Voter Identification Legislation and Mediation - Assignment Example

Voter Identification Legislation and Mediation Ramifications of Voter Identification Legislation The voter-identification laws are regarded as a hot issue in the politics of America. There are many ramifications that have been witnessed in the country in the recent years related to the issue of Voters Identification. This has led to most citizens to regard these laws as being unconstitutional, vague, confusing or in some occasions impossible to apply them as they violet the voter’s rights (Savage, 2011). This situation has led to several cases on the same issue being presented to the court’s corridors. Some of the cases cannot get to the courts but still have to be settled. Such a situation calls for a mediation party to step in and resolve the matter. One of the famous mediation initiatives in the history of America involved Holder stepping in to address the rights on voting. The Holder Jr. mediation had the minority voters and poor people vs. the Justice Department being the primary parties as the issue involved the two with the Justice Department doing injustice to the minority voters. In this case, Attorney Holder Jr. stepped in to address the minorities voting groups claims that the Justice Department had made it harder for them to participate in the voting exercise (Savage, 2011). In his mediation process, Holder promised these voting groups that new laws on elections had to be enacted and the laws will be in such a way that they will not discriminate any voting group. To achieve this, he had to hear out the side of the Justice Department as they played a role in enacting such laws. Holder went ahead to suggest that new discrimination laws patterns had to be put in place for the best interests of the nation. According to him, the main reason for such conflicts was the manner in which race had continued to posses many officials serving the state. The Justice Department was also accused of standing in the way of the meeting that was to take place in Louisiana parish which excluded officeholders that were black (Savage, 2011). This showed that the Justice Department was the main cause of this conflict. Holder went ahead to point out that such kinds of fraud were witnessed too infrequently to be used as a basis for this discrimination. The end result was that the states that had been affected by this issue ended up adopting registration systems for voters that were not cumbersome and allowed every citizen to exercise their basic right. 2) Why is mediation appropriate for this conflict instead of negotiation or another form of conflict resolution? Cite references. Mediation proved to be the best means of settling the above conflict as the only way out was facilitate an agreement between the Justice Department and the minority voters groups. The issue did not call for a forced agreement but a diplomatic one, a solution that both the parties involved would settle for. Both the parties had the right to better understand the situation before them and understand the stand taken by the other party. The minority group had to be aware of the measures taken by the Justice Department and the Justice department on the other hand had to understand the voting rights of every citizen. Such a situation needed a separate caucusing so as to be able to accommodate both the factual and emotion issues involved in the issue. Negotiation could as well be applied in this case but some negotiation conditions could not be accommodated in this situation. A negotiation calls for the parties involved in a conflict to directly participate in the final decision. This was not possible in the above situation as there was no way the Justice department would seat down and negotiate with the minority groups on how the voting laws should to be adjusted to accommodate their interests. The situation needed a third party that was in a position to address the issue through considering the stands of the respective parties. Negotiation would also mean that the decision reached at in the above situation was fair and comfortably agreed upon by the two parties. This was an issue of the law and the prevailing laws had to be followed or new laws to be enacted thus called for a mediator who was well vast with the law and held a high profile in the judicial system of the country (Savage, 2011). The other possible means is the arbitration approach. The method is similar to the court sessions just that in this case, the process is conducted outside the court room. This method involves the arbitrator listening to what the involved parties have to say about the conflict, then with his or her own judgment settle for a fair solution. This method could not be applied in the above case now that there was no way Holder could have the minority voter groups and the Justice Department seat down as he hears out their respective sides of the conflict. The process also involves the parties presenting their evidence on the conflict in form of testimonies, documents and exhibitions. This evidence is then based on to assist the arbitrator in settling the issue. In the case in question, there was no issue of evidence being presented and Holder had to base his judgment on what the law demanded in such a situation. Arbitration is normally applicable in cases involving contracts containing clauses which state that in the event of any arising issue, an arbitrator is the one to be conducted. This automatically ruled out a case on election voting. Different Mediator Moves during Storytelling/Needs Identification 1. Constructive Conversation Constructive conservation has been regarded by most mediators as being a significant mediation root when it comes to transformative situations. This is because this mediation move is distinctly rational as it embraces the participation of all the parties involved in the issue in a constructive dialogue. This was witnessed in the way Holder resolved on encouraging the minority parties of a possible solution of having the existing laws on voters be amended so as to accommodate the interests of all the voting groups and to do away with any discrimination, be it on a minority or a major group. The move also embraces two transformative framework dimensions which include; recognition and empowerment. What Holder did in this case was to make both parties to feel both recognized and empowered during the mediation process. He made sure that the minority voting groups felt that they were being recognized by the law and at the same time have the Justice Department still feel empowered to making laws (Savage, 2011). Constructive conversation also helps the parties involved to understand that the decision reached at is not a matter of victory to either the party but a decision that has taken into consideration all possible consequence regarding the two parties. Holder made the two parties especially the Justice Department to understand that the decision was not to the interest of the minority group but to the interest of the nation. This move was appropriate to this case as it ensured both the Justice Department and the minority voters group understand the importance of the final decision and they were all contended that it was fair to either the parties. This move can be supported by the following phrase “I see my role as a mediator to assist you in settling this matter. So that, I’m not going to be making any judgments about what I think is best for you” (Savage, 2011) 2. Parties Orientation to Their Own Agency This move used by mediators makes the parties to understand their own ability to achieve certain goals or to exert power in the process of mediation. This strategy is directly connected to empowerment as it makes the parties to feel that they have the power to act as well as to make decisions. This will leave the two parties believing that the mediator is non-partisan and he or she assumes a central role in the mediation process. In the case in question, Holder made the minority voting groups understand their rights according to the law making them feel they were justified to table their complains. On the other hand, Holder made sure that the Justice Department was still in charge of the situation by making it clear that their move was unlawful but that could be amended. This can be simply stated using the phrase, “Though you two have your eyes and hopes directed to me, this issue is not me but rather about you coming up with the best working solution.” (Savage, 2011) 3. Supporting the Parties “Conflict Talk” This move is a key strategy in transformative situations. By this strategy, the mediator allows the parties to share the negative aspects they have on the other party. By doing this, the mediator will easily identify the main cause of the issue and the best possible way of solving the situation. Holder listened to the reasons the Justice Department claimed led them to take such measures and also accommodated the minority voting groups complains on how they were treated by the Justice Department. One of the famous phrases related to this move is “Pointing fingers point to where the solution is” (Savage, 2011) Reference Savage, C., (2011). “Holder Speaks Up for Voting Rights.” New York Times, December 14, 2011 Read More