Resolutions of Voter Suppression in the United States
Voter Suppression
Introduction
Voter suppression is the procedure or the plan employed to impact the final results of an election by restricting particular groups and individuals from participating in voting(Norris & Garnett, 2015). Voter suppression in the United States relates to the allegations concerning distinct illegal and legal efforts practiced to restrict eligible voters from exercising their social responsibility to vote. In this paper, I will focus on giving an example of a sophisticated voter suppression example in the U.S.
Legal issue statement
Are voting rights under suppression in the U.S. as states enact voter suppression laws? These laws result in significant issues for eligible voters struggling to participate in the most primary social responsibility in the constitution. From 2008, states in the U.S. have enacted measures to restrict the minority groups to practice their voting responsibility.
Voting Rights Act of 1965
In this paper, I will use the 1965 voting rights act that is enacted in the Federal Legislation in the U.S. that prohibits voter suppression in voting.
Resolutions of Voter Suppression in the United States
Elections are conducted locally in the United States, and voter suppression forms are different among the jurisdictions. Initially, in the U.S., they had voting rights being limited in most states to property possession white males. Still, over time the voting rights were given to even the racial minorities like the youth and women (Keyssar, 2019). During the previous centuries i.e., 19th and 20th centuries, the Southern States passed a law that suppressed the poor racial minorities. The bill was Jim Crow Laws, which included the tests for literacy. Such tactics later were declared illegal in the publication of the Voting Act of Rights 1965. Following the Supreme Court decision to remove section 4 of the voting rights act, discriminatory voter I.D. laws arose in 2013 which did not favor voters from poor Africans and some Americans (Carney, 2016)
Later in Texas, voter I.D.’s, which had to have the passport, military identification, and gun permit, and license were realized to be deliberate discriminatory. With that fact, the laws of election for the State were put back to be controlled by the United States Department of Justice lead by Attorney General Jeff Sessions (Scacco, Lawrence el. at. 2016). This department still held support for the later I.D.s laws. Jeff was claimed to be discriminating against the black votes by Scot King. A typical I.D. was also overturned in North Dakota. A federal judge in Wisconsin realized that the discriminative voter I.D. law resulted in actual cases of failure to be granted the voting rights, which negatively affect the elections rather than promoting confidence specifically in minority races. And, given that in Wisconsin there were fewer facts of extensive voter personate, the judge knew that the law was a cure worse than the disease. Additionally to the introduction of rigid requirements for the voter I.D., the lawyer cut back on early voting, deserved that citizens stay in Ward for not less than 28 days before the election, and restricted absentee votes from being emailed to the ballot.
Mostly, fraud of voter is seen as a justification of such laws even if cases of voter fraud are finite. Lawmakers enacted a strict voter I.D. that was capable of denying 260,000 voters the right to vote in Lowa. Among the 1.6 Million in 2016 votes cast on Lowa there was only 10 allegations voter turned fraud. There were no cases of personate that a law of voting could have restricted. President Donald Trump back in 2017, set up Presidential Advisory commission of the integrity of the election to limit fraud of voters. Criticizers argue that the actual role of the commission is voter suppression (Chadwick, 2017). Kansas secretary, an intercessor of rigid voter I.D., and exponent of the system of Crosscheck of State lead the commission. The system of Crosscheck is a state’s database made to check for the voters who register in more countries. And researchers from Harvard University argue that for every double registration, the algorithms of Crosscheck give at least 200false positives, and this made the commission leader Kobach being sued by American Civil Liberties Union for trying to prevent rights of voters in Kansas (Crouch, Rozell el. at. 2017). Don't use plagiarised sources.Get your custom essay just from $11/page
Another case of voter suppression in the United States occurred when David Krupa, in 2018, a student in Chicago Southwest pursuing political science opted to run for alderman of the 13th Chicago Ward against his opponent and the current alderman- Quinn Marty. For him to be in the ballot, he had to file 473 signatures valid of the residents of the Ward. He registered in 1700 instead. Thus was revoked as the group of political workers went door to door asking the residents to sign an affidavit (Hill, 2018).
In conclusion, the United States has had many voters suppressions like the strict law I.D.s intended to restrict minorities from accessing voting rights. The Jim Crow Laws were also a form of destruction of voters, the incidence of establishing the Presidential Advisory commission by Donald Trump, and many others. I would recommend that the steady commissions are set up to prevent voter fraud and prevent election frauds too.
References
Carney, T. E. (2016). Jim Crow laws. African American Studies Center. doi:10.1093/acref/9780195301731.013.45759
Chadwick, A. (2017). Donald Trump, the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign, and the intensification of the hybrid media system. Oxford Scholarship Online. doi:10.1093/oso/9780190696726.003.0011
Crouch, J., Rozell, M. J., & Sollenberger, M. A. (2017). The law: The unitary executive theory and President Donald J. Trump. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 47(3), 561-573. doi:10.1111/psq.12401
Hill, D. (2018). American voter turnout. doi:10.4324/9780429502347
Keyssar, A. (2019). Voter suppression, then and now. Ideals and Ideologies, 57-60. doi:10.4324/9780429286827-12
Norris, P., & Garnett, H. A. (2015). Voter suppression or voter fraud in the 2014 U.S. elections? SSRN Electronic Journal. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2698229
Scacco, J. M., Lawrence, R. G., & Tenenboim, O. (2016). The “Documented voter”: Voter id messaging in the 2014 Texas midterm election. Communication and Midterm Elections, 43-56. doi:10.1057/9781137488015_3