Take Virginia and West Virginia. While the latter doesn’t require any ID to vote, its neighbor to the east has one of the strictest ID laws in the nation. And while Virginia permanently strips certain types of violent ex-felons from voting, ex-felons in West Virgina convicted of the same exact crimes can regain the right to vote after completion of their parole.

To add to the confusion, a number of states have recently attempted to dramatically change their own rules on voter ID requirements, resulting in a constantly changing set of laws that can often leave voters feeling baffled and unprepared as elections approach (see examples at the bottom).

In February, the U.S. Supreme Court heard a challenge to a provision in the 1965 Voting Rights Act, a landmark law that is widely considered among the most effective and successful pieces of U.S. civil rights legislation. At issue is a provision in the law called Section 5 that applies only to specific parts of the country with a history of discriminatory voting practices. It covers nine states, mainly in the South, plus regions within seven other states (including California). The law requires that all covered areas receive approval from the U.S. Justice Department before implementing any changes to voting laws.

The map below helps sort through the hodgepodge of individual state laws that determine who can vote. We’ve ranked and color-coded each state by the severity of its voting laws (taking voter ID, felon voting, early voting, and Section 5 into account). See the notes below the map for explanations on asterisked states that have recently changed laws, are waiting for federal approval to do so, or just happen to have their own unique rules.

NOTE: All states require an ID for first time voters.

Special state rules

• *Alabama: Photo ID law set to take effect in 2014. Currently, a valid non-photo ID can include a state hunting or fishing license or gun permit.
• *Arizona, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Washington D.C.: Student IDs are no longer accepted.

• *Arkansas: Student ID is typically not accepted, unless it has an address. For voters who don’t have acceptable ID, Arkansas will provide a photo ID free of charge.
• *Maine, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New York, North Dakota, Oregon, Washington, West Virginia: For 1st time voters student ID is typically not accepted, unless it has an address.
• *Mississippi: New state amendment requires government-issued photo ID, although the law is still pending (federal government permission required).

• *Missouri:  Although the state has a voter ID law, voters can still cast their ballots if an election judge from each political party vouches for them.

• *Montana, Rhode Island: Both states use signature verification to identify eligibility. If the voter’s signature on the provisional ballot matches the signature on the voter’s registration record, the ballot is counted.

• *New Hampshire: New Hampshire will require government-issued photo IDs after Sept. 1, 2013. The law is being challenged in court by two civil liberties organizations.

• *North Carolina:  State legislators recently proposed 3 new voter measure, including a strict new photo ID law.

• *Pennsylvania: Enacted new photo ID law, but it will not be in effect during the state’s May primary elections. However, voters may be asked by poll workers to present any ID with a valid address, even though they aren’t technically required to.
  
  Sources 
• Brennan Center for Justice
• Department of Justice
• HeadCount
• National Council of State Legislatures

Kevork Djansezian/Getty Images

Wait … Californians actually voted to tax increase their own taxes?

Get outta here!

Like most Americans, California residents don’t look too kindly on the notion of raising taxes. In fact, voters have rejected statewide tax measures the last seven times they’ve been on the ballot!

So in many ways, it’s pretty miraculous that on Tuesday 54 percent of California’s electorate approved Proposition 30, which temporarily increases sales tax for everyone by a quarter cent and raises income taxes for those making over $250,000. The measure, which Governor Jerry Brown crafted and threw himself behind, is expected to raise about $6 billion a year and prevent massive cuts to the state’s already beleaguered public education system.

Here’s how it’ll affect you:

Brown staked much of his political reputation on winning what became a bitter, hard-fought, and incredibly pricey fight; both sides waged a relentless ad war, collectively spending more than $120 million.

“I know a lot of people had some doubts and some questions: Can you really go to the people and ask them to vote for a tax?” Brown told supporters at the victory party late Tuesday night. “Well here we are. We have a vote of the people – I think the only place in America where a state actually said, let’s raise our taxes for our kids, our schools, for our California dream.”

And he was right. In a state where voters haven’t approved a tax hike in almost three decades, the very real threat of huge cuts to education appears to have actually resonated with voters.

The consensus seemed to be: “Yes, taxes suck, but some things are just too important to lose.”

The temporary nature of the tax, also, likely made the measure more palatable to voters.

Interestingly, it was younger voters who turned out in force on Tuesday in support of the measure. Voters ages 18-29 – who Brown and his campaign targeted – made up almost 30 percent of the electorate and were critical in pushing the measure through.

But take a quick look at the official 2012 platforms of the Democratic and Republican parties, and you’ll quickly some pretty extreme contrasts in philosophy on everything from taxes to abortion. In their national party platforms, the Democrats and Republicans have laid out a set of fundamentally different visions for America and the role its government should play in our lives.

On the show This American Life, host Ira Glass notes the widening chasm between the two parties:
“Everyone knows that politics is now so divided in our country that not only do the two sides disagree on the solutions to the country’s problems, they don’t even agree on what the problems are. It’s two versions of the world in collision.”

Even the frequency of key words used in the two documents is indicative of the parties’ very differing perspectives. Take the mention of “God” for example: In the Republican party platform it appears 10 times. In the Democratic platform: once (added in only after a lengthy debate). Likewise, the Constitution (or some variation thereof, like “constitutional”) is referenced 60 times in the Republican platform as compared to just six in the Democratic one.

Taken directly from the Republican and Democratic party Platforms, here are some of the widest divides on major issues that may impact you (click on the image link – above left – to download PDF).

Take the Procon.org party platform quiz to see which party you best fit into.

The Background

In 1992, 18-year-old Kimber Reynolds was attacked by two men who attempted to steal her purse outside a restaurant in Fresno. One of the men shot her in the head. She died 26 hours later. The  25-year-old shooter – who was killed shortly thereafter in a police standoff – was described by police as a hardcore drug user who had been repeatably jailed on gun and drug charges, and who just two months earlier had been released from state prison where he served a sentence for auto theft.

After his daughter’s death, Mike Reynolds began fighting for a statewide tough-on-crime policy to keep potentially violent criminals off the streets. His effort gained widespread support following the kidnapping, rape and murder of 12-year-old Polly Klaas just eighteen months later.

In 1994, voters overwhelmingly approved Proposition 184, known as the “Three Strikes and You’re Out Law,” which Reynolds helped author. In effect ever since, the law has significantly increased the length of prison sentences for second and third time offenders who had a serious or violent original conviction  Even if repeat convictions are minor – such as petty theft or drug possession – a second strike offense now results in double the normal prison term. A third strike gets a mandatory sentence of 25 years to life. Of the roughly 24 states with a three strikes type  law, California’s is widely considered the harshest.

Californians remain sharply divided over three strikes. Advocates like Mike Reynolds are quick to note the dramatic decrease in crime statewide since it was enacted: by 2004, the statewide violent crime rate had gone down by half.

But opponents argue that the law unfairly imprisons scores of low-level offenders for excessive periods at a huge expense to taxpayers. In the decade after the law’s passage, the state prison population increased by roughly thirty percent, and the prison budget skyrocketed. Today, of the more than 41,000 second and third strike inmates in California’s prisons, more than half are serving elongated sentences for non-violent crimes. Of these, more than 6,000 are for drug-related offenses.

All attempts to reform three strikes, including a ballot proposition in 2004 have failed. But on Nov. 6, California will again reconsider the issue, and vote on Proposition 36, a measure that which would significantly revise the three strikes law, resulting in shorter sentences for many non-violent, non-serious offenders.

The California Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates that if Prop 36 passes, it will save California roughly $70 to $90 million annually. Opponents of the proposition, however, warn that doing so will severely compromise public safety.

Additional Multimedia Resources

three-part series, and interactive timeline on California’s three strikes law.

(Most inmates in county jail awaiting trial or serving time for a misdemeanor, or who are on probation, can still vote, according to the California Secretary of State’s voting guide for current and former inmates).

And this raises an important question: is voting a privilege that should be denied to people who commit crimes, or is it an inalienable right?

Most states in the U.S. seem seem to agree with the former idea. In fact, only two – Maine and Vermont – allow their prisoners and parolees to continue voting.

According to The Sentencing Project, 5.3 million Americans (1 in 40 adults) were unable to vote – disenfranchised -  in 2008 due to a felony conviction. That figure is expected to rise to nearly 6 million for this election, including 1.4 million African-American men.

Among disenfranchised felons, nearly 75 percent are not actually behind bars at all – most are either on parole, probation, or have completed their sentences altogether.

Florida, Iowa, Kentucky, Virginia have the nation’s strictest felon voting restrictions, in which felons permanently lose their voting rights.

Where do you stand?

Source: ACLU

Additional Resources

• ProCon.org
• National Conference of State Legislatures

Flickr

By Donelle Blubaugh
Contributor

What are political party platforms and how much impact do they have in actual political decision-making?

During the Republican and Democratic national conventions this summer, you probably heard a lot about the party platforms”  These are actual documents that communicate the key principles of a political party and its core ideologies. Namely, what’s our government for and how should it serve the people?  Recreational reading, they are not. But understanding them can help voters steer through some of the election-season spin. The platforms actually provide some real, concrete insight into how party officials and candidates stand on critical issues – things like the economy, education and foreign affairs and social policies.

How are political platforms created?

Every four years, prior to the party conventions, the national committees for the Democratic and Republican parties (DNC and RNC) choose key party members who meet to contribute, debate and vote on policies stances that become the basis of their parties official platform. Party delegates—citizens selected to represent their states at national conventions—vote to support or amend platform drafts. Eventually, each position is presented as a carefully worded “plank” in a final platform document.

In 1840, the newly formed Democratic Party generated the first national political platform. It contained nine planks and fits onto a single page, a steep contrast to the lengthy documents that each party produced this year. Republicans got into the game in 1856.

It’s also important to keep in mind that the party platforms constantly evolve. So the 2012 Republican platform, for instance, could have some significant ideological differences from the party’s platform in past election years.

How important are the national platforms in an election year?

Today, party platforms are marketing tools as well as political ideologies. They’re used both to rally the troops and convince undecided voters. Speechwriters often mine the platform documents for key talking points that can be included in a candidate’s stump speeches on the campaign trail. Political analysts and journalists dissect every word to decipher each party’s motives.

Are the platforms still important after the election is over?

Party platforms can be used to guide an elected official’s decision-making process, but they aren’t legally binding. If elected officials stray too far from the party line, though, they can risk alienating themselves within their own party or being accused of hypocrisy by the opposing party. That said, elected officials inevitably have to respond to unanticipated events and – ideally – will draw compromises to reduce political gridlock.

In the gloves off sport of politics, opponents often highlight when a candidate deviates from the party platform. For example, the 1988 Republican National Platform had this to say about tax increases: “The Republican Party restates the unequivocal promise we made in 1984: We oppose any attempts to increase taxes.” And when George H. W. Bush accepted his party’s nomination at the Republican Convention, he famously promised, “Read my lips: no new taxes.”

Then reality set it. During the senior Bush’s administration, an economic recession began, the national debt skyrocketed, and taxes were increased, leaving the candidate weakened and vulnerable when he ran for re-election four years later against Democratic challenger Bill Clinton.

In like-minded fashion, this year Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign is taking a shot (among many) at President Obama for his failed promise to close the detention camp in Guantánamo Bay, one of the planks that appear in both the 2008 and 2012 Democratic platforms.

Do other political parties have platforms?

They do. The Green Party, The Tea Party Movement and the Libertarian Party all have platforms, as do all the parties represented on the national ballot this year.Actually, if you so desired, you could actually write your own political platform, one that reflects your personal take on the major issues. For real. You could circulate it among people who have similar perspectives, invite their input, publish the official My Party Platform and start your own little third-party political movement. There’s always 2016!