Cosby: Point counterpoint: Voter ID Regulations – from the Left

To see opposing argument from Christian Corrigan go to http://www.kansan.com/news/2012/jan/22/corrigan-point-/

Something happened after the 2008 election. Greater turnout of young voters provided a boost for the Obama campaign, and when he won the presidency, the Republican Party panicked.

The panic resulted in a slew of states passing laws requiring voters to show photo identification at the polls, as well as some laws eliminating early voting on Sundays.

The government cannot overreach its power and begin impeding the ability of certain age groups and other specific populations of citizens to reach the polls. Such a practice is disturbingly reminiscent of the poll tax.

According to the New York Times, the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University Law School conducted a study that found at least five million legal, eligible voters would face difficulties at the polls if these laws were still in effect in 2012. This is largely because a portion of the electorate, often groups who are marginalized in other ways due to economic status or minority status, does not have state-issued photo identification.

These laws also specifically affect students who are not trying to subvert the law but simply want to exercise their right to vote.

This is a specific effort targeted at young people and students because of their inclination to vote for the Democratic candidate. They are targeted because they often have to vote away from home, and these laws have effectively invalidated many college IDs as a form of identification (as some universities now must revamp their student ID card systems, which takes time and money), causing problems for out-of-state students trying to register to vote (New York Times, Dec. 2011).

By taking away measures that facilitate voting for students, a group that already votes in small numbers will have even less incentive or ability to vote.

But Republican lawmakers are not concerned about the low voting trend among young people and are happy to stifle the voices of the students who do want to participate in the political process because it better serves their interests.

RESPONSES:

(Christian’s arguments are in italics. Kelly’s responses are below).

Proving your identity is an accepted, routine, and necessary part of our everyday lives. And it isn’t just for things like driving, flying, cashing checks, and buying drinks. I have a constitutional right to buy a legal firearm, but in order to exercise that right, I have to present ID and undergo a background check.

It is obviously true that in order to purchase items like alcohol or tobacco, or in order to fly on an airplane, or drive a car, or use a credit card, one must have state-issued ID. This is exactly why the requirement of photo identification at the polls marginalizes a specific group in the electorate: the people who are not able to do any of the above activities, namely because they cannot afford such conveniences, are the ones who do not have state-issued ID.

The right to vote is fundamental. It of course encompasses the right to physically cast a vote on election day. But it also includes our right to not have our legitimate votes nullified by illegal acts such as voter fraud.

The key in the right-wing argument is that these isolated incidents of voter fraud are pinned on liberals who are given a bad name because of groups like ACORN. Obviously most Democrats do not support voter fraud, as they value just as much as other party members the foundations of equal political representation. Some Republicans just use isolated cases like this to justify the very discriminatory practice of essentially eliminating a portion of the Democratic electorate.

In 2008, the Supreme Court upheld Indiana’s Voter ID law. The opinion was written by none other than liberal Justice John Paul Stevens.

While the idea that voter ID laws don’t really have an effect on turnout for Democratic voters based on the Indiana law is interesting, I find it to be irrelevant. The point of giving every citizen the right to vote without unnecessary obstacles is not about advancing one party over the other; it is about one’s individual rights in relation to the political process. This is why I agree that a vote is fundamental and should be safeguarded in the sense that each individual’s ability to vote should be protected.

Kelly Cosby is a senior in political science and English from Overland Park.

By
  • Updated Jan. 22, 2012 at 10:08 pm
  • Calvin

    “voting is a fundemental right” Sorry, that is not true. I would say a “fundamental” right would be found in the original document but that is not the case. The right to vote was not even mentioned until the passing of the 14th amendment and was not a guarantee as a state could except less representation for barring some voters. The 15th amendment finally guaranteed the right to vote for all citizens except for women and those under the age of 21. A “fundamental” right should, I think, apply equally to everyone irregardless of age or sex. Now the 19th amendment gave women the right to vote in federal elections (they were already voting in some state and local elections). The 25th amendment superceded the “poll tax” with federal law and the right to vote for anyone 18 to 21 years of age was granted (you can’t grant a right) by the 26th amendment.
    So you are wrong when you call voting a “fundamental” right.

    Voter fraud and voter registration fraud is not a collection of isolated incidents. Ohio, Missouri, South Dakota, Georgia, Indiana, New York, Illinois, Washington, and California are just a few of the states where voter fraud has been proven and people have been indicted. This is not isolated, this is disenfranchising honest voters who are obeying the law. With voter ID laws we can find the full impact of voter fraud which I suspect is even more rampant the the indictments indicate.

    Ms Cosby is guilty of trying to turn this into a left/right thing. Partisanship over legality. You can’t cash a check without ID so why can you vote? States have offered to provide IDs to any who want one. So where is the problem?

    College students offer a special challenge. Too many smaller college towns have a larger TEMPORARY student population than people who actually have a stake in the future of the town or state. A sense of right and wrong should preclude students from trying to steal an election in a locality that will never be their permanent home. I know Ms. Cosby will not like this analogy but military people generally vote at the their PERMANENT state of residence. I think college students should do the same. Your own Kansas history should be a guide Kelly. When it was to be determined whether Kansas was to enter the union as a free state or a slave state, thousands of men from Missouri entered the state and set up camps in order to qualify as citizens. If you can except temporary students as voting residences then you must accept that fact that Kansas would have been a slave state by the same standard. I know that you and any reasonable person would think this would be wrong so too must be a termporary student voting in a local election without any skin in the game.

    The laws provide for states to provide IDs, owning an ID is a part of life today, no honest person wants to have an election stolen, and the precedent of Kansas is that only permanent residences should have a say in the future of the state.

  • Calvin

    I understand that the left loves helping the homeless (at least they say so when there is a republican president to blame it on). So how does the left feel about people standing on streets corners PRETENDING to be homeless? Probably not too good because these fakes are robbing the real homeless from getting help and give those hard hearted people on the right reasons not to help the real homeless.

    Same thing for fake voters.