Please use information below and compose a Multimodal argument:…

GrandElementScorpion29 Please use information below and compose a Multimodal argument:…Please use information below and compose a Multimodal argument: Powerpoint, slides, etc. create an outline for a powerpoint project using information below Native Americans have been unfairly denied citizenship and rights in the United States and have been brutalized, killed, and exposed to discrimination for centuries.  In her article, Ruth Hopkins discusses the historical denial of citizenship to Native Americans, stating that they were not granted citizenship until 1924, a full 136 years after the ratification of the U.S. Constitution. Hopkins writes that,  “Then denied citizenship until June 2, 1924—a full 136 years after the U.S. Constitution was ratified.” (Hopkins). Hopkins cites the fact that Native Americans were denied citizenship until 1924 as evidence of their historical mistreatment. As the author points out in her article, Native Americans have historically been denied citizenship and basic rights in the United States, which has left them vulnerable to discrimination and disenfranchisement. As Hopkins mentions, “Citizenship came just after he served. Yet, despite this federal mandate, Natives were often barred from voting, as the right is governed by state law.”(Hopkins). This cited passage highlights how despite the federal mandate granting Native Americans citizenship, they were still often denied the right to vote due to state laws. This reinforces the idea that Native Americans have historically faced barriers to exercising their right to vote, and their citizenship status did not necessarily guarantee them equal treatment under the law. According to Hopkins, “For half a century, Natives advocated for their right to vote, state by state. The last to pass laws granting these rights was New Mexico, in 1962, meaning that it was only 57 years ago that all states agreed Natives should be afforded full voting rights.” (Hopkins). The fact that Native Americans were often barred from voting, despite being granted citizenship, shows how state laws have historically been used to deny certain groups the right to vote. This legacy of disenfranchisement and discrimination is further perpetuated by modern-day voter ID laws, which have been shown to disproportionately affect minority voters, including African Americans. The fact that some states only granted full voting rights to Native Americans as recently as 57 years ago highlights the ongoing struggle for equal access to the ballot box for all citizens. Ultimately, the evidence offered in Ruth Hopkins’ article illustrates Native Americans’ long history of oppression and discrimination in the United States, including denial of citizenship and voting rights. This heritage of disenfranchisement has been carried forward by modern-day voter identification requirements, which disproportionately affect vulnerable populations. It is apparent that more effort remains to be done to ensure equal access to the voting box for all citizens.Voter ID laws have been used as a modern-day poll tax and disproportionately affect the voting rights of African Americans, perpetuating the legacy of segregation and disenfranchisement. Shah and Smith discuss how Republican-controlled state legislatures have enacted stricter voter ID laws that disproportionately affect minority voters, with the intention of diluting their votes and weakening their political power. Shah and Smith write that “the vast majority of these states (twenty-seven) have Republican-controlled state legislatures that have argued for stricter laws under the auspices of attempting to prevent voter-impersonation fraud and inspiring confidence in the state’s electoral process. These laws have, in their intent and effect, diluted minority votes and weakening minority political power” (Shah and Smith). The paragraph emphasizes that many states with tighter voter ID requirements have Republican-controlled legislatures that claim the legislation is intended to combat voter fraud and ensure electoral integrity. However, as the authors point out, these laws dilute minority votes and weaken their political power. This implies that the claimed justification for these laws is simply a cover for discrimination and the exclusion of some groups from the voting process. The author mentions that “because of the burdens associated with costs prohibiting would-be voters, voter ID laws operate as modern-day poll taxes. Although current registered voters with IDs are not affected, voter ID laws include remnants of grandfather clauses of the Reconstruction and Jim Crow eras” (Shah and Smith). The authors contend that voter ID laws are modern-day poll taxes because they impose large expenses on voters who do not have acceptable forms of identification. Minority voters, who are more likely to face economic difficulties, may bear a disproportionate share of the weight of these costs. The use of the Reconstruction and Jim Crow eras emphasizes the historical context in which these types of legislation were first utilized to disenfranchise black voters. As a result, the passage supports the notion that voter ID laws discriminate against black voters and that the historical heritage of voter suppression in the United States persists today. The authors say that “Voter ID laws further the dismantling of voting rights and the promises of full political engagement for racial minorities, especially African Americans” (Shah and Smith). The authors argue that these laws contribute to the dismantling of voting rights and political engagement for racial minorities, with African Americans being particularly impacted. In summary, Shah and Smith’s article provides extensive evidence supporting the claim that voter ID laws serve as a modern-day poll tax and disproportionately affect the voting rights of African Americans. The authors highlight how Republican-controlled state legislatures have enacted these laws with the intention of diluting minority votes and weakening their political power, and argue that voter ID laws contribute to the dismantling of voting rights and political engagement for racial minorities. Overall, the evidence suggests that these laws perpetuate the legacy of segregation and disenfranchisement and are discriminatory in their intent and effect.Discriminatory voting practices and laws, such as literacy and language tests, poll taxes, white primaries, and gerrymandering, have historically been used to disenfranchise Hispanic Americans in Texas, and current legislation proposals such as Senate Bill 7 continue this trend of voter suppression. According to the author, “he filed his naturalization petition with the Bexar County Clerk in San Antonio, Texas. Anglos filed suit challenging Rodriguez’s petition for naturalization. They opposed his petition, alleging that Rodriguez was not a free “white” person, and thus not entitled to become a naturalized citizen. (Barrera).  This passage from Barrera’s work provides evidence for the sub-claim that immigrants faced discrimination and barriers to citizenship based on race in the United States. Specifically, the passage illustrates how Mexican American immigrants, like Rodriguez, were often denied naturalization based on their perceived racial status. The fact that Anglos challenged Rodriguez’s petition and claimed he was not a “free white person” highlights the arbitrary and discriminatory nature of racial categorizations and the ways in which these categorizations were used to exclude non-white individuals from full citizenship. This passage serves as an example of the systemic racism and exclusion that characterized U.S. immigration policy and naturalization procedures throughout much of its history. Barrera mentions that “the poll tax was adopted in the 1824 Texas Constitution. It was a prerequisite to voting applicable to whites as well as blacks and Hispanics but served as a barrier to the working class and poor.” (Barrera). The passage explains that although the poll tax applied to all races, it was a significant obstacle to voting for the working class and poor, regardless of race. This suggests that the poll tax was not only discriminatory but also had a classist impact, disproportionately affecting those with less wealth and power. The use of historical evidence further underscores the entrenched nature of this discriminatory practice in Texas, indicating that it was not an isolated incident but rather a systemic issue that required significant legal action to overcome. The author argues that “they were used until 1965, when Congress enacted the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (“VRA”), which prohibited jurisdictions from administering literacy tests to citizens who had attained a sixth-grade education in an American school in which the main language was Spanish” (Barrera). The quote mentions that literacy tests were used until 1965, when the Voting Rights Act was passed, which prohibited the use of literacy tests as a prerequisite to vote. Additionally, the passage specifies that the VRA prevented jurisdictions from administering literacy tests to citizens who had attained a sixth-grade education in an American school in which the main language was Spanish, indicating that Hispanic Americans faced additional barriers to voting through language-based discrimination. Overall, this passage supports the argument that literacy tests were a discriminatory tool that targeted minority groups and restricted their access to the ballot box.  The author highlights the importance of ensuring voting rights for all Americans, particularly those from disadvantaged populations who have faced voting restrictions. Barrera argues that the Hispanic community has faced significant difficulties in exercising their right to vote, and that the proposed legislation could exacerbate the situation by discussing past and current discriminatory practices against Hispanic Americans in Texas.While some argue that discrimination is no longer a major issue in the United States, evidence suggests that voter suppression tactics continue to disproportionately affect minority voters. The gutting of key protections of the Voting Rights Act by the US Supreme Court in 2013 has allowed GOP-controlled states to implement laws that disproportionately affect people of color’s access to voting. The author states that, “hard fact given that in 2013 the GOP-controlled U.S. Supreme Court gutted key protections of the 1965 Voting Rights Act (VRA). Since that court decision to the present day, GOP-controlled states have implemented laws designed to make it more difficult for people of color to vote.” (Obeidallah). This demonstrates a deliberate effort to disenfranchise minority groups and limit their political power. By citing this hard fact, Obeidallah emphasizes the systemic and ongoing nature of voter suppression in the United States, supporting the argument that there is a need for continued advocacy and protection of voting rights for marginalized communities. The author mentions that,  “In reality, in just the 15 years before the 2013 Shelby County decision, Section 5 of the VRA had blocked 86 laws through DOJ objections and several others via federal lawsuits.” (Obeidallah). The author points out that prior to the 2013 Shelby County decision, Section 5 of the VRA had been an effective tool in blocking discriminatory voting laws through DOJ objections and federal lawsuits. The fact that 86 laws have been blocked in just 15 years highlights the significance of this provision in protecting the voting rights of marginalized communities. The author’s use of this evidence underscores the detrimental impact of the Shelby County decision, which has resulted in the implementation of laws that disproportionately affect people of color. According to Obeidallah, “But the most significant provision of this law was Section 5, which required that jurisdictions with a documented history of disenfranchising black voters could not make changes to its voting laws until first being granted preapproval (known as preclearance) from the Department of Justice or a federal judge in Washington.” (Obeidallah). It highlights the significance of Section 5, which was specifically designed to prevent jurisdictions with a history of discriminatory voting practices from continuing those practices. The preclearance requirement was a powerful tool for protecting the voting rights of marginalized communities and ensuring that their voices were heard in the political process. Lastly, Obeidallah’s findings demonstrate the persistent issue of voter suppression measures that disproportionately affect minority voters in the United States. The repeal of major provisions of the Voting Rights Act in 2013 enabled Republican-controlled states to enact legislation making it more difficult for people of color to vote. Prior to the Shelby County decision, however, Section 5 of the VRA was an effective tool for preventing discriminatory voting laws. This research emphasizes the need to continue to advocate for and safeguard the voting rights of excluded communities.The implementation of strict voter ID laws creates additional obstacles for people who might be minority voters to access the ballot box, disproportionately impacting their ability to exercise their right to vote. In the article called, “Some Republicans Want to Raise Voting Age After Gen Z Midterm Turnout,” Kelly Weill explores the reactions of conservative commentators to the strong youth turnout for Democrats in the midterm elections. She cites Fox News commentator Jesse Watters, “‘It looks like they’ve been brainwashed. This new generation is totally brainwashed ’cause a lot of these single women who vote 37 spreads for Democrats, are teaching all of our younger generation in these schools and they’re polluting their minds and then they grow up and they’re in their twenties and then they vote for leftists.'” (Weill). The quote highlights the derogatory and dismissive language used to describe women who vote for Democratic candidates, specifically single women. The statement implies that these women are not capable of making informed decisions and are easily manipulated by leftist ideologies. This rhetoric perpetuates harmful stereotypes about women and undermines their agency and autonomy in the political sphere. The use of the term “brainwashed” implies that these women are not capable of critical thinking or forming their own opinions, and it is a clear example of the gender-based discrimination that women face in politics. According to the author, “voters are now facing restrictive voter identification (ID) laws, strategic and overactive purging of voter registrations, discriminatory closures of polling locations, underfunding of training and equipment for polling locations, and other citizenship-based hurdles to registration and voting” (Hardy 857) The cited passage provides evidence of the various obstacles voters face in exercising their right to vote. The author uses logos to present a logical argument that these voter suppression tactics disproportionately affect poor, minority, and immigrant citizens. The evidence provided suggests that the discriminatory and suppressive voting laws, combined with inconsistent judicial and legislative responses, have fostered an environment of voter confusion recognized by the Supreme Court as a form of voter disenfranchisement. By using this evidence, the author appeals to the reader’s sense of reason and logic to support their argument. The authors mention that, “when elites competing for office lack the ability to enact laws restricting voting due to limited internal capacity, or external actors are able to limit the ability of governments to use laws to suppress voting, suppression is likely to be ad hoc, decentralized, and potentially violent” (Epperly et al. 756). The passage cited from Epperly et al. suggests that when political elites lack the ability to systematically restrict voting through legislative means, voter suppression is more likely to take on ad hoc and potentially violent forms. This supports the sub-claim that strict voter ID laws disproportionately impact minority voters and create additional obstacles to voting. The lack of capacity or external limitations mentioned in the passage may be related to the challenges that minority voters face in obtaining the necessary identification and navigating the complex procedures associated with voter ID laws. In summary, the implementation of strict voter ID laws disproportionately impacts minority voters and creates additional obstacles to accessing the ballot box. The use of derogatory language towards Democratic voters, the various voter suppression tactics faced by citizens, and the potential for ad hoc and violent suppression all contribute to a system that undermines the fundamental right to vote for marginalized communities.  These laws are designed to make it hard for minorities to have access to the vote.The evidence presented supports the claim that voting restrictions, particularly voter ID laws, have disproportionately impacted minority voters and perpetuated historical patterns of voter suppression. The evidence shows that Native Americans have been unfairly denied citizenship and rights, that voter ID laws have been used as a modern-day poll tax and disproportionately affect African Americans, that discriminatory voting practices and laws have historically disenfranchised Hispanic Americans in Texas, and that voter suppression tactics continue to disproportionately affect minority voters. The evidence also shows that the implementation of strict voter ID laws creates additional obstacles for minority voters to access the ballot box, disproportionately impacting their ability to exercise their right to vote. Overall, these patterns threaten the democratic principle of equal representation for all. Therefore, it is necessary to address these issues and ensure that all citizens have equal access to voting.Arts & HumanitiesEnglish