Opp-Choice: In the United States Government Issued Photo ID Ought not be Required at the Polls

I'll rebuild my case and then address my opponents: Current photo ID legislation is just a new form of gerrymandering. It is used to exploit a demographic trend that the minorities tend to vote Democrat and are less likely to have government issued photo ID. It's not an accident that Democrats across the country oppose these initiatives and that Republican dominated state congresses are pushing for them left and right. Regardless of one's political affiliations, however, disenfranchisement is unconstitutional; and the American government has an obligation to protect people's right to vote. These laws are unnecessary, costly, and pernicious and ought not be enacted. Contention One: Implementing photo ID would introduce a poll tax. Voter ID is not unconstitutional. Implementing a mandate that you need a government issued photo ID to vote and then charging voters for said ID is a poll tax. It's similar to the Stamp Act the British imposed on the colonies in 1765. You are charged for a legal document that you are required to have to in order to vote, just as the British charged colonist for special paper that they were required to use to conduct legal business. Indiana's ID's were made available to the public for free Con because charging for them would have been considered a poll tax. (economist article cited earlier) Contention Two: Our safeguards are good enough. Actually 400 cases are prosecuted each year ( formal charges are raised), "only 20 were voting while ineligible and five voted more than once." We are hyper vigilant when it comes to voter fraud. The stakes are too high not to be. Does con honestly think either party doesn't scrutinize every single election for the chance that they might have been cheated? Both parties have armies of lawyers at the ready, prepared to descend at the slightest hint of fraud. As for cons comments on piracy, argument by analogy is a logical fallacy; I invite con to bring evidence that actually applies to our safeguards and election fraud to the table. We aren't talking about video piracy. Contention Three: Costly program Photo ID's are costly. States are cutting education left and right. Indiana's photo ID program cost them 10 million dollars. Voters would rather see that money in their pockets or in their schools then in a superfluous program whose only purpose is to make it harder for the impoverished to vote. Contention Four: Targets minorities My opponent dropped this contention so just carry over my arguments from 2nd round. On to Con's contentions: Opp's Contention One: Voter fraud has no impact on our elections because we work hard to prevent it. My opponent is arguing that fraud is a possibility, ignoring all the while that the probability that it could happen and go undetected is almost zero. Yes, there are close elections, but that says nothing about the current state of our safeguards. America does enough when it comes to elections to prevent voter fraud. Apart from the government, each party is so invested in the outcome of an election, they would be happy to throw out an election they lost at the slightest hint of fraud. Con has failed to show that voter fraud actually exists in this country. Opp's Contention Two: Everything else equal, no, a citizen exercising their right to vote shouldn't be harder than obtaining a gun. As this is a democracy, we value everyone's input and ideally want everyone to participate in an election. All citizen's ought to be given the opportunity to vote. We don't want to exclude citizens from elections just because they couldn't come up with $25 for a driver's license. We regulate gun purchases to exclude people, but we should never disenfranchise people. Opp's Contention Three: …Facts please… give me a record of votes cast by illegal immigrants… or a document that shows they registered to vote. Debate is not about speculation. Right now the only evidence we have of voter fraud shows that it is rare and discovered quickly (Economist article). It has not influenced any election because the safeguards in place are very good. Implementing photo ID now would simply be about disenfranchising the impoverished and goes against the ideals of democracy this country is supposed to stand for. It would also be costly for the states, and the money would be better spent where it is needed (education and infrastructure).