Reference no: EM133563710

Case Study: National elections in the United States (Congress and the Presidency) are utilized to select politicians who will provide governance for the country. The elections while having national implications are conducted within states, and are therefore subject to the specific voting laws and policy of each specific state -- this is a direct reflection of Federalism.

One of the most controversial pieces of voting legislation involves the use of government issued photo IDs (driver's license, passport, etc.) Since 2010, there has been a deluge of voting laws passed in the United States, many of them coming after changes to the voting rights act in 2013. The ultimate impact of these laws has resulted in a reduction of voter turnouts for communities of color. numbers#newrestrictivevotinglaws2016)Links to an external site. As of 2023, there are thirty-six (36) states that have rigorous government ID laws required for voting. Of that number, nine (9) states have strict voting laws requiring voters to produce some form of government issued photo ID in order to vote in elections. (https://www.ncsl.org/elections-and-campaigns/voter-idLinks to an external site.) These states, Mississippi, Tennessee, Georgia, Arkansas, Ohio, Indiana, Missouri, Kansas and Wisconsin are all states led by Republican controlled state legislatures. Many of these states have some of the highest concentration of voters of color. Georgia and Mississippi for example have African American populations at 31 and 37 percent respectively, which are significant enough to influence election outcomes in those states, thereby influencing national results -- like, who becomes the President. (See the 2020 election results from Georgia) Moreover, research reveals that people of color are less likely to possess government issued photo IDs. Many do not or cannot drive, have no need for a passport, and do not require photo IDs to perform day to day tasks like purchasing groceries, attending religious services, or taking public transportation.

Ordinarily, people might be inclined to overlook the significance of this data. However, when considering this information in the context of the substantial difficulty Republicans have experienced both historically and modernly to attract voters of color to the Republican party, the data becomes far more relevant. For instance, according to Pew Research, between the 2018 midterm election and the 2020 presidential election, African American voters made up approximately 2.5% of republican voters. Hispanic voters comprised 7% of republican voters. Caucasian voters made up 81% of republican voters, and all other groups made up approximately 7 percent. (https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2020/10/26/what-the-2020-electorate-looks-like-by-party-race-and-ethnicity-age-education-and-religion/Links to an external site.)

Given this information and the voting trends that exist, groups like the ACLU have argued that voting laws issued by states are part of a strategic effort to disenfranchise voters of color.

Discussion Question

1.) If more people of color began demonstrating a greater interest in voting for Republican candidates, do you think states that are led and controlled by Republican legislatures, would begin reducing the number of restrictive voting laws that typically have disproportionate impacts on people of color-- Why or Why not?

2.) In order to preserve states rights under Federalism, but still allow for some level of consistency especially for national election processes, would you endorse a recommendation that new state laws pertaining to voting be approved by the Federal government first before becoming law in a specific state, or would such a policy be an overstep of states rights? Why or Why not?