On October 9th, the Supreme Court ruled that North Dakota can implement a voter ID law for the
November election. This seems to target Native Americans, who are less likely to meet the standards
set by the law. Native Americans are disproportionately homeless, and a law requiring the electorate
to provide a home address would be unable to vote. Native Americans are also more Democratic
when compared to other demographics, meaning that Democratic Sen. Heitkamp will have a harder
time winning against Republican Rep. Cramer. Furthermore, this law would disqualify
approximately 20% of North Dakota residents, which is significant because elections tend to be
decided by relatively few votes in North Dakota.
Because this voter ID law discriminates against Native Americans, it seems to violate Amendment
15, which states that “the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged
by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude”.
However, the Supreme Court ruled otherwise and exercised their responsibility of judicial review,
which they gained from Marbury v. Madison.
- Do voter ID laws help curb voter fraud or do they limit democracy?
- Why would the Supreme Court rule that North Dakota’s voter ID law is viable?
1) I personally believe that voter ID laws don't really help curb voter fraud as most of the laws are overly strict and targeting of certain groups of destitute Americans as an easy way of overlooking a problem without really fixing it.
ReplyDelete2) The only reason I can see the Supreme Court ruling the law as viable would be that the Native Americans they are targeting are homeless, which could be reasoned to the idea that they don't contribute to society which makes them exempt from voting.
1. I think voter ID laws do curb voter fraud, but only in specific areas. In North Dakota's case, I don't think they would do any good considering they would eliminate approximately 20% of the population. The Constitution gave us our right to vote so I think that should be upheld.
ReplyDelete2. Supreme Court could potentially make that ruling if they don't consider Native Americans a part of the population. Since some of them live on sovereign reserves, the Court could deem them unworthy of being a part of the general North Dakota population.
1. I believe that voter id laws limit democracy. they make it harder for certain race groups and economic classes to be able to vote. this will give them less representation.
ReplyDelete2. The supreme court could have ruled that the ruling was constitutional for many reasons. Perhaps they wanted to limit the democratic votes given. They also could have decided that because of their economic status, the would not benefit the vote much. I think they made the wrong choice.
Sophia McMaster
ReplyDelete1. Voter ID laws limit democracy because they prevent certain groups of people from their right to vote. The 15th Amendment states that we all have the right to vote, so targeting Native Americans and making it difficult for them to participate goes against the constitution.
2. The Supreme Court may have ruled the laws viable in North Dakota because, like it was stated in the post, they don't have a specific address and the state may perceive them as not apart of the population. I believe that that was a wrong decision for the Supreme Court to make.
ReplyDeleteVoter ID laws are a very obvious shot at the right of minority groups to vote. Despite the fact that people justify the need for voter ID laws and other regulatory measure such as the "perfect match" law as necessary to prevent voter fraud, the fact of the matter is that the unconstitutionality of targeting minority groups and taking away the rights of tens of thousands of people of color outweighs the slight risk of increasing voter fraud.
1. The voter ID laws in North Carolina limit democracy. Despite being homeless, Native Americans are still citizens of the state and deserve representation in state elections.
ReplyDelete2. Because Native American reservations are considered sovereign states, the Supreme Court may have ruled in favor of North Carolina because Native Americans have their own government to participate in and do not need to vote in state elections.
1. Voter ID laws intend to stop voter fraud, though there is no empirical evidence that they actually will stop it to a significant degree. I feel that they end up limiting democracy, particularly for people that don't reasonable ways of getting them in the first place.
ReplyDelete2. The intent of the law was to curb voter fraud, and since everyone is affected (not just a single group), the law would be fine in the eyes of SCOTUS.
1) Voter id laws are said to limit voter fraud but in reality they work to limit democracy. They isolate a large group of minorities from voting which only limits democracy.
ReplyDelete2)The supreme courts ruling was with the intent to stop voter fraud but worked the opposite way.
1. Voter ID Laws are supposed to help stop fraud voters from ruining the integrity of elections. However, Voter ID Laws limit democracy as it affects large minority groups as well.
ReplyDelete2. The laws were mainly intended to stop the fraud in our country, and it doesn't target a certain group of people.
1. Voter ID laws limit democracy because it makes it harder for minorities to vote which means they get less representation.
ReplyDelete2. The supreme court ruled that that North Dakota’s voter ID law is viable is most likely because Native American's are mostly homeless so they aren't really included in the population.
1. Very rarely. Obviously a baseline voter identification system is needed to prevent rampant voter fraud. However, given the apathy of the majority of americans towards the democratic process, voter fraud is not the most pressing problem. Therefore, most voter ID laws are more harmful than helpful.
ReplyDelete2. A main factor is a majority conservative Supreme Court. Supreme Court justices extremely often decide along party lines, meaning this case was already leaning towards viable laws when it began. The other reason would be fear of voter fraud due to more contentious elections as of late.