National Voter ID
Is passing the law for a National Voter ID burdensome or causing mutilation of an important part of full citizenship? Twenty- seven states require or request some form of ID to vote. The supporters of the National Voter ID policy believe that if voters identify themselves before voting, election fraud will be reduced. Opponents of the ID requirement fear it will deprive voters of their right, especially in voting during the election. Many people believe that it will be harder for voters, especially the poor, members of minority groups and elderly, who are less likely than other voters to have suitable identification (Urbina). The debate is making the differences between groups or ideas ever more clear-cut and extreme, hardening the opposition between them, or makes voting become ever more clear-cut and extreme in this way, this is because most of the proponents are Republicans and most of the opponents are Democrats.
Voting is more than a matter of individual preference, like choosing between McDonalds or Burger King. Free participation protects our political system from a more dangerous kind of corruption in which someone should not have to worry about public denial. Vote suppression in the United States has a long and unpleasant past and present. Anonymous postcards often warn registered voters in black neighborhoods that they are ineligible. Fliers warn that any voter with an outstanding warrant will be arrested at the polls. Phone calls threaten eligible voters with criminal prosecution. Is voting then a right or a selection of citizens who fit the political authorities views (Storey)?
Secondly, in two different opinions based on the fraud in the political elections, numerous amounts of people believe that the Voter ID law should not be passed because there is no such thing as injustice in any election. Tova Wang, a Democracy Fellow at The Century Foundation, co-authored research and filed a federally mandated report on the question...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document