 is an indication that the repeal of section 5 would not be that fatal. But tell that to the 600,000 minorities registered as voters that were denied their right to vote for clearly discriminatory reasons.
Repealing Section 5 sent voters into the 2016 elections with weak federal laws protecting the right of the minority to vote. A significant number of Americans at 81 percent are in support of section 5, while 69 percent want Congress to bring the law back before the next elections. This group requires Congress to update the laws to fit the discriminations that conform to this age. Those against having the federal government oversee preclearance claim that it is a win for voters because the decision to allow a bill or not lies with them. Voters can take legal action against discriminatory laws, which shifts power and decision to more people compared to the few chosen by Section 5.
On the same note, those that support the repeal of section 5 cite the lack of relevance of the law in modern times. They suggest whether the law is there or not has no effect, and it being inapplicable today means it should not be in the constitution. Those against this opinion believe the discrimination is still there, with the difference being its evolution.
North Carolina enacted the H.B. 589 a few weeks following Shelby intending to keep African Americans from voting. This law’s voter-ID requirement during the 2016 elections accepted only a few identification documents. As a result, 300,000 (34 percent) registered voters of African descent were locked out the ballot for lacking one of those IDS (Tokaji). The law also abolished same-day registration, a provision that allowed voters to register on the same day of the election or rectify problems in their registration information and voter I.D.s. Forty percent of African Americans of the voting age used the system in the previous polls, although African Americans, in general, make only 20 percent of the general population of voting age.
Dealing with the Shelby County Decision
Because the liberty given to states to enact voting regulations is being clearly misused, I would begin with creating awareness and rallying people to match against these prejudices. This way, the voice of the people will be heard and increase pressure and create a way for the next step; legal action. With the right number of people in support of a lawsuit, the chances of success are higher. The third thing is to rally those that are not registered to do so because it is understood that a significant number of minorities do not come out to vote.
Bibliography
Bathija, S. “5 Reasons Why Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act Enhances Our Democracy.” Last modified February 19, 2013. https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/courts/reports/2013/02/19/53721/5-reasons-why-section-5-of-the-voting-rights-act-enhances-our-democracy/.
Brandeisky, K., H. Chen, and M. Tigas. “Everything That’s Happened Since Supreme Court Ruled on Voting Rights Act ? ProPublica.” Last modified November 4, 2014. https://www.propublica.org/article/voting-rights-by-state-map.
Department of Justice. “About Section 5 Of The Voting Rights Act.” Last modified December 4, 2017. https://www.justice.gov/crt/about-section-5-voting-rights-act.
Tokaji, D. P. “The Right to Vote in an Age of Discontent.” n.d. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/we-the-people/right-to-vote-in-age-of-discontent/.
Voter ID Laws
Voter ID Laws
Name:
Institution:
The right to vote is one of the most important rights of every American. During elections, eligible voters are expected to turn out to cast their ballot. Over the years, many steps have been taken to protect the right of people to vote, but that appears to be changing. In the recent past, many states, including Texas, have passed restrictive voter ID laws that have hindered many people from voting. These voter ID laws deny people their right to vote in several ways. One of these is that some people cannot afford the charges associated with obtaining a government ID such a paying for birth certificates. Another reason is that more than twenty million Americans lack government-issued IDs; thus the new restrictive laws keep millions from voting. There is a raging debate on whether such laws affect voter turnout. Studies have given conflicting results, but these laws have generally been found to affect minority groups disproportionately. The Government Accountability Office examined the effect of Voter ID laws on voter turnout in 2014 and found a decline of between 1.9 and 2.2 percentage points in Kansas due to changes in the voter identification laws. Similarly, Tennessee registered a 2.2 to 3.3 percentage point decline in 2012 (Hajnal et al. 2017). Given the fact that Texas has a growing population of minorities, voter ID laws affect voter turnout.
Voter ID laws were introduced around the country from 2006, and since then, 34 states have passed some kind of voter identification law. These laws vary from state to state and require voters to present some form of a government-issued identification before they vote or register to vote. Examples of documents accepted as official identification include state ID, driver’s license, or passports, all of which contain photographs. Other forms of acceptable identification include paychecks and utility bills and receipts (De Alth 2009). However, voters who use the latter form of identification may be required to provide more proof of identification a short time after casting their ballot to validate their vote. The main reason given for the introduction of voter identification laws is to prevent fraud among voters and also to promote accuracy and protect ballots of all voters.
The voter ID laws are likely to negatively affect voter turnout, especially in the future. Some of the more restrictive laws require a voter to present official photographic ID, which may be difficult for some people to access. Examples of those who might find it challenging to access these required IDs include the elderly, those with disabilities, and the poor. In some states with less strict laws, voters are allowed to vote with other forms of identification, such as paychecks or utility bills. The challenge is that voters may not be aware of such provisions, and the idea of strict ID laws will keep otherwise eligible voters from the ballot (Pastor, et al. 2010). The government should carry out voter education exercises so that voters are aware of information regarding their eligibility. Unfortunately, these exercises do not reach many. Additionally, voter ID laws have been found to affect minority groups negatively disproportionately, and this will translate into future turnouts unless more education is available. In the past, such identification requirements had no impact on voter turnout because many states only implemented strict laws after 2008.
On the other hand, voter ID laws can affect voter turnout positively. People will have more faith in the electoral process as identification requirements prevent electoral fraud. Every voter wants their vote to matter, and the idea that there could be some fraudulent votes makes people lose trust in the voting mechanism. Voter ID laws protect the reliability of the vote. Requirements in voter registration also give voters paperwork that is useful in other areas of their lives. It gives them proof of address, age and also allows them to apply for a job. The process of meeting voter ID requirements proves beneficial in other ways. Voter ID laws also promote accuracy and safeguard an individual’s right to vote. Any person who tries to steal another’s identity and cast a vote can easily be caught with the laws in place. Voter ID laws can improve people’s awareness of the need to vote. States with voter identification laws integrate the process with other forms of identification. For example, when one renews their driver’s license, they are registered to vote as well. The advantage of this method is that a person who might not have been concerned with registration can be motivated to register, thus improving voter turnout.
In conclusion, voter ID laws have sparked fierce debate across the country. Opponents of the laws insist that strict laws deter eligible voters who do not have some specific kind of ID from voting. The laws are also discriminatory as they affect some parts of the population more than others. Supporters laud the laws as a way to promote the integrity and accuracy of the voting process, as well as weed out voter fraud. The courts have overturned some parts of the voter ID laws of various states (Hajnal et al. 2017). Voter ID laws are essential in the electoral process, but they should not be too strict such as to deter voters from exercising their rights. States should accept non-photographic ID as a form of identification without demanding further proof to validate votes.
References
De Alth, S. (2009). ID at the polls: Assessing the impact of recent state voter ID laws on voter turnout.
Hajnal, Z., Lajevardi, N., & Nielson, L. (2017). Voter identification laws and the suppression of minority votes. The Journal of Politics, 79(2), 363-379.
Pastor, R. A., Santos, R., Prevost, A., & Stoilov, V. (2010). Voting and ID requirements: A survey of registered voters in three states. The American Review of Public Administration, 40(4), 461-481.
Vote Hillary Clinton
Vote Hillary Clinton
Name
Institution affiliation
My voting experience can be termed as passable. I am an experience voter who has participated in the voting activity twice since my childhood. This forth coming elections shall be my third time representing my right to vote in the ballot box to choose and vote for my preferred candidate. Hillary Clinton would do a better job as president of the states. To start with, her manifesto says a lot about her capabilities. My vote choice matters a great deal since I believe in my right to vote. This is to ensure I trust the best candidate with the task, one who can deliver accordingly to enhance better living standard to the people of the great America.Therefor Hillary Clinton is my favorite entrant.
Hillary Clinton has a pretty hefty platform since she has served in the government for almost 30 years. Her experience is key to leading the state modestly, her mastery of the environment would be much easier for everyone. Clinton’s website has almost 40 pages outlining her policies plus definitive ways of how they can be fulfilled. For instance, she talks of looking at the low earning families. Her approach makes sense and tends to focus on improving domestic policies of president Obama, so to my side she stands a chance of winning the elections hence she remains my trusted candidate to change the life of Americans.
Based on her policies Hillary Clintons presidency speaks a lot about her presidential ambitions in terms of policies and her good heavy proposals compared to her opponent Donald Trump who has no experience in working with the government. Hillary Clinton has a foreign policy and the national security agenda that follows Obama routs that she contributed when she was the secretary of state. Hence all this makes it not possible to criticize her overwhelming support for her candidacy. I retain my focus as Clintons supporter hence I am sure my vote will count. I therefor encourage every person to participate in the voting process as I have chosen to do to vote for Clinton as the preferred candidate.
Bibliography
Bessi, A., & Ferrara, E. (2016). Social bots distort the 2016 US Presidential election online discussion.