Listen to the following link. What is the stated purpose of the proposed laws? Why are they "needed"? What are some arguments for the laws? Against? Who is right and why?
22 Comments
Patty Lopez
2/2/2012 02:50:54 pm
In this broadcast we hear how Iowa's Republican Sec. of State, Matt Schultz, proposed new voter ID laws. These laws would ensure that voter fraud does not occur, but that hardly ever happens.They are a false sense of security because even if fraud did happen, it would not occur to the extent to make a difference in the outcome. What would make a huge difference would be enforcing these laws. In reality, these laws would increase the Republican votes because minorities would be targeted, seeing as they vote mostly Democratic. For some people, such as the poor and elderly, getting an ID could be difficult. Voter ID laws are pretty ridiculous seeing as in a democracy everyone has a say in government. If a citizen wants to vote for something, they have the right to do that and there should be nothing stopping them from doing so.
Reply
Kenji Gutierrez
2/3/2012 02:28:28 pm
In the audio we hear about Matt Schultz's new voter ID laws proposals. What these laws are supposedly intended to do is to prevent voter fraud but really they are targeting the minorities. Even if they prevented voter fraud, which rarely happens and does not even affect the votes, they would greatly discourage the minorities from voting. This would be negative for the Democrats for the minorities mostly vote democratic. Since it is harder for the poor and the elders to obtain ID then the votes would be missing their votes and voting is what elders tend to do most since they have more free time. Clearly, making the new voter ID laws an enforcement would be what would make a huge difference in this country's votes. These laws are nothing but a sneaky way of making Republican votes dominate over Democratic. In a democracy, everyone needs to have a say in what they want to see in their government. Besides, if the so-called fraudulent voters were to make a difference in the votes then the House of Representatives always has the last word in every law and president. I do not see what Matt Schultz is afraid of.
Reply
Desiree Traverso
2/8/2012 12:27:46 pm
It is being proposed that voter ID laws be passes for the purpose of securing the integrity of the voting process. Mark Shultz compared it to locking up the house at night to keep everyone safe, the voter ID laws would ensure those who are voting are who they say they are. An argument against such laws is that it would hinder minority groups who may not have the required identification from voting and also that it could be used as a tactic by political parties. It would block several people from the voting process. In twenty six states voter ID laws are pending. An argument for it is that it would be used to prevent government fraud. Personally, I believe that anyone who is affected by the laws has the right to vote for the laws at hand and the voter ID laws would certainly hinder people from that right.
Reply
Nick Harris
2/8/2012 12:53:25 pm
Thus article is shedding light on the absurdity of a newly proposed law that will require US citizens to present a drivers license in order to submit their votes at the next presidential election. This precaution would theoretically prevent voter fraud, a relatively minuscule problem in the scheme of the election, a meager .001% of the votes cast during previous elections have been fraudulent votes. Matt Shultz, Iowa's Republican Secretary of State and a supporter of the proposal, sees the bill as necessary, to "close a loop-hole" loosely comparing it to the safety of his wife and children from an intruder. Taking such measures to prevent such a small issue would deem meaningless, as if the intruder were a cuddly teddy bear trying to invade the secretary's home. Arguments FOR the law include the prevention of voter fraud, and keeping the "integrity of the process" while the much more significant cons behind the bill. One includes the burden that would deter the voters from going to vote, requiring an ID would give voters another reason not to attend the polls and keep them on their couch watching storage wars, feeling the same level of patriotism than had they voted. In regards to who is right in this situation, the supporters of this bill are not among them. An ID requirement at the voting polls would most likely keep Americans from voting.
Reply
Madison Simons
2/8/2012 02:30:40 pm
Iowa's Republican Secretary of State, Matt Schultz, proposed a bill requiring voters to provide ID at the polls in order to vote. This is just one of many different pushes by Republican officials for tighter regulation on voting rights. In Minnesota, Republican lawmakers are creating a constitutional amendment requiring that government issued photo ID be presented at the time of voting and it will appear on the November ballot. The proposed reasoning for such a requirement is to crack down on voting fraud, and secure the voting system from illegal submissions. While this is a problem, it is not a large enough issue to risk losing voters due to formalities. Many people, though largely the elderly, poor, and minorities, cannot receive a photo ID and would then be possibly barred from their right to vote. This issue was addressed by the proposal of allowing those without ID to sign an affidavit swearing that they are who they claim to be. Some see this campaign by Republican politicians to be an effort to lessen the voting of minorities, in hopes that it would lessen the number of Democratic voters. While this is a possible reason, such accusations are only speculation and should be taken as such. All those affected by legislation should be given equal opportunity to vote on it, whether they have a photo ID or not. If the reasoning for this restriction were more substantial than the correction of a minuscule problem such as voter fraud, then they might have an argument. However, considering the large negative effect on voters rights, I cannot back such legislation.
Reply
Maria Gonzalez
2/9/2012 01:45:00 am
After hearing the audio the purposed of the purposed laws is that every person that wants to vote is required to show a photo ID in order to vote at poles. They are needed in order to prevent frauds and that the person that is voting is actually the one that is register not an impostor. Some are against it because they think that republicans want to discourage especially the African Americans because they tend to vote on republicans. Also its a bad idea having the photo ID for the poor and the elderly because some don't have a birth certificate or can't afford it as its said in the audio.If you see it in a good way it would be a tighter regulation on voting that it is the right person that is aloud to vote that actually votes, but there's more negatives than positive things if this law is passed.It is just like using a photo ID when you ti the bank or are planing on flying. I think that the people that want to pass this law are wrong because the only thing that they are doing is that less people want to vote know that they have heard about this news. Its just discouraging people not to vote.
Reply
Roberto Rojas Martinez
2/9/2012 02:10:22 am
In the audio we heard about the new voter ID laws proposed by Matt Schultz. These laws will required voters to show a photo ID to prevent voter fraud that rarely happens. Iowa's Republican Secretary of State and supporters of these laws claim that this bill is necessary to "close a loop-hole" and to prevent fraud.
Reply
Natalie McMillan
2/9/2012 07:03:03 am
The NPR audio clip we heard discusses the proposal of a voter ID law in which all voters would have to present identification documentation upon arrival at the polling booths. Like all other law proposals, there are two sides. One side is saying that by providing ID, voting is more secure, while the other side is saying that it is discriminating against minorities who do not have proper documentation but still have the constitutional right to vote. In my opinion, I think that all people, regardless of having an ID or not, should be able to vote if they are an American citizen. It is their right, but more importantly, it is their duty.
Reply
Emily Gouveia
2/9/2012 10:47:38 am
The purpose of the proposed ID Laws surround the security of elections. Representatives in states such as Iowa, Minnesota and Missouri fell that by requiring voters to present photo ID before voting could prevent voter fraud. In this clip, representatives feel this law is needed because the secuirty of elections depends on the voters being who they say they are. The arguments for this law surround its effect on minorities. Some believe this law will not only discourage voters without the proper identification but it wil also obstruct every American's constituional right to vote. It is also believed that these laws are purposely trying to discourage minorities such as African-Americans from voting. In my opinion, this law does not in any way obstruct or discourage Americans from their constitional right to vote. Photo ID is an aspect of everyday life and is incredibly easy to obtain. This law would simply discourage voting fraud and therefore secure the foundation of America, democracy.
Reply
Victor
2/9/2012 11:05:16 am
The audio expresses how if the voter ID law were to pass, voters would therefore have to present identification in order to anticipate voter fraud. They explain how democrats believe the law to be aimed at racial minorities because most minorities are considered to not possess the required identification needed for an ID, thereby eliminating a portion of the minority vote. As well as part of the elderly vote; those who have been in the country almost their entire lives, but do not carry the required identification. The voter ID laws aren't that useful seeing as though their main argument for the law to pass is to eliminate voter fraud, yet it's not a big issue. The only thing the voter law is doing is elminiting a large part of the population's vote, and thereby withdrawing democracy from the US.
Reply
Gina Vosti
2/9/2012 12:44:44 pm
This NPR Audio clip expresses many American's concerns over identification at voting polls. Matt Schultz argues that passing a law requiring proper ID to vote would eliminate chances at voting fraud, as voters would have to prove who they say they are. While some of Schultz's opposition agrees with this idea, it is believed that making this into a law would prove to be more problematic than beneficial. For many voters, especially minorities, getting the proper identification could be difficult, and would discourage them from voting. Voting fraud is not currently a prominent issue in our government, so denying or complicating a citizen's right to vote would keep many Americans from contributing to their government by voting.
Reply
Dr.DeepV
2/9/2012 02:13:37 pm
This clip describes a potential law that would require all voters to produce specific identification upon arriving at the booth. Supporters of this new law believe it would supposedly prevent fraudulent behavior throughout the voting process. However, while Matt Schultz, Iowa's Republican Secretary of state, claims that this new law, if enacted, would better protect the integrity and justice of the voting process, the amount of fraudulent votes actually submitted at each election have no effect on its outcome. Requiring ID at the voting booth is just giving people another excuse why not to drag themselves down to their local voting center and cast their ballot. This in itself is the actual form of fraud, seeing as most of the votes that this law would effect would be democratic..
Reply
Kelly Gutierrez
2/10/2012 08:43:34 am
If this law were to pass, it would mean that every citizen of the United States would have to possess a valid form of identification when voting. The main concern that came with this proposal was the fact that it would effect the minorities. Every citizen of this country has the constitutional right to vote, and have their ballot count. Though people argue that it is not a big deal to have a form of identification, certain people may not have the ability to vote because they do not have a valid form of identification. The main purpose of this law is to ensure the integrity and validity of the process. I believe that both sides have shown validity in their arguments. One side clearly believes that it is not a problem to show a form of identification because everyone uses them (trips to the bank, traveling), and in a way it seems like it would do no harm. On the contrary, the opposing side argues that it could harm the qualified individuals who are able to vote because of their lack identification. I believe that if people are going to vote, they are doing their part as citizens of this country and should not be faced with barriers. In the end, the momentum of this idea has created a sense of immediate response. I believe that we should allow all the citizens of this country to vote who possess an affidavit, therefore their voice will be heard and the integrity and validity of the voting process will remain. Above all, I believe that if people want to vote, they should be allowed to vote.
Reply
Laura Gold
2/13/2012 12:43:46 pm
The stated purposed of the proposed laws that require voters to bring proper photo ID is claimed to be in order to remove the possibility of voting fraud and to insure the safety of the American voting system. It is argued that these laws are “needed” as to protect American voters from the threat of (rare but possible) voter fraud. The arguments against this claims that the requirements could prevent voters with proper photo ID from voting, such as minorities or those without said proper ID. Judith Brown argues that people should be wary of the burdens placed on voters by laws which could discourage or even prevent American citizens from voting. Arguments for the law includes Shane Schoeller, who states that the proposed law is a “no brainer” and that ID is required for many daily necessities, such as going to the bank. He also implies that these laws will go forward to protecting the integrity of the voting process in America. I believe the laws proposed as a legitimate and fair. However, proper photo ID should be accessible and cheap to those who wish to register their names in order to meet the requirements of the laws. Currently, registering for an ID fee in even Minnesota is approximately $18. This fee is not extravagant and should be available to all people. Thus, I believe these laws should be passed to protect people’s voting rights as well as ensure that no person is misrepresented.
Reply
Jackie Wyard-Yates
2/15/2012 07:32:59 am
This broadcast was meant to express both sides of a debate regarding the ID mandate during the voting process. Those in favor of the demonstration of ID explain that their concern is directed at voters who assume others' identities while voting. While this is a legitimate fear--we would like to be certain that all elections are fair-- the proportion of people who actually cheat the process accounts for a very small number; less than 1% of votes, some estimate. On the other hand, those against the institution of ID checks at voting booths feel that many minorities would be disadvantaged with the new requirement. The portion of this group with negligent identification wouldn't be able to vote on issues that could very well affect all citizens, legal or illegal.
Reply
Erin Wagner
2/15/2012 11:22:42 am
These new voter ID laws that Schultz is trying to pass require all citizens to present their ID when voting. The reason for this law is to prevent voter fraud and to make sure everyone is who they say they are. There are some that are arguing against these laws though. Some of their arguments are some american citizens who are unable to attain an ID, such as minorities and the poor, will not have the right to vote: a constitutional right. I believe that The League of Women Voters are right. Everyone that is a citizen, despite if they have identification, should have a chance to put in their two cents.
Reply
Lucas Immer
2/15/2012 12:34:28 pm
--goof--
Reply
Dominic Skinner
2/16/2012 03:43:48 pm
(Green)
Reply
Cesar Ramirez
2/16/2012 03:44:09 pm
Iowa's Republican Secretary of State Mr. Matt Schultz would like to propose that people present an ID when they attempt to vote. All that is really trying to be prevented by issuing such an act is voter fraud, which in reality does not occur as often as those who are in favor of this act claim it does. Furthermore, that's all that is discussed about voter fraud: that it needs to stop. Again, this is practically the only argument for this proposal. "We already use ID as part of our daily lives so having to show ID to vote would not be a big hassle to me." Personally, I would agree that ID is already used often but statements like these only sugarcoat the proposal. It becomes pretty clear that it could reduce the number of democratic voters as it is believed that minorities would not have proper identification on them. As it is, a large group of people already don't vote during election times. This proposal only enforces why those people should continue to not vote. Many people would simply believe that they don't feel that they should have to present identification to vote. It is significant to bring up the word "democracy." If people are being prevented from having a say in their own government, then the United States is falling short of the phrase "rule by the people." It is bogus to think that one's vote will have to rely on just a picture. This proposal is just making it harder to vote than making it safer.
Reply
2/17/2012 10:11:39 am
(Green)
Reply
Holle Depina
2/21/2012 11:01:29 am
---> Goof <----
Reply
Maria Vittoria Gurrieri
2/22/2012 02:25:14 pm
the proposed law, by Iowa's Republican Secretary of State Matt Schultz, requires voters to show their ID at the polls. Lawmakers from different states argue that this requirement is necessary to prevent voter fraud and protect the integrity of the process of when we vote. In the same time this law seems to deny the possibility of voting for people that don't have a birth certificate or the money and transportation to get an ID. Some democrats think that is a Republican tactic limit vote of African Americans or poor people that usually support the Democrats. I think that it is a complex decision and maybe all people during a public election should tell their idea. I think it is important that everyone shows his own ID but in the same time everybody should have the right to vote.
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
Mr. LPart teacher/part entertainer/ part coach/ part task master Archives
November 2014
Categories |