Tuesday, February 11, 2014
Judge to decide proof-of-citizenship voting rule
This article discusses a current court case where U.S. District Judge Eric Melgren will have to make a tough decision regarding whether or not Kansas and Arizona can make their voting requirements more stringent. The states propose measures where voters would have to show proof of citizenship. If this law is passed it could have much broader implications, because it might set a precedent for other states. On one hand there has been instances of non-citizens voting in Arizona, and in a close election these voters might have an impact, but on the other hand more stringent voting requirements would decrease voter registration.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I believe that proving one’s citizenship should not be considered too much of a burden in order to vote. If one is able to get to a polling place, there is no way that they would not have some form of proof of citizenship. While I would be surprised if the validity is upheld (given the great liberal nature of many judges on this issue), I do sincerely hope that states should have a right to ensure that those voting are actually citizens. Should enough non-citizens vote, the election could be swung. Consider the fact that the 2000 presidential election was decided off the back of Florida (which has a decent number of illegals)—it was decided by a little over 500 votes.
ReplyDeleteI also agree that it would not be difficult for a voter to prove that they are an American citizen before voting. I think that not allowing Kansas to change their voting policy is ridiculous. Especially because they fear that other states may change theirs in response to their changes. So what if another state changes their voting policy because they agree with another state's changes? However I do agree with Kobach's critics that the changes may decrease voter participation.
ReplyDeleteI agree that illegals should not be allowed to vote in our elections, but this does not seem like the best way to do it. Although it should not be that hard to prove your citizenship, it is an added burden that may deter some people to not vote. As we have talked about in class, voter participation in our country is very low, and this, if passed, seems likely to only further decrease that.
ReplyDeleteI think this would be a mistake. We already have such low voter turn out and this is just one more burden placed on the voter. Why is it that so many of our elected officials are so scared of the voters, and seem to do so many small and big things to try and stop them. I think allowing these new restrictions to pass would cause a harmful precedent to be set, one in which many other states would probably follow. A precedent which allows scared officials to lay unnecessary burdens on the voter, voting is supposed to be our fundamental right and should be easy to obtain.
ReplyDeleteI don't understand why enforcing more and more laws to discourage people from voting is a trend. Voter participation as we have learned in class is already so low, why must we make it more difficult. On another note, non-eligible voters/illegals should not be voting, but discouraging voting for all with more laws is not the way to fix the problem. I understand the other side of the argument, but I think that voter participation is the most important factor to remember.
ReplyDeleteI agree that showing proof of citizenship does not seem like a difficult addition to the voting process in theory, but many people already think that it is too confusing. It is possible that these same people would be further driven away from registering and the participation in the United States will lower. The article states that the cases of non-citizens voting are rare anyway, and I doubt that these people would risk getting deported and have their lives taken away in order to vote. This risk is clearly stated on the federal form, so I think any further laws would hurt participation more than helping anything else.
ReplyDeleteLike many Americans, I am usually very opinionated. But I can easily see both viewpoints on this topic. However, I do not see how the Kansas and Arizona idea is that much of a hassle. Finding a passport or birth certificate means opening a drool for most people. If that stops you from voting, you most likely do not care strongly about what you're voting for.
ReplyDeleteI think that the crux of this issue, is keeping voting a democratic process democratic. Imposing more stringent voter registration laws makes the system more democratic because it ensures that only citizens will be voting in the election. However, these stringent regulations would most likely affect the minority and lower class social groups. If these groups lose voter participation, then the elections are then swayed in favor of the republicans. What if people don't have a passport, or their birth certificate?
ReplyDeleteI agree with Ian on this issue. Both sides definitely have a positive and a negative side. Any time you add more rules and regulations, you run the risk of having less people participate in the voting process. However, this may not be as bad as it seems. I think that the people who take the time to abide by the new, more stringent laws will be the people who care more about voting for one candidate or the other. If you truly want to have a say in our government, you need to follow the rules, no matter what they are.
ReplyDeleteI believe that this proof-of-citizenship voting rule is trying to infringe on the votes of a select group of people who currently live and work inside of our nation as workers who take the jobs that many would refused simply because of how hard they are. Some of these people have lived in the U.S. for many years and they have not yet received a citizenship, but they are already a important part of our economy. These people deserve to have a say in how our great nation built by immigrants for immigrants works, it is unfair that we are forcing laws that keep them away from polls just for the sole purpose of keeping their many votes away from the other party. This affects many elderly citizens as well as the new generation of Americans descended from immigrants from many neighboring nations, I believe that we should change what it means to become a citizen, that we shouldn't suppress these hard working voices from helping our nation become more progressive.
ReplyDeleteIf these two states can successfully pass this legislation, I think that, without a doubt, a precedent will be set for other states to follow suit with other similar regulations and laws. However, I think Noelle makes a good point: imposing more legislation that makes it a little bit tougher to vote may make it a little more difficult for lower classes and minorities to vote, and this could decrease voter participation. However, I do think that it is probably more of a good thing than a bad thing to have legislation like this, because it makes it much more difficult to participate to vote if you aren't a citizen, so the legislation ensures that only citizens can vote.
ReplyDeleteI don't see why it should even be an issue to make voting regulations more stringent in this case. If your not a citizen, you shouldn't be allowed to vote or have an influence on the choice of government officials. These laws just require proof of citizenship, which shouldn't be an issue for people to produce when voting. Also, as Kevin said, these laws being passed may set a precedent for other states to follow.
ReplyDeleteI do not find it surprising that Arizona is currently trying to get such a voting law passed as they are a border state, however, I find it random that Kansas is trying to do the same. Maybe the very heart of the country is having border control difficulties. Nevertheless, I believe that this law shouldn't provide the American voter with too much trouble that they wouldn't vote all together. I hope to see these laws get passed as American citizens and American citizens only should be able to vote.
ReplyDeleteThis idea really doesn't seem like too much of a burden to voters for me. Of course there is the risk of lower voter turnout, but the issue of illegals voting in elections seems like a bigger priority. I have a feeling that if this gets passed, other states will soon follow.
ReplyDeleteIn idea, requiring voter idea really isn't a big deal. But when you think about it, we really don't need any more policies that disencourage voters. I can see a lot of moderate/less informed/less passionate members of the electorate not really going out to vote if they didn't have ID - especially in smaller elections. Ultimately, I feel like there's definitely an alterior motive in maybe de jure disenfranchising minorities and lower class citizens, who are less likely to have ID.
ReplyDeleteIf officials are always complaining about low voter turnout than why are they constantly making it harder for people to vote? This reminds me of the issue regarding whether or not it should be required to bring your birth certificate when you vote during the 2012 elections. I truly feel that they could be focusing on more important matters than this. I also wonder how this could possibly be a problem in Kansas. It makes more sense in Arizona because they are a border state with Mexico, but when it comes to Kansas how many illegals are they really dealing with?
ReplyDelete