This article addresses the latest developments on voting rights. The author of the article is an expert in American politics and policies. The article is mostly focused on the restrictive measures that characterize the latest changes in voting legislations across America.
According to the author, the Voting Rights Act is still necessary in order to ensure that an individual’s right to vote is adequately protected. The reasoning behind some of these electoral regulations is explored in this article.
The article also offers some suggestions on how to deal with rogue electoral legislations. This paper is a personal reflection on the claims and assertions that have been made by the author of this article.
The article speculates on voting restrictions that have been instituted within the last five years. Various states across the country have made considerable changes to their electoral laws. The article asserts that most of these restrictions targeted the youth and minority voters.
In addition, the institution of these restrictions has not worked according to plan as some restrictions were blocked by courts. The Republican Party has been identified as the force behind most of these voting regulations.
The article notes that in total “235 new voting restrictions have been introduced in forty-four states over the past three years” (Berman 1). The article then outlines a breakdown of some of these restrictions. The author then concludes by stating that it is important for people to take note of the voting restrictions and act accordingly.
The author focuses on the negative aspects of election restrictions. However, this approach is not appropriate for a person who claims to be an expert in political policies. The author should have taken some time to address the opposite side of his argument.
For instance, the author does not trace the genesis of electoral restrictions but instead focuses on the negativity of these restrictions. This approach points towards a biased argument. All restrictions are instituted in response to particular problems. In most cases, restrictions are meant to curb election malpractices.
The article does not explore any of the causes of electoral negligence in great depth but it just offers shallow statistics about incidents of voter malpractices (Berman 1). Instead, the author chose to focus on the ‘evil’ motives behind these restrictions.
Not all restrictions are meant to cripple the electoral process. Furthermore, some restrictions are demanded by the voters. Therefore, it is not correct to assume that all restrictions are a brainchild of the political class and that the restrictions only serve the interests of a few individuals (Tokaji 784).
The article blames the GOP for suppressing rights of voters who are not likely to support the Republican Party’s agendas. While the author tries to justify this claim, he still ends up looking like he is the mouth piece for democrats.
The effectiveness of political commentary relies on the opinion makers’ ability to consider both sides of the divide. Therefore, the article should have brought the Democratic Party into the argument just like it brought the Republican Party.
In matters of electoral regulations, there is the possibility of instituting ill-intended regulations. However, the percentage of these selfish regulations is often lower than the article claims. For instance, out of the 235 restrictions that the author investigates, only less than a half are likely to be ill-intentioned.
The country has enough checks and balances to ensure that selfish legislations do not become part of the American political system. For example, the author of this article notes that the courts have discarded some proposed restrictions. Moreover, the federal government has the last say on most electoral restrictions.
Works Cited
Berman, Ari. “New Voter Suppression Efforts Prove the Voting Rights Act Is Still Needed”. The Nation. Mar. 2013. Web.
Tokaji, Daniel. “If It’s Broke, Fix It: Improving Voting Rights Act Preclearance.” Howard LJ 49.1 (2005): 784-785. Print.