Will United States women lose voting rights?

This video from the USA is called The Suffragist (Trailer) ~Alice Paul Movie Teaser Trailer (Student Made).

By Debbie Hines in the USA:

Why Voter ID Laws Will Disenfranchise Women

July 22, 2011

The author alerts U.S. women that new regulations could block their vote in the 2012 election—over nine decades after women won the franchise.

Voter ID laws enacted now in over half the states, requiring voters to present some form of identification as a requirement to vote, are seemingly simple in nature. But they will place unreasonable burdens on many women who may well be unaware of the difficulty they could face when casting their vote in the 2012 election.

Fourteen states require a government issued photo ID when voting in person. At the time of registering to vote, other states like Kansas and Alabama further demand proof of citizenship beyond the federal legal requirement that potential voters swear they are citizens. During the 2011 legislative session, five states—Wisconsin, Texas, Tennessee, Alabama and South Carolina—joined Georgia and Indiana by enacting the strictest form of photo ID requirement for voters, and most of these newest changes will first come into effect for the 2012 election.

Proponents of the laws argue that photo IDs are a reasonable way to protect our elections and make them fair. But far from harmless, the laws are complex and place unnecessary hardship on women—those who are newly married or recently divorced as well as senior citizens and low-income women.

Requiring voters to register with proof of citizenship is more problematic for women than for men. A survey by the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU law school shows that only 66 percent of voting-age women with ready access to any proof of citizenship have a document with their current legal name. Women who have recently married or divorced and have changed their names—and whose passport, naturalization papers or birth certificate are in their former names—will then be required to obtain a certified court document showing the divorce decree or marriage certificate. These documents vary in cost from state to state but can cost upwards of $25 plus any time off work needed to obtain them. The certified court documents may not even be in the state where you now reside, further delaying and complicating matters.

And for low income persons including women earning less than $25,000 per year, at least 12 percent don’t even have ready access to passports, naturalization papers or birth certificates, according to the Brennan Center research. Voting rights advocates argue that citizenship requirements have the potential to affect millions of Americans, including low-income and women voters. The League of Women Voters in many states has long asserted these laws hinder those who can least afford to take off work and pay for transportation to get the necessary documents.

For those women who are already registered to vote, the same problem will hold true. The photo ID must be in the same name that is registered with the Election Board. Hence, any recent changes in name from divorce or marriage will require certified proof of the name change along with the new photo ID. Of course, most men need not endure such onerous paper trail requirements. But U.S. women change their names in 90 percent of marriages. Karen Celestino-Horseman, an attorney for the League of Women Voters, says “women in particular are going to be impacted,” by requirements that they produce documents authenticating every name change in cases of marriage and divorce.

Wisconsin ID Law will Suppress Youth, Minority Vote. Jonah Most, New America Media: ” On May 25, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker signed off on a new law, Assembly Bill 7, that requires Wisconsin voters to show photo identification at the polls. Critics of the law contend that this requirement will disenfranchise many youth and minority voters. New America Media’s Jonah Most spoke with Biko Baker, executive director of the League of Young Voters Education Fund, who is working on a campaign to help youth in Wisconsin obtain photo identification”: here.

Facing Backlash For Disenfranchising Voters, Gov. Walker Reverses Course On Plan To Close Several DMV Offices. Marie Diamond, ThinkProgress: “In a sharp reversal, the state of Wisconsin announced yesterday it will expand Department of Motor Vehicle (DMV) services to accommodate the increased demand for photo identification in the wake of a controversial new Voter ID law. After signing a Voter ID law earlier this year that disenfranchises tens of thousands of Wisconsin voters, Gov. Scott Walker (R) then called for closing as many as 16 DMV offices across the state, making it even more difficult for residents to obtain the ID they needed”: here.

SPANISH women are among the most stressed-out in the world, according to a recent survey by Nielsen market researchers. They come fifth out of a total of 21 countries where women were questioned. The world’s most stressed-out women are from India, the survey says, followed by Mexico, Russia and Brazil, in that order: here.

3 thoughts on “Will United States women lose voting rights?

  1. Greetings, fellow freedom fighters! I hope everyone has enjoyed Labor Day, the day honoring the American worker and the institution he/she has formed, the Trade Union movement, for the empowerment of workers and other low-income people. I am also active in the movement to revitalize May Day as a workers’ holiday in this country. We can have both May Day AND Labor Day, we deserve it!

    There are efforts by Republican state governors in to keep unfavorable voters from voting. Wisconsin’s chief idiot Scott Walker signed a voter ID bill prohibiting people who don’t have state ID cards or driver’s licenses from voting–and VERY conveniently closed ten Department of Motor Vehicles offices where people could get their IDs. This is a deliberate attempt to prevent African-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, college students, and seniors from voting, or making it inconvenient to apply for a form of ID. Similar laws have been introduced in Ohio, Kansas, Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina, New Hampshire, Colorado, Montana, and Texas; there has also been cases of “voter caging,” where voting officials challenge a voter’s qualification to vote, thus intimidating the potential voter.

    All this has been done in the name of “voter integrity” and “fair elections;” this, from the party of 2000, the party of voter fraud in Florida, of voters who would have voted against George DUH Bush purged from the rolls, where voters were intimidated by police, where the votes of the Supreme Court mattered-voter integrity, indeed! The idea is to prevent low-income, poor and working people-the same people-from voting and seeking their empowerment, thus skewing the state in favor of the wealthy and corporations.

    The cat popped out of the bag when conservative writer Matthew Vadum wrote, “Why are left-wing activist groups so keen on registering the poor to vote?…Because they know the poor can be counted on to vote themselves more benefits by electing redistributionist politicians. Welfare recipients are particularly open to demagoguery and bribery.” And here’s the kicker-“Registering them to vote is like handing out burglary tools to criminals…It is profoundly antisocial and un-American to empower the nonproductive segments of the population to destroy the country– which is precisely why Barack Obama zealously supports registering welfare recipients to vote. … Encouraging those who burden society to participate in elections isn’t about helping the poor. It’s about helping the poor to help themselves to others’ money.”

    SO–Wealthy people and corporations, that allowed this economic catastrophe to occur due to their ignorance and greed, that get trillions of dollars of federal money because they’re “too big to fail”, are productive, while working and low-income people, who work for money and spend it at local stores, thus boosting the economy, and leeches? Wonderful logic! And it’s worded so that the villain is “some one else, not you nice people”.

    In the ‘seventies, the New Right movement, through the direct-mail guru Richard Viguerie, concocted the line of “producers,” working people and corporations, as opposed to “non-producers,” government, universities, welfare recipients, etc., to give a “populist” look to the movement; fascist movements in Europe also tried to look “revolutionary,” to appeal to the masses. Now the “populist” facade has fallen off the plutocratic edifice that is contemporary conservativism. If the conservatives are such populists, why are they trying to keep people from voting?

    Forty years ago, President Richard Nixon declared a “war on drugs,” mainly as a way of fighting the cultural changes of the ‘sixties, like the anti-war and civil rights movements, and the general realization that the nation’s political and economic elite is NOT perfect, that we don’t have to look up to them. (Anyway…) Nixon’s formed a commission, headed by former Pennsylvania Governor Raymond Shafer, to look into the effects of marijuana and other drugs, and the appropriate measures to take towards them. The commission, after serious research, told Nixon what he did not want to hear — “No significant physical, biochemical, or mental abnormalities could be attributed solely to their marihuana smoking,” and, “No verification is found of a causal relationship between marihuana use and subsequent heroin use.” Thus, “The Commission feels that the criminalization of possession of marihuana for personal [use] is socially self-defeating as a means of achieving this objective . . .” The commission, obviously, did not want to encourage marijuana or drug use, but neither did they want to make it a crime.

    But Nixon wanted to create a scare among the American people about minorities and anti-war activists, and he rejected his own commission’s report. Forty years-the War on Drugs goes on. A war that lasts forty years? What are the casualties and the costs? As a propaganda move, Nixon must have thought this was a stroke of genius–have an enemy that has no nationality, no physical form, that is an abstraction, like drugs; and history shows that when you have a war, anyone who doesn’t go along with the “war” is a traitor or a coward, and thus can be smacked down, either by public opinion or police terror.

    (By the way, I recommend the biography of Nixon, The Arrogance of Power: The Secret World of Richard Nixon, by Anthony Summers, which goes through Nixon’s own issues with drugs and alcohol; was Nixon projecting his own addictions on others, so that he didn’t have to face his own? He would neither be the firstor the last person to do so.)

    A forty year war; and the drugs keep coming into the country, and people still keep taking them, after all the arrests and propaganda. What’s wrong with this picture? Is the government serious about stopping drugs? Are officials taking bribes to let the drugs in? Doesn’t this remind us about the “noble experiment of Prohibition, where liquor was banned from legal sale, so criminal cartels made money from illegally selling the stuff, abetted by paid-off public officials? People’s hypocrisy added to this, taking the booze while opposing repeal of Prohibition, because that was what nice respectable people believed.

    Back in 2009, the “tea party movement”–founded with corporate money, in the manner of an “Astroturf” movement founded by public relations firms–made its debut by sitting in the front rows at congressional town hall meetings and threatening congress-members over the debate on health insurance; typical of totalitarian thugs, which the right-wing has degenerated into!

    Now, the tables are turned; the Republican congress-members elected through the tea parties have faced criticism from constituents for their attempts to end such popular programs as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, and the failure to create jobs–the preposterous political game playing about the raising of the debt ceiling, I’m sure, didn’t help things. Paul Ryan (Wisconsin), Ben Quayle (Arizona), and Chip Cravaack (Minnesota) had to hold meeting that people paid to see them; Jim Renacci and Steve Chabot of Ohio prevented cameras at their own town meetings; Dan Lungren of California was criticized for supporting the Bush tax cuts for the rich; Dan Webster of Florida threatened to kick out a constituent for calling for tax increases on corporations, and has put out a “watch list” of activists who would DARE to question their elected officials; and Herrera Beutler of Washington had NO town meetings at all.

    Whether or not the Democratic party leadership, from the President on down, is willing to take on the Republican-corporate-conservative onslaught is another matter; are WE willing to do so? That’s the key, and I believe we’re starting to do so. Let’s keep up our fight, and we’ll keep on winning, and we’ll have the confidence in ourselves to fight for our freedom. Bye!

    John Oliver Mason
    Freelance journalist, poet, notary public
    Member, National Writers Union/UAW Local 1981
    Steward-Delegate, Local 696
    American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees
    2234 Cantrell Street
    Philadelphia, PA 19145
    (215)271-2982 (home)
    (215)687-9713 (cell)
    Whoso would be a man must be a nonconformist.
    -Ralph Waldo Emerson

    Jimmy Hoffa challenges Tea Party Republicans at Obama Event
    Posted by: “bigraccoon” bigraccoon1@verizon.net

    Tue Sep 6, 2011 4:19 pm (PDT)

    Jimmy Hoffa challenges Tea Party Republicans at Obama Event



  2. Pingback: Wars cause United States debt crisis | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  3. Pingback: US anti-slavery fighter Frederick Douglass, 1818-1895 | Dear Kitty. Some blog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.