[EL] different ID rules (and other rules) by age?

[Michael McDonald]

Well, we couldn’t use a survey to crunch the numbers. As Pennsylvania Judge
Simmons noted, we can only know about the people who answer the survey:

“This is because his survey is incapable of identifying individuals who need
to be contacted for public outreach and educations purposes, beyond the
survey’s 2300 respondents. For this important reason, his approach is given
significantly less weight than the approach employed by DOS and PennDOT”
(p.14). 

I would laugh if this were not so sad.

Judge Simmons also expressed concern about the survey sample universe being
"...'eligible' voters, as opposed to registered voters" (p.13). What is
chilling about this is once a group is disfranchised such that they cannot
register, say by a discriminatory (in the broad meaning, not necessarily
racial) registration practices, Judge Simmons would allow any additional
tests as long as they only affected those who could not register. Once the
wall is built, it is okay to build it high and reinforce it with steel and
concrete.

Sigh.

To do the Indiana analysis one might be able to merge the voter registration
file, which would hopefully have method of voting and age, with precinct
level elections results to do an ecological inference analysis of persons'
vote preferences, by age.

============
Dr. Michael P. McDonald
Associate Professor, George Mason University
Non-Resident Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution

                             Mailing address:
(o) 703-993-4191             George Mason University
(f) 703-993-1399             Dept. of Public and International Affairs
mmcdon at gmu.edu               4400 University Drive - 3F4
http://elections.gmu.edu     Fairfax, VA 22030-4444

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
[mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Robbin
Stewart
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2012 9:39 PM
To: Doug Hess
Cc: Election Law
Subject: Re: [EL] different ID rules (and other rules) by age?

Indiana has a photo ID set of statutes that vary by age. For those over 65,
there is universal absentee balloting as an alternativer for those without
ID.  For those under 65, the absentee voter must be handicapped or out of
the county on election day. 
The Michigan case held that voter ID is constitutional when there's
universal absentee balloting as an alternative; I think this is probably
correct. I can see a rational basis for allowing the elderly to vote
absentee, but I think a stricter standard needs to be applied. The over-65
group has different preferences that the under 65, so rules that make it
easier for them to vote can change the outcome. We have data from 2006 that
shows that absentee voting tripled in the first election voter was required,
but I haven't seen any data since then.

The Indiana constitution has two equal protection clauses that can be
applied to voting.

In League of Women Voters v Rokita, plaintiffs cited to Article I section
23, a general equal protection clause. But after Collins v Day held that
section 23 requires deference to the legislature, nobody cites to it
anymore, and the League lost at the Indiana Supreme Court based on Collins v
Day. The other clause is Article II section I, "elections shall be free and
equal." This clause has been relied on in the Missouri and Wisconsin cases,
but has not been fully litigated in Indiana. There is some authority in the
older cases for this clause to mean something like strict scrutiny.

I have been wondering if the disparate treatment of the under 65 group can
be found to state a claim under the 26th Amendment, which requires the state
to allow 18-21 year-olds to vote. There have been basically no cases on this
amendment, so I have no idea what standard a court would apply, and whether
it applies to vote dilution as well as complete prohibition.

I think that Indiana's voter ID is now ripe for an as-applied challenge, by
someone with the resources to conduct discovery, have experts crunch the
numbers, and show that the outcomes are being affected, in ways that are
relevant to the 4-part Anderson test.
Such a case should raise First Amendment issues, and try to show a severe
burden under Norman v Reed, but would more likely be judged under the
Anderson standard - which is potentially winnable, with the right data.
Should also raise 24th A, VRA, and anything else that seems to fit.
But I don't have those resources.


On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 4:08 PM, Doug Hess <douglasrhess at gmail.com> wrote:
 
Do many state photo ID laws have rules that differ based on age? 
 
I'm just thinking through the basic fairness problem this sets up: if you're
64 you could have a harder time voting than your 66-year old spouse,
assuming you both have and lack the same kinds of ID. Does age determine
policy in other areas of election administration? I.e., if you are over a
certain age you have an easier time requesting an absentee ballot, etc.? If
so, why? Is it that age is being used as a proxy for disability or
transportation limitations?
 
I guess it gets to the heart of the issue: different citizens in the same
state have unequal probabilities of facing a barrier. Perhaps cataloging
those potential differences and thinking of them as probabilities, tallies
of paths to the ballot, or as total costs will make estimating and
explaining who is harmed more apparent than just estimated total numbers or
percents of the population.
 
For instance, one group is "people over age X" who are are allowed to have
recourse to Y procedure and can use some list of IDs, compared to "people
who rent with utilities included" who will have fewer forms of ID and don't
get recourse to Y procedure, compared to those in the uniformed services who
may be required by the service to have a certain ID that counts for voting
that nobody else could use and also don't have recourse to Y procedure but
are the only ones that have recourse to Z procedure if they are overseas,
etc.. I'm just making these scenarios up, but seems to me such a chart would
help highlight how the number of "hurdles to the ballot box" differ for
various groups (of course, many people may be in more than one group, but
still ... ).  I guess this could also be done as a decision tree chart or a
creative designer could impact this information like a "Candy Cane" game
board, if you are this kind of person you get to jump ahead, but if you are
another kind of person, you get detoured onto a longer route.
 
BTW, that the judget in PA seems to think that 1% is ok because it's less
than the percentage some expert gave goes to show that comparisons of
numbers play odd tricks on people. Did he say why 1%, or was it "more than
1% but less than whatever," was acceptable? One percent of the adult citizen
population in PA is a large number of people. (Or did the news reports not
portary this correctly? Was this debate not important to the judge's
conclusions? I confess I didn't read the decision.)

Douglas R. Hess, PhD
Washington, DC
202-955-5869
douglasrhess at gmail.com  

The information contained in this email is confidential and may contain
proprietary information. It is meant solely for the intended recipient(s).
Access to this email by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not the
intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action
taken or omitted in reliance on this is prohibited and may be unlawful.

_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election