Discussions Responses

Due Tuesday at 11PM

 

100 to 150 words each response

Question 1

How did the United States Supreme Court shape modern electoral rules? 

Response 1

The United States Supreme Court shaped modern electoral rules in several instances. Many argue the changes were necessary and good, others argue the changes were detrimental in the long run. The United States Supreme Court means well when they try to make all things equal, including voting.  However, occasionally their rulings might give us some setbacks.  The United States Supreme Court guaranteed that suffrage would be meaningful in their ruling on Baker v. Carr (1962), giving the federal courts jurisdiction over voting cases (Bush 1).  The Court also guaranteed the “one person, one vote” rule in the 14th Amendment.  The court held that redistricting could not dilute a person’s vote (Bush 2).

The United States Supreme Court stated in 1964, and 1968 that districts must have somewhat of an equal distribution of voters.  The Court is most strict about federal elections, allowing no differences in equal distribution of voters.  If there is less than a 10 percent difference, the Court upholds the results in state elections.  The Court is more liberal with local government at 12 percent difference (Bush 3). Title I of The Civil Rights Act of 1964 included voting protection, such as prevention of denying the right to vote from an insignificant mistake during registration (Bush 4).

The Voting Rights Act of 1965, did away with literacy tests, and poll taxes.  The state now had to have their voting requirements checked by the federal government, much to the dismay of some Southern states.  Justice Roberts wrote an opinion doing away with this requirement of the states, setting back gains by Southern voters (4-5).

Response 2

In Baker v. Carr (1962) the Supreme Court strengthened suffrage previously addressed the 19th amendment to the constitution. Basically what the court did was ensure that federal courts had jurisdiction over voting rights cases. Thereby, guaranteeing “one vote one person” doctrine. Three cases, two in 1964 and one in 1968 held that districts, in order to be fair, must be roughly equal in population. The court in 1971 lowered the voting age to 18 thereby expanding the voting age population. Lastly, in a step backward, this year, the court overturned the 1965 voting rights act; allowing southern states to enact restrictive voting laws once again. Bush_4

Question 2

What modern electoral rules are preventing full participation by the voting age population?  What arguments do opponents and proponents advance to support their positions with respect to these rules?

Response 1

The Voting Rights Act of 1964.  The Title I of The Voting Rights Act of 1964, provided for states not to deny the right to vote because of a mistake in registration if the mistake was not material (Bush 4).  However, in my opinion each town can still make it as difficult as they want to for people to vote, based on an attitude of those in authority during the election process.

The Help America Vote Act of 2002 has a provision called Election Commission, which requires each state to have a statewide computerized voter database, id restrictions.  This provision may give the states an opportunity to be more restrictive, thus preventing people from voting (Bush 6-8).  I’ve had personal experiences of trying to get a photo id for my Mom, and it never happened since she did not have an original birth certificate.  We still have elderly who were born at home, or in other countries without this documentation. – very restrictive.  While the photo ID may be a good idea in some cases, it is not good for all.  To have the elderly, or poor, or anyone disabled for that matter, need to go somewhere in a car to have a picture taken is simply unacceptable.

Response 2

In 2002 congress enacted sweeping changes they called reforms; The Help American Vote Act of 2002. These changes were in fact a failure in that they discouraged voter turn out by requiring voter identification. Many states seized the opportunity to require photo ids in an attempt to dissuade the black vote; under the discuse of preventing fraud, where non exists. This new identification push has disenfranchised as many as 20 million Americans nationwide. Not to mention the poll workers that are ill equipped to manage the changes. Also, felons are restricted from voting and most are Hispanic or Black; in Florida alone, 15% of all black males were barred from voting. Bush_4

It is also noted that a great deal of research has found that as the costs of voting increase the turnout decreases and that includes the time and hassle for some to produce a photo id. And, that it disproportionately affects the poor, ethnic population; including the disabled and residentially mobile. Think how frustrated you and I may get in the registry of motor vehicles; not try that with an uneducated homeless man trying to vote. Unfortunately, republicans support strict voter registration laws because they know the majority of the people they are discouraging, are democrat voters. Hershey_4

Question 3

What electoral reforms may be able to expand participation of the voting age population?  Do these reforms have any unintended consequences?

Response 1

I like the idea of people being able to register to vote while obtaining their driver’s license, made possible by President Clinton when he signed the National Voter Registration Act in 1993 (Bush 6).  The costs to states to do so might have been a burden, without resulting votes.  Early voting, it is said may widen class bias, since voter with more money, and resources to travel with work or pleasure are more likely to take advantage of this opportunity (Berinsky 474).  Restrictions of any sort which result due to election reform hurt everyone, whether the voter is Democrat, Republican, Independent, or third party, in my view.

Response 2

Many reforms already in place make it more convenient for the elderly and travelers but it has been found that none have stimulated new voters but just retained those already voting. That is mail voting and early voting. Bush_4 I noted the some thoughts about internet voting that suggested it may only be used by the wealthy and discriminate against the poor, however, I feel it would be heavily used by the younger generation that is currently the largest population that is lacking at the voting booth today. Lastly, more than reforms, we need to look at other ways to encourage voter turnout; because reforms only bring the “cream of the crop” to the polls. Instead of making it easier, we need to expand politically engaged citizens and make them want to participate. If we took all the money and minds and redirected them toward that goal rather than reforms we may be more successful. Berinsky