In the Iowa primary, Mitt Romney beat Rick Santorum in an outcome that may have seemed, to many observers, like a repeat of Florida's Bush versus Gore standoff in the 2001 presidential race. With a mere eight ballots separating the two candidates, it was a timely reminder of the importance of every individual's vote. The right to vote is tremendously important, but it is currently under attack.
After the Republican victories of the midterm elections, many states adopted more stringent voter identification laws and started moving away from absentee voting. Such laws have the potential to disenfranchise the poor, the young, the disabled, the elderly, the less educated and those who lack their own means of transportation to the polls, as well as minorities. According to the Huffington Post, minorities are nearly 20 times more likely than whites to not have photo identification.
Under the guise of preventing voter fraud, Republicans are actually preventing those most likely to vote Democratic from being able to do so. This is not only antithetical to the very institution of democracy, but also advances the Republican agenda. By excluding minorities, lower-income families and the elderly, the political system loses important actors in the dialogue surrounding issues such as health care, education and social services. Not allowing those who are most directly affected by these policies to vote on them is the surest way to guarantee their failure.
Outside of these issues is the greater one of the spirit of democracy itself. Since the United States is supposed to be a representative democracy, that means as many citizens as possible should be given the right to vote so that they have a voice in the government. Strict voter registration laws are inherently exclusive.
Even if they are not applied in a racist or discriminatory manner, such laws are nonetheless detrimental to the political process by dint of the fact that they make it that much harder for citizens to get to the polls on Election Day.
Most Dartmouth students have yet to feel the direct effects of these policy changes after all, most eligible students on campus are registered to vote, and New Hampshire has no voter identification laws as of now.
This is not, however, for lack of trying were it not for the fact that New Hampshire's Republican Speaker of the House William O'Brien was caught on tape telling Tea Party supporters that he backed the voter ID bill specifically because students tend to vote Democratic, New Hampshire would probably have a voter ID law by now.
We may find such voter ID laws hitting uncomfortably close to home as students if we do not exercise due diligence. It is a testament to the current political climate that while not a single state required photo identifications prior to 2006, there are now 30 states that require some form of photo ID a mere six years later.
Admittedly, the U.S. Department of Justice formally objected to South Carolina's voter ID law on Dec. 30, 2011. However, while that battle may be over, the war is far from won.
Due to the dogmatic beliefs of many voter ID law supporters, South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley's promise to appeal the ruling and the wording of the Court's majority opinion which cited problems with the application, rather than the existence, of the South Carolina voter ID law there will probably be little to no effect on efforts to stop the implementation of ID legislation.
Given that the 2012 elections are coming up soon and that some states require a certain amount of elapsed time between registration and voting the voter ID issue must be resolved as soon as possible. If these discriminatory laws are eliminated as they should be, a new segment of the population will be enfranchised, and they will thus have to be informed of their enfranchisement and become registered to vote in the span of the next half-year.
