Category: Voting

Lowering the Legal Age to Vote

Over the course of American history, the right to vote has seen substantial changes in who can or cannot act on the privilege. For example, in the earliest days of American history, only those who were white, male, property owners had the right to vote. In the many following years, African Americans gained the right to vote as well as women, Asian Americans, and Native Americans, and all discriminatory barriers were removed. In 1971, the voting age was lowered to eighteen in light of the Vietnam war on the grounds that if an individual is old enough to fight in the war, they are old enough to vote. Now that context has been provided; I suggest we look to a modern world issue in relation to voting rights. With heavy discussion, the general public and legal scholars alike propose this question: should a bill be ratified that allows the voting age to be lowered to sixteen? This discussion comes with two sides, for or against the said bill. Specifically, those for it often argue that those aged sixteen have the capacity to make well-informed decisions. Those against allowing youth aged sixteen to vote note that they simply do not have the political skill or efficacy to make decisions that hold such gravity. In this essay, I will summarize the perspective of the opposition, find common ground, and finally go into detail regarding my stance as well as offer a compromise.

[bookmark: _Hlk21002990]The statement that most often comes from the main opposition is this: at sixteen years old, our youth lack the political skills and efficacy to make decisions that hold such gravity. It is my understanding that this idea is rooted deeply in our school systems. The opposition most often says that in schools today and in general daily life, youth are not experienced enough in civics, and politics, or are affected enough by political decisions to have a stance on vote-required elections. Willis D. Hawley, a professor of political science at Yale University, argues that “school curricula in political education are inappropriate to the country’s needs” (Hawley 328). This argument lies in the education given to students specifically in their Sophomore or Junior year of high school because this period is when they are most likely to take civics courses along with American political science courses, and is also when individuals are sixteen years of age. Hawley sums up the argument against lowering the voting age by noting that our educational systems do not take proper action to instill a political drive into students that gives them the knowledge capacity to vote.

My position is that I believe students have the civic knowledge and responsibility as well as the political capacity to vote in the United States of America. Between myself and the main opposition, there are features of common grounds. For example, the opposition would argue that schools do not teach politics well enough in the American school systems, but they agree that it IS taught. I agree with the argument that schools could potentially do a better job of teaching politics and civics. The stance of the opposition and my own do not overlap in agreement in many ways, but rather only in the idea that the American school systems specifically pertaining to students aged 16 can do a better job of driving a sense of civic duty and political intelligence into school curricula.

In schools across the country, students gain an immense amount of knowledge in regard to civic duty and responsibilities that largely contribute to why they should be able to vote. This is largely due to the way they are structured. For example, my own school district has a student government in place at every single school that allows students to vote for those that they want to represent their own interests within the district. Every graduating class presently admitted to the school gets the chance to vote. This is only one form of how schools give students a chance to learn civic responsibilities. Another example is that most high schools require a certain amount of community service to so much as move on to the next year.

The figure above is taken from a survey done by two professors at Rutgers University, New Jersey, named Robert Atkins and Daniel Hart. To get this piece of evidence, they surveyed people of different age groups asking the same questions in regard to political skill, civic knowledge, and civic responsibility. As you can see, the figure shows that sixteen-year-olds participate in community service as often if not more often than anybody 18 or older, all of whom are allowed to vote. Allow me to elucidate; in the question of whether or not sixteen-year-olds hold the civic cognizance to vote at the local, state, or federal levels, I point to how they participate in giving back to their respective communities where we see they do more than those who are legally given the privilege of voting. While I’ve now severed any ambiguity regarding whether or not a sixteen-year-old has the civic interest and responsibility to vote, let us now focus on their political knowledge and skill.

Politics is taught well enough in American schools for students to have a solid enough foundation to participate in voting. Indeed, it is with the distinction that schools could do better. That being said, I digress. By age 16, our youth have grown up learning political skills, history, and general knowledge. Grace Meng, Ayanna Pressley, and Janice Schakowsky are all serving in the House of Representatives in their individual states. These three women have drafted a constitutional amendment that proposes lowering the voting age to 16, with evidence such as “the recent upspringing of “inspirational and passionate activism” by high-school-aged students, particularly on gun violence, health care, and climate change, is evidence that the younger population is ready for the ballot box”(Meng, Pressley, Schakowsky). This amendment has yet to be given consideration but goes to show that many of our representatives believe it is time our youth are empowered given they have the political drive and knowledge. It is without saying that I largely agree with these representatives. Our youth are both taught by the education system and personal experiences as well as culture to have a sense of politics whether they like it or not. At this age, political skill is as high if not higher than that of those in their 20s.

In this graph again provided by Robert Atkins and Daniel Hart we can see that at age 16 political skill is on par with those who are in their early or late twenties. This means that sixteen-year-olds are competent and retain the political wisdom to make voting decisions the same as their elders do. To further clear ambiguity, let us look at case studies in other countries.

Lowering the voting age has worked well in other countries and could allow for more participation in voting amongst a broader age range. A common piece of information that accompanies the argument of the opposition is that lowering the voting age won’t make more of our youth participants. To help provide clarification, I point to a case study done by Johannes Bergh, head of the Norwegian National Election Studies (NNES) program at the Institute for Social Research. The study focused on a trial in Norway where they lowered the voting age to 16. The result? The voter turnout of 16 -18 years was significantly higher than previously before by around 15%, thus showing both how successful lowering the voting age can be and potentially how it may affect voter turnouts in the lower age range. While other countries such as Austria have also had signs of success in lowering the voting age, I will not dive into that. Rather, I proclaim that if the United States were to lower the voting age, they would see a rise in the participation of young voters as indicated by the success of other countries.

It is with a full understanding of the opposition that I see a potential compromise between our two sides and the many arguments that join us. I acknowledge their main points, as well as offer my own reasoning for my final thoughts. Civic interest and responsibility as well as political skill and examples of other countries are what epitomize my argument. That being said, I understand the opposition to my stance in that students has not learned enough about politics to be able to make these decisions. With that in mind, I offer a potential compromise between my own argument and the opposition. To begin with, we should allow sixteen-year-olds to vote in local and state elections and in the local legislature. This compromise acknowledges that given their youth they may not yet have the political efficacy to vote on a federal level, but that can be judged later on depending on their participation on the local and state levels. To do this, I propose an amendment to state constitutions that give them this right. I am without a doubt saying that this compromise is both fair and achievable, and it serves an important role in our future.

Works Cited

1. Hawley, Willis D. “Political Education and School Organization.” Theory Into Practice, vol. 10, no. 5, 1971, pp. 328–335. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/1476139.
2. Hart, Daniel, and Robert Atkins. “American Sixteen- and Seventeen-Year-Olds Are Ready to Vote.” The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, vol. 633, no. 1, SAGE Publications, 2011, pp. 201–22, doi:10.1177/0002716210382395
3. Cirillo, Jeff. “Rep. Meng: Amend Constitution to Lower Voting Age to 16.” Roll Call, 15 Aug. 2018, https://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/meng-amend-constitution-lower-voting-age-16.
4. Bergh, Johannes. “Does Voting Rights Affect the Political Maturity of 16- and 17-Year-Olds? Findings from the 2011 Norwegian Voting-Age Trial.” Electoral Studies, vol. 32, no. 1, Elsevier Ltd, 2013, pp. 90–100, doi:10.1016/j.electstud.2012.11.001.
5. The United States. Congress. House. Committee on Rules, author. Providing for Consideration of the Bill (H.R. 1) to Expand Americans’ Access to the Ballot Box, Reduce the Influence of Big Money in Politics, and Strengthen Ethics Rules for Public Servants, and for Other Purposes, and Providing for Consideration of Motions to Suspend the Rules : Report (to Accompany H. Res. 172). [U.S. Government Publishing Office], 2019.

One of our most influential powers as citizens is exercising our right to vote. However, with this power comes certain responsibilities such as considering the options – people who are running – and make proper decisions when electing a campaign. Changing the election process would involve a lot of procedures, which could create complications for the country. In order to come to an upright conclusion about whether or not uneducated people should participate in the election process, we must take a number of factors into account.

The uneducated are easily manipulated by the political elite. In South Africa, the illiterate is made to believe that it is because of the ANC that they have water, sanitation, housing, grants etc. This is why people continue to vote for a party that has continuously failed them. Nelson Mandela once said: “Education is the most powerful weapon”. If the election process only involves people who are informed, people who are educated and know what is happening in the outside world, then perhaps the country could develop faster. These people would be specialized in politics as, unlike the uneducated, they have the historical context and knowledge to make important decisions such as voting.

Yet who or what determines the term ‘uneducated’? Is it referring to completing some college hours, high school, college degree or what? The government is going to waste so much time, categorizing people as ‘educated’ or ‘uneducated’. There are more serve concerns in the country or world than trying to find out if an individual is educated enough to partake in his/her own country’s election process. Jason Brennan, ethics and public policy professor, said that concentrating power in the hands of a few often results in personal benefit at the expense of others.

Spreading power among everyone – a democracy – individual votes no longer matter, so most voters are biased and ignorant. They do not care about what happens in the country. The majority of the uneducated people do not pay tax either way, so, why should they be granted the right to make decisions for the country? It is like a game to them. American journalist Jaime Simo says that he sees the elections as a ‘massive coin toss’, of which people do not take too seriously.

However, every citizen of a country is responsible for the nation’s growth. Some cannot afford education, but that does not mean they should be denied the chance to have a say in the way the government is run and hence the life that they have. Why would they be called citizens if they are not allowed to vote? Section 19(3) states that every adult has the right to a vote in elections for any legislative body established in terms of the Constitution. If we start making restrictions, beside citizenship and current age, where do we stop with the restrictions?

With rights comes responsibilities. It is important to be knowledgeable when it comes to political issues. People should be responsible enough to not vote if they do not understand what is happening in their country as they will be easily deceived and jeopardize the growing of their economy.

Freedom to vote is one of the most important and most hard-earned political rights outside the bill of rights. We began as a nation where rights were restricted to only white men. It’s only because of perpetual hard work and the firm beliefs of people like Sojourner Truth, Alice Paul, Martin Luther King Jr, and many more that the franchise of voting rights was expanded to include people of color and women. Democracy cannot be taken for granted. It involves participation and commitment to work in an ideal manner. The right to vote is essentially one of the most important freedoms we have as Americans. It gives the people a determining voice and ensures that policies and plans that will affect our communities and lives are implemented in a fair and equitable manner. The importance of voting can be realized by answering a simple yet important question, what can be achieved by voting?

Voting highlights what matters and appeals to the people the most. It’s not who stands at the center of the stage and attracts the most attention towards themselves who will decide what steps to take or what not to, what to prioritize or what not to. It’s the audience that becomes the actor through voting. The success of democratic norms and values is not defined by the candidate who wins the election, but by the people who show up at the polling booth for voting. For me, voting has always been important. Since I was young, I carried a deep respect for the legacy of not only the activists and politicians but also the many everyday citizens who quietly died in pursuit of voting rights. Too many others gave their lives for those who look like me to be able to vote. As both a woman and a minority I feel a heightened sense of importance in expressing my right. I deeply believe that citizens need to have an active role in the nomination of the people who are making decisions on both a local, state and federal level and should be engaged in the types of policies being passed. It is important that citizens are involved in decisions that affect the lives of every American for both equity and oversight purposes.

In a democratic system, voting lies at the heart of its values. It’s undoubtedly the most essential step in moving towards a better and brighter future. Voting has the power to dilute the influence imposed by big industrial enterprises, donors, and narrow interest groups. Instead, voting highlights people’s interests. Voting helps to build civic muscles that are necessary for serving the communities and the people. Voting tends to surprise the people who are busy predicting the possible outcome of the elections, presenting it as a mere formality. Showcasing the fact that in a true democracy, in essence, everything can happen.

The vote gives the people the right to raise their voice against the leaders who don’t represent their interests and allow us to empower people who will advocate for what the people want to hear from them. Who understands what’s expected of them? It’s voting that tends to establish a relationship between the leadership and the people. Giving the people the right and ability to elect the people who they deem worthy and fit to lead them, someone who shares the prioritize with the voter. Such outcomes can only be achieved through voting, it’s the input that changes and drastically influences the outcomes that often determine the fate of a nation. Failing to provide input based upon your priorities makes you unheard and unconsidered, like the wind that passes through a leafless branch, with no effect at all.

Democracy has an inherited nature of entertaining conflicts of opinions and priorities, but voting allows us to promote what we believe in with the action. One should vote even if he believes that his side might lose. Because even the size of the losing side makes the politicians understand and consider the cause they stood for. Because, if the support for that cause increases it might put the politicians out of their job. Even a vote for a loser encourages people who tend to share the same set of ideas to band together and collectively work and push for what they collectively believe in.

It’s easy to get tired and frustrated by the political talk, pundits, predictions, and social media campaigns. I’ve personally seen how attempts by political leaders with no connection to their community can attempt to take away our rights and make it easy to be jaded. However, the essence of the American experiment lies in voting where the voter attempts to resolve disputes and differences of priorities through ballots, not a brawl. It’s the numerical strength of the people that decide what’s best for them instead of physical or financial strength in a voting system.

Today, people’s main concerns are not democratic, instead, they are focused on specific issues like gun laws, health services, or the changing climate. Such an approach can change when people start to focus on the health of the national institutions. Democracy gets weakened the most because of the lowered turnout rate of the turnout, tribes attacking each other directly instead of calmly listening to each other’s needs and demands. All of these things may look small individually, however when these issues keep on rising due to the failure of practicing the democratic right to vote or believing in the necessity of voting. Eventually, the democratic structure may get so weak that it may fall apart, so another thing we can achieve by voting is holding together the fundamentals of our foundation and moving it in a more positive direction.

Whether we like the results or not, must can all acknowledge that elections have consequences that affect even the day-to-day politics around us. It’s the election that determines what matters the most to us and how safe the environments we live in are really. From public transit, and infrastructure, to the schools where the kids go so many daily parts of our lives are all affected by a vote. So we cannot underestimate what a vote can do, If one vote in accordance with your conscience the difference is what is best for the people then we gain so much by making sure it is someone who shares our values. It pushes our candidates aspiring to take office to format policies and work plans that meet our expected outcomes.

We live in a technologically overwhelmed world, where the excuse of ignorance about the vote is certainly not an acceptable one. Voting is often preceded by extensive media promotion campaigns, so everyone with a bit of exposure to technology or social media, tv, or newspapers would be able to see the standing points of the political leaders and their basic agenda. Becoming an educated voter has never been easier than today, the online world allows the voter to develop a picture of the candidates from their region hence making it relatively far much easier to opt for the right person whose policies match one’s ideals.

In conclusion, voting is right that is given to everyone irrespective of their skin color, social class, or occupation. The right to vote is representative of uniformity and equality before the constitution of the state. The right to vote promotes social awareness and motivates the notion of political cooperation. Voting acts as an expression of the opinion of the people about the proposed policies of a political leader. The vote doesn’t only decide who is going to be the representative of the government, instead, it serves the broader purpose of decisions the people have taken on the security issues to education as well as various developmental projects as a whole. It gives the voters the right to question the representative upon failing to deliver what has been promised by them. Get engaged in your community and make sure you are registered to vote. Websites such as www.usa.gov/register-to-vote can help you check your registration status or get registered to vote. Voting is a right as well as a civic obligation of every citizen of a nation, don’t lose your voice, think of all the things that can be achieved when we take part in this powerful process together.

The Roots of Modern American Divide & Polarization

Rights are a fundamental part of the United States of America. The creation of these rights and their protection date back to 1789. Politics and rights movements seem much more intense now in the twenty-first century however, the divide in the debate about rights has been around since their creation. More recently this divide has turned to polarization as parties become more partisan on rights issues and the public continues to push these issues. The ever-lasting focus on the different rights of America’s citizens has been a polarizing issue to such a degree that it has caused widespread effects on the USA’s history. These rights have also been a catalyst for change and realignment of political parties. Through these numerous powerful rights movements, we are able to highlight the dramatic effects these rights had on producing the polarization we see in modern politics. There have been a number of large turning points for the American rights movements but none have had the constant ongoing motion that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 has had.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was signed by President Johnson with many civil rights leaders present like Martin Luther King Jr. It essentially allowed the federal government to enforce the fifteenth amendment, preventing discrimination at the polls. It also targeted states with a history of discrimination, requiring them to get pre-clearance with a federal committee before they could change any of their own laws. Ari Berman’s Give Us the Ballot: The Modern Struggle for Voting Rights in America takes a deep look at how the voting rights act unfolded and how its quick challenge in the courts paved the way for polarization within the country. Berman also gives evidence for the importance of challenging and fighting over legislation in order to follow the constitution. He also takes a deep look at the counter-revolution from the white south who realigned from the Democratic Party to join the Republican Party and use the courts to overturn sections of the act. While the Voting Rights Act pushed for the first big rights movement, it opened the door for many more in the future. In the twenty-first century, we are faced with a number of other rights movements like LGBTQI rights, women’s rights, and even more recently, immigrant rights. Robert O. Self’s, All in the Family: The Realignment of American Democracy since the 1960s, takes a deeper look at modern movements and how these movements developed over the course of the USA’s rights history. Self gives evidence for how these movements have reshaped party compositions, as well as the overall issue focus within politics.

The author focuses on how the public and political actors fought with words and images, through politics and the law, over what made women and men full citizens of the nation (Self, 3). 1965 was proposed to be “a year test of test” on civil rights (Berman, 15), and it was exactly that. In August after numerous demonstrations throughout the last two years and after a violent protesting period, President Lyndon Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act of 1965. This was enacted to prevent discrimination in voting procedures such as literacy tests and poll taxes, finally enforcing the fifteenth amendment, 95 years later. This act saw a lot of divide between the two sides of white Americans and African Americans predominantly in the south. In Ari Berman’s Give Us the Ballot: The Modern Struggle for Voting Rights in America, we are given a deeper insight into the reason for this divide-turned polarization. One particular section of the act that caused further outrage among some people was section 5 which identified states with a history of discrimination and required them to get “preclearance” from a federal body to make any changes to their voting procedure. While this was seen as very controversial, for rights activists this was a major win after all they had been through. John Lewis a well-known civil rights leader was thrilled saying that President Johnson had “helped free and liberate all of us” by signing the act (Berman, 6). Since the act protected the black population’s right to vote, the newly registered black voters flocked to the Democratic Party (Berman 72).

This created tension with the Republican Party as they realized they had to do something to get voters to vote against the newly increased voting population for the democratic party. This led to a further divide between the party lines. Due to the seriousness of this change in voting procedures, it was quickly challenged in court, creating more controversy around the act. In 1966, South Carolina challenged section 5 in the courts. Lewis noted the “High price many paid for the enactment of the Voting Rights Act and the higher cost … if we prematurely discard one of the most vital tools of our democracy” (Berman, 7). These challenges and fights between political actors didn’t stop after a few years. Different sections of the act were challenged multiple times in courts, however, the highly dividing section 5 of the act was inevitably challenged again by Shelby County, Alabama in April 2010 filing to the federal court that part of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was unconstitutional. After 3 years the supreme court delivered a landmark 5-4 vote decision, stating that the formula determining the states that would be subject to section 5 was unconstitutional. The overturn of this section caused widespread outrage among civil rights leaders.

Lewis stated that it was “a dark moment for our democracy.” And that the court had “put a dagger into the very heart of the Voting Rights Act” (Berman, 9). The Author, Berman, is clearly outraged at the thought of continuing to pick apart the Voting Right Act. “For a country that is famous for exporting democracy across the globe and has branded itself as the shining city on the hill, the United States has a shameful History when it comes to embracing one of its most basic rights at home” (Berman, 11). He continues to delve deeper into the issue identifying how it has become a partisan issue when it shouldn’t be. Voting shouldn’t be a partisan issue since everyone deserves access to vote, however, throughout history, political actors have challenged the Voting Rights Act of 1965, creating a partisan issue out of it. Even while fighting for equality and to end discrimination against minority groups, political actors decided to challenge parts of the act in the courts. Berman writes that as more conservative political actors gain traction, they will continue the “counter-revolution” undoing the protections set by the Voting Rights Act and start to tighten voting opportunities.

The voting population in Southern states changed dramatically as a result of the Voting Rights Act. “The number of black registered voters in Alabama had increased from 113,000 before the VRA to 235,000 by the time of the 1966 Democratic primaries” (Berman, 49). Berman states, that the realignment of the South, which LBJ had forecast in 1964, was close at hand (Berman, 71). This saw the realignment of the South and a further push for the parties to be separated further on the party line. The Republican party conceded that it would be a difficult election, “We don’t see anything we can do this year to pick up the Negro vote” as Harry Dent, a Southern Republican Political strategist added, “President Johnson has it in his pocket” (Berman 71). However, Dent was confident in Richard Nixon gaining white voters in the South as he thought Nixon “affirmed what people in the South wanted to hear” (Berman 72). This is why the divide crack continued to grow and become polarization not just in politics but in the country and in modern America. Robert O. Self’s, All in the Family: The Realignment of American Democracy since the 1960s explores this realignment of the late twentieth century and the separate issues that caused it. Throughout the civil rights movement, political actors continued to fight but they also shifted their political views. 1964 saw the Civil Rights Act signed, followed by the Voting Rights Act of 1965, pushed through by the Democratic Party leaving the southern states feeling attacked. This led many conservative Democrats (who were white) to realign to the Republican Party. “The black freedom insurgency of the 1950s and 1960s dismantled the white supremacist Southern Democratic Party, leading to a partisan realignment…” (Self, 6). This was just the beginning.

Other social issues started to be challenged by the parties, leading to further shifts on these issues, paving way for a realignment of party values and voter issue focus. LGBTQ rights are some of the more recent examples of rights expanding within the United States, however, the debate around this issue isn’t recent at all. “… for much of the 1960s and 1970s, gay men and lesbians (and transgender people) disagreed with one another over the direction of sexual politics” (Self, 9). Self recognizes these issues are so polarizing that even people within these minorities, at times, can’t agree on things, proving how dividing the potentially polarizing these issues can be. This is exactly why we see and history has demonstrated that these issues can be a majorly partisan genre of politics, leading to realignment as parties change their minds on how they view the issues. Sometimes the issues were catering to such a minority that it required shifting an entire conceptual framework of views. For LGBTQ rights this was what happened as they worked to persuade the American public that “homosexuals were not objects of inquiry, victims of illness or criminal deviants” (Self, 79). While yes, this created tension and furthered the party divide, it created a new issue focus on these rights while also expanding their rights through this focus.

Another more recent example that has also dated back to the 1970s is Abortion Rights. As multiple court battles happened across the country, in 1972, Bella Abzug, an American lawyer, and social activist attempted to push a federal abortion rights act which received little interest due to all the ongoing legal work (Q 156). Even in places where it was legalized, the issue was so polarizing some health locations were refusing to go ahead with the procedures creating further tension between rights activists and public health officials. With all this said, the partisanship didn’t stop the activists. They continued to push the issue at hand and continue to help expand the rights of women. Having civil rights constantly in the “hot seat” for the political divide helped expand rights across the board as they became partisan issues and generated more push for lawmakers. Tough issues like this divided, not just the two parties but the political actors inside the parties which is why there was political realignment due to these issues. “1972 was a fulcrum of political and ideological realignment. In this realignment, race, gender and sexuality worked together in complex ways.” Self makes it clear that it’s not just one issue causing the movement but instead, all the issues compressing and helping realign the political landscape across the United States. Since these topics became such poignant issues, mobilization became much easier.

Entire organizations who felt they had a stake in particular issues worked to mobilize their voting bases. An example of this was ministers of churches creating television and radio networks to encourage Christian voters at election time (Self, 340). The other side of the divide also found it easier to mobilize people who took a more liberal view. “In response, feminists, lesbians, and gay men, and liberals of all stripes mobilized to defend the incomplete gains of previous decades.” (Self, 367). In the quote we see the author identify how minorities of all kinds can band together to create a movement against the other side of the divide, causing further polarization. The polarization within politics throughout this period of social welfare issues was a catalyst for mobilization while also expanding the gap between parties. During this time the public’s ideologies were also changing as voters swayed changing their views as parties aligned themselves with different social issues. Voters were so involved with most of these issues it made mobilization much easier as people wanted to ensure their voices were heard and they were able to expand their own rights or suppress others in order to keep themselves above others. Party realignment is inevitable. The balance of power between the parties will continue to change as issue focus in the public eye also changes. The issues that separate the parties will also continue to change as they slide along the left and right scales while the voters also move.

Together, this will all help with the new party identification. In the later twentieth century, Voting and Civil rights were big pushers of party realignment and partisanship which helped pave the way for modern American’s divide. The constant debates and challenges in the courts create tension between the sides and further polarize issues. Political actors and their ability to mobilize citizens were shown to clearly have a large impact over the last 50-60 years. Berman’s, Give Us the Ballot: The Modern Struggle for Voting Rights in America, highlighted the importance of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 in shaping the United States. He underlined the consistent challenging of the act by political actors in the courts. Berman closed with how important it is that we continue to allow free access to the ballot and recognize the importance of the Voting Rights Act in today’s society. Clearly, the Voting Rights Act had a profound impact on United States history and continues to, as political actors still look to challenge the policy.

Robert O. Self’s, All in the Family: The Realignment of American Democracy since the 1960s, identified the major factors of political realignment from the 1960s to the 2000s as the liberal system splintered, opening room for the conservative political actors to take advantage and push their issue focus. Self-produced evidence for the polarization of America around social rights issues for LGBTQ, women, and civil rights. He also identified how this issue focus was a major win for these rights groups as it helped expand the rights of these minorities as more people were aware of these issues. Together, there were a number of profound rights movements that led to party realignment in the U.S.A. Political actors’ abilities to mobilize citizens and change the issue focus became a huge part of politics and changed the game of politics forever while also causing political realignment in America.

“To ignore the effects that voting laws have on different racial groups would be, at best, irresponsible and, at worst, dangerous” (Quillin 23). Voter ID laws, better described as voter impersonation laws, are laws that are put in place to deter citizens from fraudulently voting. These types of laws are made to police in-person voting and do little to protect against mail-in and absentee voter fraud. Stemming from practices that were put into place to discriminate against already disenfranchised groups, these laws ultimately hurt groups of voters like people of color, the elderly, and the youth. Voter ID laws are ultimately not as necessary as they are made out to be and are possibly harmful to American democracy.

Modern-day voter ID laws require the voter to present some form of identification before being allowed to vote. These laws stem from practices that were developed in the infancy of American democracy. Practices like poll taxes, white primaries, literacy tests, and the grandfather clause are all examples of prerequisites and restrictions that were put into place that a voter would have to submit to before having access to a ballot. In 1944 Smith v Allwright outlawed the use of white primaries and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as well as the 24th Amendment made poll taxes unconstitutional. These were crucial in giving people of color access to the polls and made way for the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The Voting Rights Act gave the national government power to decide whether individuals were qualified to vote and to interject themselves with state and local election operations when they deem necessary. The Voting Rights Act also stated that “Counties covered under the Voting Rights Act (all of nine southern states and parts of seven other states) had to submit to the U.S. Department of Justice any changes in election laws, such as new precinct lines or new polling places, well in advance of the election. This is known as the preclearance provisions” (Bowman 73). Between 1950 and 1980 five states; South Carolina, Hawaii, Texas, Florida, and Alaska, were the first states that requested voters to show identification. This did not include any photos but just a document with the voter’s name. These states also had provisions in place for a voter to be able to cast a ballot even if they did not have the identification that was requested. This expanded to fourteen states by 2000. The 2000 presidential election was incredibly impactful on election practices. Although it had virtually nothing to do with voter fraud congress wanted to reform election practices to avoid the issues the 2000 election brought about. The Help America Vote Act was passed in 2000 which was made to make sweeping reforms to the American voting process. It also included “A reasonable provision about presenting some form of ID for any voter who registers by mail and who has never voted in a federal election” (Underhill 25). This also led to the development of the Carter-Baker commission, which was the commission on federal election reform. This commission was led by former president Jimmy Carter and former secretary of state James A. Baker III. This commission recommended to congress that all voters should be required to present photo IDs when placing a ballot. This is one of the earliest instances of what modern-day voter ID laws have become, however, Congress has not acted on this recommendation.

After the 2005 commission recommendation to include photo identification certain states started doing just that. Georgia and Indiana pioneered what is now known as strict voter ID laws. This is where voters cannot cast a regular ballot without presenting a valid ID. Differing from state to state, the valid form of ID may include a photo or no photo ID. Photo identification includes items such as driver’s licenses, state-issued ID cards, military ID, or tribal ID. Non-photo identification is documentation that includes the voter’s name and place of residence like a bank statement. Other states use non-strict voter id laws which are when voters can still cast a regular ballot if they do not have the requested ID by verifying their identity by other means. This can be done by signing an affidavit or the poll workers may vouch for the voter. States like New Hampshire will send a letter to the address on the affidavit and it must be returned signed saying that the person living at the address is the one that signed the affidavit. They also may be given a provisional ballot which will only be counted after the close of election day if the voter was eligible and determined via a signature or other verification that they are who they say they are. Most states that have strict voter identification make some exceptions. For example, Arkansas, Indiana, Kansas, and five other states all have exceptions for when someone has a religious objection to being photographed.

Arguably, the most important court case surrounding voter ID laws was the 2013 supreme court case Shelby County v Holder. This 5-4 decision determined that section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was unconstitutional. This decision struck down the preclearance provision which, as noted above, required states that had a history of discrimination to get clearance from the federal government before implementing any new voting procedures. In his opinion, Justice Roberts stated that they felt that the country had changed and there was no need for the provision anymore. However, in her dissenting opinion, Justice Ginsberg stated that between 1982 and 2006 the Voting Rights Act had struck down over seven hundred voting changes that were all determined to be discriminatory. After this decision, the number of states with voter ID laws in place rose to twenty by 2016.

Modern-day voter ID laws have been highly debated since their insurgence in the early 2000s. There has been very little evidence of voter fraud that voter ID laws are meant to protect against. A study from Arizona State University found that from 2000 to 2012 voter fraud was virtually non-existent. A different study also conducted by Arizona State University found that in five states; Arizona, Ohio, Georgia, Texas, and Kansas there was no instance of voter fraud between 2012 and 2016. This is significant as these are all states where politicians have declared voter ID laws a necessity (Quillin). There are a few main reasons politicians have cited for the need for voter ID laws, regardless of the evidence presented. The first is that they claim to be helping restore the confidence the voting public has in the electoral system. Election officials have stated that voters feel more protected with these laws in place. However, a study by Stephen Ansolabehere and Nathaniel Persily reported that “perceptions of fraud have no relationship to an individual’s likelihood of turning out to vote” (Quillin). A second reason is that photo IDs are already common and that they are necessary for many activities such as driving. The Brennan Center for Justice found that “as many as 11 percent of the eligible voters do not have a government-issued photo ID” (Quillin). This might be due to the financial burden that photo IDs have, which can be anywhere between two to seventy-nine dollars for an application fee. Also, the percentage of people who do not have a photo ID is higher in seniors, people of color, low-income adults, students, and people with disabilities.

Historically, African Americans have been one of the most discriminated against groups of people in the United States. This continues with the use of voter ID laws as they have been found to affect African Americans more than any other group of people. According to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), “Up to 25% of African American citizens of voting age lack government-issued photo ID, compared to only 8% of whites” (Oppose Voter ID Legislation). In 2013, the same year the supreme court passed the gutting of the Voting Rights Act, North Carolina passed a law that made sweeping changes to their voter ID and voting practices. This law was later struck down in 2016, being called the most restrictive voting law the state has passed since the era of Jim Crow. First, the law made it so that photo ID requirements were more restrictive when it was found that African Americans used photo IDs that were not driver’s licenses more than any other group. Second, the law eliminated out-of-precinct voting after legislators requested provisional voting data which included out-of-precinct voting after the data showed that African Americans were more likely to vote provisionally. Third, the law got rid of the use of pre-registration again after it was shown that African Americans were shown to disproportionately use pre-registration to register to vote. Finally, after it was found that African Americans voted more than any other group in the first seven days before the election the law reduced the number of early voting days as well as eliminated the first full week of early voting (Quillin). This law is one of the many examples of voter ID laws that have been created since Shelby County v Holder that create a harmful voting environment.

One of the newest groups that can be affected by these laws is transgender individuals that do not have the gender they present as on their ID. The U.S Transgender survey found that thirty-two percent of the 28,000 transgender persons who responded reported having negative experiences as they were trying to cast a ballot. “Respondents reported being verbally harassed (twenty-five percent), denied services or benefits (sixteen percent), asked to leave the venue (nine percent), and assaulted or attacked (two percent) after presenting an ID that did not match their gender presentation” (Moreau).

Given the evidence provided, voter ID laws are not well thought out or developed, are harmful to large groups of voters, and have little evidence to back up their usage. The first way to rectify these issues is to reverse the decision of Shelby County v Holder. By taking out the preclearance provision the Supreme Court has made it possible for states that still have issues with discriminatory voting practices to continue this harmful behavior. Reversing this decision will allow congress to again regulate new voting practices and be able to limit the number of discriminatory practices. Secondly, the United States and individual state congress need to work together and focus on laws that pertain to absentee and mail-in voter fraud rather than in-person voter fraud. Voter impersonation is one of the least reported types of voter fraud. It is much easier to forge a signature rather than pretending to be someone else in person. Although North Carolina’s voter ID laws were stuck down, if they were still in effect, they would not have helped against the large case of absentee voter fraud that occurred in their 9th congressional district during the 2018 elections. In this case, a man was hired by a firm that was helping organize republican candidate Mark Harris’s campaign. This man then paid people in cash to go and collect residents’ absentee and mail-in ballots, which is illegal as third parties cannot handle ballots. These people then finished filling out the ballots in favor of Mark Harris and other republican candidates or threw out the ones that were already filled out in favor of the democratic candidates. The result ended in Harris winning by only 828 votes but winning an implausible ninety-six percent of the absentee votes in a single county (Waldman). This type of voter fraud is what lawmakers should be focusing on as there is a higher chance of it seriously affecting the outcome of elections. It is a fundamental right for a citizen of the United States to be able to elect their representatives. It is important to protect this right and the privilege it is to vote. By creating strict voter ID laws this right and privilege is being infringed upon and is an overall threat to American democracy.

I believe that all American citizens should be required to vote. Although I am not 18 years old yet, as soon as my birthday rolls around, I will have my voice heard and my vote counted in every election that is held in my city, state, and country. It saddens me that many people do not adhere to our duty as citizens of the United States of America. By having this great democracy won by the blood of past generations, we are citizens of one of the most fortunate countries in the world.

I think that many people do not realize how fortunate we are to live in a country where we actually have the freedom to choose our leaders. There are so many other countries in the world that are run by dictators or host elections that aren’t free and fair. In these countries, citizens are not allowed to choose leaders that reflect the will of the people, and most of the time they could face grave consequences if they speak out against their leaders. In the United States of America, we are extremely fortunate that we can start a business without paying a bribe, speak out without fear of retribution, and choose our own leaders based on popular opinions. In comparison to citizens of other countries like China, Sudan, North Korea, and Venezuela, America has it easy when it comes to choosing our leaders. As a Chinese-American, my parents tell me stories about their time in China, witnessing the Chinese government suppressing protests in Tiananmen Square, controlling the media, and taking our family’s business.

The best thing about America is that its government is run by its citizens. We the people have the opportunity to choose who leads us by a democratic system that gives everyone an equal voice in government. Many people use the excuse that just one vote does not count, what if everybody decides on election day that they were not going to vote because just one vote does not matter? Every vote adds up, and it is vital that American citizens have their voices heard. Especially considering the current political climate, if we do not vote, then we have no right to complain about the decisions that our leaders make. I know that we are incredibly blessed to live in a democratic country led by the people, protected by a 200-year-old document, guaranteeing us 27 inalienable rights won and protected by our ancestors. We the people are the lifeblood of this great nation and it’s our duty to vote on the things that concern the path our nation and home will follow.

People hope that each round of national elections will result in a positive change in our country’s prosperity and development. Having an efficient election process is to have a smooth flow and to be fair in choosing or electing leaders who run for the said positions. Voting is our civic duty, so we, the youth, must vote.

Elections act as a forum for the discussion of public issues and facilitate the expression of public opinion since the electoral process is competitive and pushes candidates or parties to expose their histories and future intentions to public scrutiny. Elections give citizens the power to remove or reject predatory leaders who would defraud their helpless citizens. Our right to vote increases our social awareness while empowering us to cooperate in political and social activities. Voting represents the power of all citizens to keep the government system working. It’s only fair to wisely select the ones who uphold the right principles. For a long time elections, both municipal and national, have been a contentious matter. We’ve heard of situations involving vote buying, the appearance of deceased-flying voters, and the removal of voting boxes, among other things. This just undermines the credibility of the people we can elect to positions of authority. The most likely effect would be that the public would be discouraged from voting for various candidates because the winner would almost certainly be a victim of injustice.

Our country has been known as an area suffering from such severe corruption. The corruption of government officials and the failure of governmental leaders to use their position of power wisely has led to ongoing financial hardship throughout the nation and restricted its economic growth and cultural development. The election will determine who among our leaders deserves our support, who deserves to stay in power, and who deserves to be promoted to higher office, as well as who failed during the pandemic and does not deserve another opportunity. Our government officials, particularly those who were candidates in the last election, should set that as an example.

Our country needs knowledgeable votes today more than ever, whether they are first-time voters or not. We, today’s youth, are smart enough to vote. Today’s youth are not as they used to be. This year 2022 is our chance to deal with this if we want our democracy to survive. We need presidential candidates who aren’t going to spread lies and slander. We want to hear soothing words from presidential candidates who can convey a message of hope rather than despair and optimism rather than deception. We all, on the other hand, have an almost limitless number of options. We are ultimately responsible for the decisions we make. The chains continue to ignite. I am part of the chain, you are part of the chain. Can we be chains of positive change? Now you can start to learn more about their backgrounds, platforms, and interviews by reading more about them. Let the loser acknowledge their defeat and let the winner keep their promises to the people. Our index finger is inked as a sign that we have to use our powers because our vote as today’s youth is important in shaping the future of our country