[EL] PA voter id opinion

[Morgan Kousser]

     Being at least as interested in the facts as in the law, the part 
of Judge Simpson's opinion that I had a hard time understanding, and on 
which I'd appreciate some guidance from people on the Election Law list, 
is just why the judge on pp. 10-14 rejected both the matching evidence 
and Matt Barreto's survey evidence.  I know a fair amount about the 
problems with matching names (which historians have been discussing for 
30 years, and which were extensively discussed in the expert reports in 
the TX voter id case), but I don't understand exactly why Judge Simpson 
discounted the 9% estimate here.  He doesn't say much in footnote 16.  
And when I read Barreto's report when it was linked to on the list 
earlier, I thought the idea of asking respondents if they had the exact 
ids necessary to satisfy the PA vid requirement was ingenious.  I had 
thought that the point of the Barreto report was to get a handle on the 
likely general effect of the law, but the judge didn't seem to 
understand it that way.
     These aren't philosophical or partisan questions, and I don't mean 
to open up another one of those discussions on the List.  I'm genuinely 
puzzled and want to be enlightened.  If Judge Simpson had concluded that 
the law would disfranchise a lot of people, he seemingly would have 
enjoined it even under a rational basis standard, so the factual 
determination seems pretty crucial.
Morgan
-- 

Prof. of History and Social Science, Caltech
surface mail:  228-77 Caltech, Pasadena, CA 91125-7700
phone 626-395-4080, fax 626-405-9841
home page: <http://www.hss.caltech.edu/~kousser/Kousser.html 
<http://www.hss.caltech.edu/%7Ekousser/Kousser.html>>
   . . . without the clarity that makes doubt productive, historians 
will never be able to fulfill their highest moral responsibility, to 
build a better world . . .
                       -- from "The New Postmodern Southern Political 
History"
   Perfection . . . in /any/ institution is a dangerous myth; there is 
only the repeated correction of imperfections.  As long as there is 
discrimination, there will always be more work to do.
                        -- from "The Strange, Ironic Career of Section 5 
of the Voting Rights Act"
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120815/47ac66fb/attachment.html>