Changes in Voting Laws

Changes in Voting Laws

Introduction

Last year, many new rules were introduced in number of states prior to 2012 presidential elections which have significant impact on the eligibility of millions of voters. Some of the rules are introduction of photo id and proof of citizenship, eliminating same day registration and making it harder to reinstate one's voting rights (Rebekah, 2011). According to one estimate, it can prevent up to 23 million people all over the nation to vote for their candidates. This paper will first look at the positions in favor and against the new policy rules in the voting rights and subsequently, mentions the arguments.

Position In favor of policy

After years of debate on how and when individuals can vote, under recent Republican control, now state legislatures are going to cut down early voting days, improved identification requirements and put novel boundaries on how voters are informed about absentee ballots (Brennan Center for Justice, Citizens Without Proof (2006). The movement of changes in voting law is triggered as a result to minimize the chances of voter's fraud which became a scandal in 2008 (Brad & John, 2008). The Republicans and their supporters argue that new rules will help to eliminate frauds. Moreover, they also argue that in the wake of current budget constraints faced by the governments, it is not feasible to keep early voting locations opened and staffed. “If you have to show a picture ID to buy Sudafed, if you have to show a picture ID to get on an airplane, you should show a picture ID when you vote,” Gov. Nikki Haley (R) said at the time when she was signing the bill in South Carolina. Kris W. Kobach, Kansas Secretary of State, who is also a supporter of new voting rules, said that in 1997 and 2010, the state lodged 221 complaints of voter fraud.

When it comes to compulsory voting, Arend Lijphart is the greatest political scientist in USA who supports it. He argues that mandatory voting may serve as an incentive to become better informed. To support, his argument, he provided anecdotal evidence for his claim. Mandatory voting violates the individual's right not to vote. However, LIjphart notes that right not to vote remains intact (Streb, 2008, p, 28).

Position Against the policy

As expected, democrats have opposed these changes in voting laws. Democrats questioned the motives of their GOP counterparts and contended that they are exploiting midterm election triumphs to implement changes positive to Republicans in advance of the presidential election 2012. They condemned the new restrictions, arguing it could result in longer lines in leaning urban areas supporting democrats and would no way encourage people for voting. They assert that Republicans are making the most of their historic advantages in 2011. They criticized that Republican lawmakers are exploiting their positions in several states and amending the laws in a way that will ease the election development for them and harder for the democrats to win. They argued that their counter parts have ...