[EL] Turnout
Justin Levitt
levittj at lls.edu
Thu Feb 16 09:04:16 PST 2012
As Rick knows, I agree completely
<http://www.brennancenter.org/blog/archives/still_jumping_to_conclusions/>
that isolating the effect of one particular law on turnout is
exceptionally difficult, and leads to overstated claims. And that we
need better data about the real impact of policy proposals, which means
better data about the status quo.
But I'm not sure I agree with the implication that even if turnout is
only affected on the margin, that the "effects" of a policy are
therefore "minuscule," even though that's a meme that's easy to get
sucked in to in the heat of the horse-race. (For what it's worth, I
suspect it's an implication that Rick doesn't agree with either.)
Incremental turnout change is only one measure of a functioning election
system.
Some "minuscule" turnout effects can, will, and do change the result of
photo-finish races.
Turnout effects also capture _only_ the relative impact of policy on
people who voted last time, and completely ignore the impact on eligible
first-time electors or the incremental impact on those who have not
recently voted. (And as he pointed out in a post two days ago
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=29890>, the fact that 51 million citizens
are unregistered has very little to do with turnout (most of the
unregistered didn't vote in the previous election), but is a fact of
rather momentous significance, not to be missed
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=29890>.)
And finally, for any individual voter (or, for that matter, for election
administrators), the effects of a policy may be quite substantial, even
if the turnout needle doesn't move much overall. That's why policies
that are unjustified by real need should be questioned, even if the
impact on turnout is comparatively small. A law preventing all
individuals named "Justin Levitt" from voting will have a minuscule
effect on turnout (though I understand some might argue that it serves a
real need). But that's not the only relevant metric, and sometimes not
even the most important one.
Justin
On 2/16/2012 8:36 AM, Rick Hasen wrote:
>
>
> How many voters actually deterred by new Republican voting laws?
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=29665>
>
> Posted on February 16, 2012 8:30 am
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=29665> by Rick Hasen
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Regular readers of this blog know that I believe that Republican
> claims of a serious problem with voter impersonation fraud (used to
> justify voter identification laws) are bogus. As I explain in
> theFraudulent Fraud Squad sneak preview
> <http://www.amazon.com/Fraudulent-Fraud-Squad-Understanding-ebook/dp/B00795X5XI/ref=zg_bs_157417011_9>of
> my forthcoming book, /The Voting Wars/ <http://amzn.to/y22ZTv>, many
> Republican legislators and political operatives support voter i.d.
> laws for two purposes: first, to depress Democratic turnout, and
> second to gin up the base. On this second point, consider this quote
> (included in /Fraudulent Fraud Squad)/ from a Republican operative in
> New Mexico to U.S. Attorney David Iglesias urging an indictment of an
> ACORN employee before the next election:
>
> I believe the [voter] ID issue should be used (now) at all
> levels---federal, state legislative races and Heather [Wilson]'s
> race. . . *. You are not going to find a better wedge issue.* . .
> . I've got to believe the [voter] ID issue would do Heather more
> good than another ad talking about how much federal taxpayer money
> she has put into the (state) education system and social security.
> . . . This is the single best wedge issue, ever in NM. We will not
> have this opportunity again. . . . Today, we expect to file a new
> Public Records lawsuit, by 3 Republican legislators, demanding the
> Bernalillo county clerk locate and produce (before Oct 15) ALL of
> the registrations signed by the ACORN employee.
>
> Iglesias did not bring that indictment as was sacked for his failure
> to pursue bogus voter fraud claims.
>
> But there's another side to the issue of voter identification laws,
> and more broadly to claims on the left of "voter suppression."
> Democrats/those on the left sometimes inflate the potential negative
> effect of voter identification and other laws on voter turnout,
> especially among poor and minority voters. Even though it is clear
> that some Republicans are motivated to pass these laws in an effort to
> suppress likely Democratic turnout, some of those efforts are
> counterproductive and even when such efforts work the effects seem
> likely to be small. Further, just as Republicans use the scare of
> voter id laws as a wedge issue to boost Republican turnout, Democrats
> use the scare of voter suppression to boost Democratic turnout. Check
> out the Donna Brazile fundraising letter excerpted in my chapter.
>
> In my recent chair lecture based on the forthcoming book, I include is
> a set of slides showing how the Brennan Center's press release
> <http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/study_new_voting_restrictions_may_affect_more_than_five_million/>
> about its report
> <http://www.brennancenter.org/page/-/Democracy/VRE/Brennan_Voting_Law_V10.pdf>
> on new GOP-backed voter laws was transformed by those on the left.
> The press release was headlined "Study: New Voting Restrictions May
> Affect More than 5 Million." The release and the report are cautious
> in saying "may" and "could" about the 5 million figure but the left
> ran with the study as evidence of voter suppression and the GOP "War
> on Voting." For example, a Daily Kos diarist had a headline
> <http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/10/27/1030459/-5-Million-Voters-have-been-targeted-by-the-GOP-school-of-Election-Engineering>:
> "5 Million Voters Have Been Targeted by GOP School of Election
> Electioneering" and Rolling Stone had a headline
> <http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/national-affairs/gop-war-on-voting-new-laws-could-block-five-million-from-polls-20111003>:
> "GOP War on Voting: New Laws Could Block 5 Million from Polls."
>
> But it seems that social science has a lot of work to do now to track
> whether voting laws passed by Republican legislatures actually depress
> much turnout. There's been some work on voter id laws, the best of
> which shows likely a very small effect, but very hard to measure.
> There's too much work like a recent NPR report
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=28855> (/not/ done by the excellent Pam
> Fessler) which casually extrapolated from the number of voters
> currently lacking identification in states with new id laws to
> conclusions about how the new laws would ultimately affect voter turnout.
>
> My book will give illustrations of other examples where the effects
> had to be minuscule, as in the New Hampshire phone jamming case. But
> some of the other areas are ripe for study. For example, from the
> Brennan Center report's executive summary
> <http://brennan.3cdn.net/34876f1cabd6d0e252_kwm6id7l7.pdf> explaining
> how they got to their 5 million person figure:
>
> *5. One to two million voters who voted in 2008 on days eliminated
> under new laws rolling back early voting*. The early voting period
> was cut by half or more in three states (Florida, Georgia and
> Ohio). In 2008, nearly 8 million Americans voted early in these
> states. An estimated 1 to 2 million voted on days eliminated by
> these new laws.
>
> Many of these voters who voted on days eliminated by the new laws will
> simply vote on a different early voting day, vote by absentee (if
> allowed), or vote on election day. It would be nice to have a handle
> on how turnout actually is affected by these new voting laws It is
> likely that far fewer than one to two million people who voted on
> election day in 2008 won't vote in 2012 because of the elimination of
> some early voting days. Turnout may go down in this election,
> especially if Democrats are not as enthused to vote in 2012 as they
> were in 2008, but that will have nothing to do with the elimination of
> early voting days. So it is important to be careful when drawing
> conclusions about turnout and election laws (just as when then
> Indiana- SOS Rokita made the completely unsubstantiated claim that the
> state's new voter id laws caused turnout to go /up/ in 2008.).
>
> In short, we need to be honest about what we know, and what we don't
> know, about the effects of these new laws on voter turnout. And we
> don't know a lot.
>
--
Justin Levitt
Associate Professor of Law
Loyola Law School | Los Angeles
919 Albany St.
Los Angeles, CA 90015
213-736-7417
justin.levitt at lls.edu
ssrn.com/author=698321
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120216/b967b4a6/attachment.html>
View list directory