[EL] Rhode Island, outlier

Sun Jul 29 13:19:56 PDT 2012

(Writing as a former RI state rep.)
There's a substantial anti-immigrant sub-current in RI politics right now, and the voter ID bill can be seen as wrapped up in the various efforts to crack down on immigration.  (There's also a fair amount of Black-Brown tension.)   Note that Rhode Island's also an outlier among Dem-leaning states in the extent to which restrictions on various aspects of immigration have been enacted or have come close to being enacted.  The state has a very active, remarkably bipartisan, Tea Party.  
It's not shocking that voter ID passed the legislature. though it is somewhat surprising that Chafee signed it.  (But it's definitely among the "softest" ID requirements.  The sponsors and such envision it as a third way of sorts.)  
The RI Dem Party is a big tent: There's a large and powerful conservative bloc within it.  The Dems have typically held on the order of 85-90% of seats in the legislature, with perhaps 25-30% of said Dems actively identifying as conservative.  The only Dem member of ALEC's governing board is a rep from RI who's pushed voter ID, E-verify, other such legislation.  
This means that people who might run as Repubs in another state instead end up pulling the Dem-branded governing caucus to the right -- if those 25% of Ds who are conservative ran and won as Repubs instead, without changing any of their beliefs, the effect would actually be to move the output of the legislature to the _left_.  From their perch within the Dem Party, they help choose and influence the workings of leadership.  
The passage of these bills in RI is the function of a tragicomedy of sorts, the messiness of awkward personalities bumping into each other, etc, more than of any broad institutional effort to suppress votes.  (I'm sure that's the intent of some number of actors involved, but it's absolutely not the intent of the Speaker, Senate Prez, Governor, the Dem Party apparatus.)  It's weak-kneed Dems kowtowing to a right-wing coalition to which they attribute too much power and before which they cower far too easily, cutting deals with individuals or small sub-blocs of their governing coalitions, etc. 

Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2012 08:53:24 -0400
From: lminnite at gmail.com
To: law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] Rhode Island, outlier

    I think an institutional analysis and a more informed understanding
    of American political history is in order.  It's important to look
    beyond parochial politics here.  What ties the recent wave of voter
    ID laws together is what ties them to past efforts to suppress
    voting, and that is, the strategic maneuvering of political parties
    to gain advantage by manipulating access to the ballot.  Both
    parties have done this and one, in particular, continues the
    tradition.  They've even worked together to obstruct voting for
    third parties, as when, for example, Democrats and Republicans in
    New York City got together in the 1940s to do away with proportional
    voting because voters were electing too many minorities and
    Communists.   

    Sometimes the institutional logic of the two-party system causes
    parties to mobilize voters, but more often than not - because
    mobilizing voters is difficult, messy and disruptive to existing
    party coalitions - it has meant using the rules (among other
    tactics) to suppress the vote for opponents.  There is an
    institutional logic to this in the incentive structure of a
    competitive two-party plurality/winner-take-all system.  (My
    co-authors and I elaborate on the logic in Keeping Down the
      Black Vote: Race and the Demobilization of American Voters,
    The New Press, 2009.)  The logic also applies to one-partyism
    because factionalism or insurgency or racial conflict create
    divisions ripe for exploitation and vote suppression by the rules
    (efforts by northern urban Democratic machines to suppress voting
    and thwart the electoral aspirations of liberal, black insurgent
    Democratic mayoral candidates in the 1960s provides one important
    example).

    In terms of partisanship and race, the Rhode Island case is an
    important outlier, but as an exception it does not make the rule
    that voter ID bills have been overwhelmingly introduced, voted for
    and signed into law by Republicans, often against very strong, even
    dramatic opposition by Democrats.  That's why the focus has been on
    Republicans.  

    I think as has been mentioned on this list before, the Rhode Island
    voter ID law is distinguished from other recently enacted photo ID
    laws by the ease with which voters can comply - for example, my
    understanding is that unlike any other state with a photo ID law, a
    student ID from any educational institution in the U.S. will be
    accepted, and for voters who lack ID, a signature match on a
    provisional ballot will suffice (the law doesn't go fully into
    effect until 2014).  Rhode Island experts should weigh in to
    confirm.

    Lori Minnite

    On 7/29/12 7:41 AM, Soren Dayton wrote:

    I will point out that the sponsor in both the state
      House and the state senate were African American Democrats. 

      It is fascinating to me how the Rhode Island case is
        neglected in every discussion of this. It is comical to read the
        NYT attacks on Republican voter ID at every step and listing
        states, but conspicuously ignoring RI.

      Similarly the New America Foundation did a recent event and
        skipped Rhode Island and talked about  voter ID like it started
        in Texas, completely ignoring Georgia and Indiana. One might
        think that SCOTUS clearance of a voter ID bill, written by one
        of the liberals, would be important.

      I guess not. It is hard to make that politics.

        On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 7:25 AM,
          Gaddie, Ronald K. <rkgaddie at ou.edu> wrote:

          OFFLIST

            Hi Chandler-

            The size of the non-white population in Rhode Island
            increased 2000-2010,from 15% of the population to 25% of the
            population. Most of that growth is non-citizen, Latino
            population.  I'd be curious to see whether there are other
            states with similar minority population growth, and also
            Democratically-controlled.

            Here are the details of the Rhode Island law:

            The following documents can be used to demonstrate identity
            to vote: Rhode Island driver's license; voter identification
            card;  U.S. passport; Identification card issued by a U.S.
            educational institution;  U.S. military identification card;
             Identification card issued by the U.S. government or state
            of Rhode Island; Government-issued medical card.

            Until 2014, one can also use these forms of ID:  Birth
            certificate;  Social security card; Government-issued
            medical card.

            The voter can also cast a provisional ballot.

            Best,

            Keith

            Ronald Keith Gaddie, Ph.D.

            Professor of Political Science

            Editor, Social Science Quarterly

            The University of Oklahoma

            455 West Lindsey Street, Room 222

            Norman, OK  73019-2001

            Phone 405-325-4989

            Fax 405-325-0718

            E-mail: rkgaddie at ou.edu

            http://faculty-staff.ou.edu/G/Ronald.K.Gaddie-1

            http://socialsciencequarterly.org

            ________________________________________

            From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
            [law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu]
            on behalf of Chandler Davidson [fcd at rice.edu]

            Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2012 6:14 AM

            To: law-election at uci.edu

            Subject: [EL] Rhode Island, outlier

                RI is the only one of 10 states to adopt a photo ID
                voting requirement since 2011 that did not have a
                Republican governor and legislature.  What are the most
                significant differences between RI's new law and that of
                the other nine?

                _______________________________________________

                Law-election mailing list

                Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu

                http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election

                _______________________________________________

                Law-election mailing list

                Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu

                http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election

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

_______________________________________________
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/20120729/a656a25c/attachment.html>