[EL] voter ID backlash after the election?

Fri Jul 1 10:11:05 PDT 2011

While it may be true that ID policy is not a "new policy that creates new
politics" (as Schattschneider said) we do often see, if you watch closely,
that policy implementation leads to some "feedback" in the system that has
real effects. I wouldn't hold by breath given how cut-throat things seem in
state politics, but I could see some revision or loss of momentum on this
issue as cases of ill effects come to light. Something similar happened
after welfare reform in some states; the fact that the public was for
"reform" didn't mean that state officials and politicians (sometimes the
very same over the entire period) began to liberalize the policies shortly
after the draconian policies were put into place. Often this was done
quietly.

An example at the federal level was the relaxation of restrictive rules  on
noncitizen participation in food stamps during the first couple years of the
Bush (fils) Adminstration. This was done in part to court Latinos and in
part because some realized they had gone overboard with the 1990s policy
change based on feedback (and research) that it was causing hardship. It's
unlikely that the public supported this move (the "public" may not have had
a strong opinion on it, but I'd guess the public wouldn't have been for it
if it was explained...then again people tend to like food stamps more than
cash assistance, even though food stamps is very largely just like a cash
transfer too when you work its impact on household budgets out).

Doug

On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 12:39 PM, Milyo, Jeffrey D. <milyoj at missouri.edu>wrote:

> In the spirit of the holiday, I'll join the parade.
>
> There are indeed studies to suggest the correlations that Paul speaks of
> (and no doubt many more in the offing), but the line of research is
> tendentious (I'm not really sure what that word means, but I've always been
> impressed when other people use it, so hopefully the smart folks on this
> list will infer some coherent meaning to my statement).  I think many folks
> would quibble with the way in which "racial resentment" is measured in those
> studies, and therefore what exactly, if anything, they show.  That said,
> within the accepted definitions and practices of the extant literature,
> Paul's claim is entirely defensible.   But the spirit of Mark's objections
> and his intuition about definitions and biases are right on point.  Oh, and
>  I agree with Charles, too.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Scarberry,
> Mark
> Sent: Friday, July 01, 2011 11:12 AM
> To: Paul Gronke; Charles Stewart III
> Cc: Doug Hess; Election Law
> Subject: Re: [EL] voter ID backlash after the election?
>
> I'm sorry, but such statements are not nonjudgmental, and it is not a
> further detour into Tea Party issues to ask for some backup. The questions
> that are asked on such surveys, the definition of the categories (such as
> authoritarianism and racial resentment), and the interpretation of the
> results may have a very substantial effect on the conclusions to be drawn.
> Possible biases of researchers or possibly dubious and value-laden
> assumptions undergirding standards used in particular fields of study should
> not be ignored.
>
> References to the studies, preferably on line, would be appreciated.
>
> To the extent that authoritarianism is considered to include campus speech
> codes, closed union shops, a large administrative bureaucracy, organized
> public workers using political muscle to require other citizens to fund
> lavish pensions, government regulation that makes formation and operation of
> small businesses difficult, imposition of values by judges over public
> opposition, or features of what might be called the nanny state
> (requirements that bicycle riders wear helmets, smoking bans, etc.), I'd be
> surprised to see Tea Party members scoring high on authoritarian scales.
> (Full disclosure: My wife is allergic to cigarette smoke, and we're very
> grateful that smoking has been banned in most enclosed public places in
> California. And Brown v. Board was a necessary and just judicial action that
> went against much public opinion. So call me an authoritarian.)
>
> To the extent that authoritarianism includes a desire for serious
> punishment of criminal behavior or similar matters, I wouldn't be surprised.
>
> My sense is that many Tea Party supporters would consider themselves to be
> somewhat libertarian rather than authoritarian. Paul even refers to the
> "libertarian wing of the GOP / Tea Party." But I haven't seen the empirical
> literature and would appreciate getting references.
>
> Mark S. Scarberry
> Professor of Law
> Pepperdine Univ. School of Law
> Malibu, CA 90263
> (310) 506-4667
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Paul Gronke
> Sent: Friday, July 01, 2011 8:28 AM
> To: Charles Stewart III
> Cc: Doug Hess; Election Law
> Subject: Re: [EL] voter ID backlash after the election?
>
> Charles raises an interesting issue, and as usual, I agree with him.
>
> One twist might be if the libertarian wing of the GOP / Tea Party sees this
> as governmental intrusion, but I've seen little indication of this.  Survey
> data has also shown a strong relationship between measures such as
> authoritarianism, racial resentment, and racial and ethnic stereotyping
> among respondents who profess affiliation with the Tea Party.  Given that
> support for voter ID shows some of the same correlations, I would not expect
> a libertarian backlash.
>
> (I do NOT want this to detour into a debate on the Tea Party, which is why
> I've kept the remarks above purposely non-judgmental.  The correlations I
> refer to are, in my mind, an empirical fact, replicated across many surveys.
>  I'll leave the substantive interpretation to others.)
> ---
> Paul Gronke     Ph:   503-517-7393
>                        Fax: 503-661-0601
>
> Professor, Reed College
> Director, Early Voting Information Center
> 3203 SE Woodstock Blvd
> Portland OR 97202
>
> EVIC: http://earlyvoting.net
>
>   _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20110701/2f21602b/attachment.html>