American voting rights are under attack. Across the nation, state legislatures are introducing and passing laws that restrict voting rights at alarming speed. According to the Brennan Center for Justice, 47 states have introduced more than 360 restrictive voting bills. These bills contain a number of voter ID requirements, authorizations to purge voter rolls, relocation of polling places and restrictions on absentee voting. Election rules set by the state legislators have significant influence over voters' experiences, but many believe that one's democratic right to be heard and participate in elections should not depend on what state you live in and that Congress should step in to set national election standards and ensure that every voter has equal access to the ballot box. Others point to recent polling that show that a supermajority of Americans want everyone to show a photo ID when they vote. Activists on the left branded Georgia's new voting law "Jim Crow 2.0" even though it expanded early voting - more than Delaware and New York. Proponents of recent voting reform measures claim that the surest way to encourage voter confidence and participation is by letting states adopt the rules and safeguards that keep it easy to vote and hard to cheat. A bill referred to as The For the People Act - HR 1 would improve voter access and include reforms that would counter many of the voter suppression laws being imposed by sates. However, those on the right disagree and claim that HR 1 would risk chaos and give Congress near-total control over elections. They point to data that shows that recent elections have set records for diversity and participation and do just the opposite of what opponents claim.

 

Should Congress expand voting rights by passing HR 1 or a similar voting rights measure and, if so, why? (if not, why not)? Please use specific case study text to support your argument.