Are Democrats Corrupting the Electoral Process?

Parallax News presents big issues broken down into multiple perspectives. This brief looks at 3 different perspectives on Voter I.D. laws.

Multiple legal battles are raging over controversial state laws requiring that voters present identification before casting their ballots. Liberals view the laws as racially discriminatory. The laws are more popular in conservative states like Wisconsin and North Carolina, where many believe them effective at preventing fraud. As conflicting rulings continue to be handed down, the fate of voter I.D. laws could influence the outcome of the election in November.

I. Donald Trump

Donald Trump has joined the majority of Republicans in support of Voter I.D. laws. Trump sees them as a reasonable, common sense way to protect the integrity of elections. Without the laws, Trump warns that fraudulent voters could repeatedly visit the polls while offering different names each time. Procuring identification cards is relatively easy and inexpensive, and the vast majority of Americans have them. Identification is frequently required for cashing checks, travelling, or filling prescriptions. Meanwhile, every state has documented electoral fraud cases, so Trump and other Republicans argue that to do nothing is to turn a blind eye to the corrupting of U.S. democracy.

II. Hillary Clinton

Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party are strongly opposed to Voter I.D. laws. Clinton believes the problem of in-person voter fraud is wildly overstated, pointing to studies that document an inconsequential number of incidents. The Democratic nominee says the laws are actually designed by GOP politicians to disenfranchise underprivileged segments of society that typically do not vote Republican. Poor citizens, especially minority groups, are more likely to be among the estimated 21 million Americans lacking identification. For Clinton, voter I.D. laws are therefore an unwelcome throwback to the Jim Crow era. During that era, states, especially those in the South, imposed requirements making it exceedingly difficult for blacks to participate in democracy.

III. David Harsanyi

David Harsanyi, a prominent libertarian and editor of The Federalist, believes the focus is misplaced on making voting more accessible. Rather than stressing the need to increase the quantity of legitimate U.S. voters, Harsanyi argues that an initiative is needed to improve their overall quality. Harsanyi notes recent studies revealing voter ignorance, including one that showed 30% were unable to name the current vice president. He argues that the remedy lies in competency tests to ensure voters understand basic American political principles before they influence how the country is governed. While critics accuse this proposal of being racist, Harsanyi replies that this critique wrongly assumes minority groups are less capable of comprehending how American government works.

***

Further Reading: Politico / Washington Post / The Hill

This brief was written by Jared Metzker.

To get more perspectives subscribe to the Parallax News brief.