Voter ID Laws— Are They Really That Big of a Deal?

Few could deny that voter ID laws have been one of the most controversial topics this election season. Civil rights groups across the country have been adamant about the potential for disenfranchisement and the danger these laws pose to the democratic process. Faced with rhetoric like "voter purge" and "Jim Crow 2.0," I'm left wondering...is it really that bad?

After careful consideration and review of the facts, I'd say the answer is yes.

The primary reason for this is just what these civil rights groups have been arguing all along— voter ID laws systematically disenfranchise minorities, young adults and the poor. Furthermore, such laws are a transparent attempt by the Republican Party to reduce voter turnout among groups likely to vote for Obama. My favorite (and in my opinion, under-circulated) evidence of this agenda is Mike Turzai, Pennsylvania GOP House majority leader's comment on the issue— "Pro-Second Amendment? The Castle Doctrine, it’s done. First pro-life legislation -- abortion facility regulations -- in 22 years, done. Voter ID, which is going to allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done."

Of course, it's hard to argue that disenfranchising minorities and young voters is right in any sense of the word, but how exactly do the laws do it?

The Brennan Center for Justice reports, "11 percent of Americans lack a government-issued photo ID such as a passport, driver's license, state ID card or military ID. Nine percent of whites don't have such ID, compared with 25 percent of blacks and 16 percent of Hispanics."

So why can't they just get IDs?

According to an Associate Press article referencing a study by The University of Chicago and Washington University in St. Louis, "young minority voters...tend to be poorer and more transient, which means they are less likely to have a current address on their driver's licenses or other ID." Also mentioned is the potential for extra hurdles in the voting process to discourage members of these traditionally low-turnout groups from voting.

While some district courts have recognized this potential for minority discrimination and have blocked the laws' implementation this election, many other state courts have upheld them. In fact, 17 states have passed some form of Voter ID law, including several swing states where minorities otherwise would have had considerable power.

As scary as all of that sounds, the numbers themselves are even scarier. The same University of Chicago and Washington University study estimates, "as many as 700,000 minority voters under age 30 may be unable to cast a ballot in November because of photo ID laws."

Other groups say the figure is closer to 10 million, although it's worth mentioning that many see this as a bit exaggerated—as a recent Huffington Post article points out, this figure includes some states where Voter ID laws are still pending.

Personally, it matters little to me whether the number is 700,000 or 10 million. In an age where political apathy is rampant, I feel we should be doing our best to encourage people to exercise their right to vote...not taking that right away from them.

The Latino Vote; "No Longer at Play?"

This week Jorge Ramos, anchor of Noticiero Univision, was a guest on Comedy Central's hit show, "The Colbert Report." While the show is intended to be satirical and of course, amusing, some serious issues about both candidates' attitudes toward immigration were brought to light.

Referred to by Colbert as the "Latino Walter Cronkite," Ramos made the observation that the Latino vote is "no longer at play" this election season. According to Ramos, Latinos have decided to follow the historical precedent of voting along Democratic lines. Citing a recent poll, Ramos revealed that a mere 21 percent would be voting for Romney in November.

It appears to many, that the candidates may have caught on to this trend. The Denver Post observes, "neither candidate reached out to Latino voters" in last night's debate. This could either be a timing issue (as Ramos said, the Latino vote is already decided) or an issue of setting. It seems to me that both candidates are very concerned with issues affecting Latinos only when they are speaking to populations in which this demographic is heavily represented (e.g. Miami). According to this year's census, Hispanics make up 16.7 percent of the U.S. population. A sizable percentage, no doubt, but how many were watching the debates (especially if Ramos' theory is correct, and they have already checked out of the election)? I'm not surprised that Latino issues weren't discussed, because I agree with Ramos; Latinos are no longer a part of the audience.

While the Latino vote may be decided, it doesn't appear that either the group's Democrats or Republicans are really jazzed about their choices. Romney's policy of "self-deportation," in which actions are taken to motivate illegal immigrants to leave voluntarily, was discussed at length in the interview. Colbert even took a dig at Romney's infamous 47 percent gaffe (discussed in my last post), joking that Hispanics represented this 47 percent by expecting the government to give them a "free ride to the border."

While as expected, Romney may have received the majority of the digs, Obama's reputation was not left unscathed. According to Ramos, the president has deported more Latinos than any president in our nation's history. While he mentioned that the President had blamed this campaign promise short-fall on the uncooperation of Republicans, "a promise is a promise," Ramos insisted.

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive