Voting law Supporters says Opponent say

Denying restoration of voting
rights
Racial gerrymandering
The argument put forth by
proponents of automatic
restoration of voting rights for
felons who have served their
time in prison is that it is unfair
to deny citizens their right to
vote after they have paid their
debt to society. They also
claim that automatic
restoration of voting rights
encourages rehabilitation and
lowers recidivism, and that
felony disenfranchisement
disproportionately affects
minorities.
While the Equal Protection
Clause and Sections 2 and 5 of
the Voting Rights Act restrict
jurisdictions from redrawing
election districts to benefit
particular racial groups, the
Supreme Court has ruled that
in some cases, this is not
always a violation of the Equal
Protection Clause.
they may work to protect their
political parties' standing and
number of seats, so long as
they do not harm racial and
ethnic minority groups.
People who oppose automatic
restoration of voting rights for
convicted felons contend that
disenfranchisement laws are
race-neutral, that felons
should be required to
demonstrate their
rehabilitation before being
allowed to vote, and that
people who break the law
shouldn't have a say in how
laws are made.
Constitutional rights are
violated by racial
gerrymandering, and rulings
opposing intentionally
racialized redistricting have
been sustained.
Drawing district boundaries to
prevent racial minorities from
electing their favoured
candidates is known as
"negative racial
gerrymandering."
With the enactment of the
Voting Rights Act of 1965 and
its later revisions, it was
forbidden to use redistricting
to draw maps that
purposefully reduced the
influence of voters who
belonged to a racial or
linguistic minority.
Part c

Issues Today Recent presidential elections have included a range of issues including: taxation, the
national debt, education, civil rights, health care, and terrorism.

The voting process must allow for "social separation," which is not achievable at a polling site, in the
worst-case scenario—if preventative and containment measures are in place throughout the
autumn. For a long time, many supporters of voting rights have campaigned for "convenience
voting" as a means of boosting turnout and expanding the franchise. They are not arguing about
emergency at all. Early voting, weekend voting, same-day registration, an election day holiday,
voting by mail, and excuse-free absentee voting are all examples of convenience voting. Five states
demand mail-in balloting (Colorado, Hawaii, Oregon, Utah, and Washington). Absentee ballots,
which are legal to cast by mail in every state, but 16 States demand an explanation for casting one.
(Virginia recently altered its legislation; New Hampshire will allow absentee voting without an excuse
in the 2020 election.) The list of acceptable justifications varies by state,

Governments must be adaptable and innovative in times of crisis. There isn't much time left to
drastically alter voting procedures. States without mail-in voting will be reluctant to adopt it, even
for one election. But this is the ideal opportunity to innovate using an existing system—absentee
voting. No adjustment is required for states where an excuse is not required. Here is a quick fix for
states that want an explanation. Sending absentee votes to every registered voter and putting up a
procedure for counting them is the sole additional load that either scenario places on election
systems. Voter "turnout" may decline, while states that allow voting by mail may not.

There has never been a postponement or cancellation of a presidential election in the almost 250-
year history of the United States of America. As it is currently, primaries have been postponed in the
past. But no general federal election has ever been postponed or cancelled, even amid weather
situations, two World Wars, or the Civil War. This is important to note. There is no justification for
interrupting this illustrious, unbroken demonstration of our democratic beliefs at this time.