Voters Right A Humanitarian Issue

This should have always been allowed in a country that claims to be the most accessible country in the world. The United States has always been the country that everyone wanted to immigrate to for a chance at freedom and success. The United States was a country that was founded on this pursuit it has always been the melting pot for those looking for freedoms..https://abcnews.go.com/US/photos/americas-complicated-history-immigration-45351576/image-45353679 The search for a better life, the search for happiness and wealth. From the outside looking in, we here in the United States look as if we have it all together when there is a constant fight for power. It took the country over a hundred years to finally hold a presidential election where all citizens of legal age could use their voices and cast their votes. “On June 29, 1982, President Ronald Reagan signed a 25-year Voting Rights Act (VRA) extension. Though the Act had been renewed twice before by Presidents Nixon and Ford, the 1982 reauthorization made Section 2 of the VRA permanent. This section of the bill prohibited the violation of voting rights by any practices that discriminated based on race, regardless of if the practices had been adopted with the intent to discriminate or not.” (4) one would think that this renewal of such an important act leaving the Act to be considered permanent, that it would be the end of the story when it comes to attempting to disenfranchise voters, but disenfranchisement comes in many forms.

We strip our convicted felons that are incarcerated rights to vote away, but prior to their conviction we award them a jury of their peers to deliberate their convictions. Then once that conviction takes place, we take their right to vote on legislation that affects them. Taking that right to vote away also sheds away that jury of their peers; those peers still have that right to vote. So are they really now still considered a jury of their peers? It is an after convictions stripping away of the right but it is also a right that was stripped that was constitutionally protected. Trying to find the harm in allowing those in prison to be able to cast a vote is really hard to do. Especially since time and time again we see people be released due to wrongful convictions. This form of disenfranchisement to voting rights is one that most likely will never change. There is never a real fight to allow incarcerated felons the right to vote. There is a non profit called the Marshall Project that aims to show transparency of those incarcerated they are treated humanely though they do not aim for policy reforms their work often leads to it. Why Millions of Americans Will Be Left Out of the Midterms | The Marshall Project

There is a constant battle over voter identification, and those who endorse this will claim widespread election fraud in every election, which they use to push their claim. Even though the facts are evident, that is not the case. We have politicians and lobbyists that work tirelessly to redistrict areas of the state in a manner that would consistently allow one political party to have the ability to win elections. These all equate to the disadvantages of voting rights that minorities and lower-income individuals face while trying to cast votes. To many, the issue of voter’s rights will never exist, nor will they ever feel the effects of disenfranchisement, which makes it hard to get them to understand what implications these types of restrictions will have on individuals. For those it affects, they fight tirelessly to keep their right to vote.

The push for voter identification laws comes from the fear of election fraud. Those for this movement will claim that without these laws, just anyone could vote and could vote multiple times. Take that, and adding the fear of hacking into the ballots themselves gives the perfect amount of fear to attempt to push through an agenda. This fear is just an ignorant lack of knowledge from people that do not understand the depths of securities involved in the computer programming that runs electronic voting machines. “Most Americans believe the right to vote is one of the most important constitutional rights.1 Moreover, eight out of ten Americans are concerned that the country’s voting system is vulnerable to hackers.2 Although new voting technology has been implemented across the country, it largely enables, rather than prevents, hacking, causing “frightening vulnerabilities” for election administration.3 It seems that “America’s most ancient civilian office, the local election clerk, has become saddled with new and alien responsibilities tantamount to a military contractor.” (6). Just reading that quote by Jacob Rush would make one question the safety of votes. Nevertheless, that is also a ploy to push the agenda of fear to get people on board for voter identification laws.

In the research done by The Brennen Center for Justice in the works published by John Levitt titled The Truth About Voter Fraud the issues surrounding voter fraud are unraveled. The Brennan Center for justice is an advocate for the truth.https://www.brennancenter.org/issues/ensure-every-american-can-vote/vote-suppression/myth-voter-fraud This research shows how the media uses the buzz word voter fraud or fraudulent elections whenever something occurs in the election process to further push that fear into the citizens. How this leads the viewers to believe that there is true fraud taking place. Telling how if a voting machine miscounts the ballots it’s labeled as fraud. If a voting machine goes down and isn’t used again in that election that is also labeled as fraud This research also enlightens the reader to learn that “The most common example of the harm wrought by imprecise and inflated claims of “voter fraud” is the call for in-person photo identification requirements. Such photo ID laws are effective only in preventing individuals from impersonating other voters at the polls — an occurrence more rare than getting struck by lightning”(8) If true voter fraud is more rare than getting struck by lightning as Levitt states the only reason for the push would be to disenfranchise voters. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/11/01/truth-about-election-fraud-its-rare/ These pushes for voter identification never truly fix any problems that actually do take place with the elections themselves. It is also very suspicious that when election fraud is brought up the elections are very close in votes. How would voter identification actually disenfranchise voters from their constitutional right to vote.

The idea of voter identification sounds simple enough. Why would anyone oppose it? Opposing it would be almost a stretch in terms of finding a way to have it without taking a right to vote away from those without funds would be the best solution. It can cost, on average, thirty dollars to get state identification; that is, one must have an address and all the documentation needed to obtain such identification. If the voter does not have these items in place, they can not obtain that coveted identification from the state that would award the right to vote. In urban city areas, most do not drive; they use public transportation due to being unable to afford vehicles or the lack of space to park a vehicle. Why is this important? Simply because many of these individuals never held a driver’s license, the primary form of identification. However, a state identification card that people can get, which is more common among this population of individuals. The cost and paperwork needed to obtain this identification is comparable to that needed for a driver’s license.

Voter identification is just one of the battles voters face when having their voices heard through casting their votes. Gerrymandering, the manipulation of boundaries of voting precincts to sway an election in favor of one party or a specific class of people, is another infringement on Ohioian’s constitutional rights to vote freely.https://publicintegrity.org/politics/elections/who-counts/ohio-votes-under-extreme-gerrymandering-that-favors-republicans/

Kent, Ohio, is one of the many areas in the state that is always in question when redistricting occurs. Those for this push to redistrict know that the Kent area has always been a very liberal democratic stronghold. Redistributing the votes in that area would allow the opposing party to gain control of the votes. Why would there be this constant push to redistrict this tiny college town in Northern Ohio? Why would lobbyists assume this area is and always will be a liberal democrat area? To understand why this area is always at the center of this debate, understand the history there. Then one can fully understand why this area is considered politically the way it is.

Kent is no stranger to being in the midst of a humanitarian crisis, nor is it a stranger to protesting for humanitarian rights. In the spring of nineteen seventy, there were anti-war protests directly following the United States invasion of Cambodia during what was supposed to be a time of exit of the Vietnam War. What happened at Kent State University on May 4, 1970, would go down in history as one of the most investigated shootings in American history. On this day, the National Guard opened fire on the college campus, killing four and shooting thirteen. Of those who lost their lives that day, one student walked to class. They fired into a crowd of college students that day, those doing the firing being members of their own government’s military.