[EL] new ID data

[Justin Levitt]

What's also missing in this analysis is concern about anything other 
than the final outcome of a Presidential race.

Yes, the piece 
<http://www.newrepublic.com/article/113986/voter-id-north-carolina-law-hurts-democrats> 
finds that "the electoral consequences of voter ID seem relatively 
marginal," by noting that with ID, Obama's final share of the North 
Carolina vote might have dropped from 48.3 to 48%.

But the piece also notes that this latest data reveals that there are 
somewhere around 319,000 registered voters currently without a 
state-issued photo ID, "just" (just!) 138,425 of whom participated in 
the 2012 general election.  There is no estimate of the number of 
currently unregistered but eligible voters who don't now have a 
state-issued photo ID, but it's got to add to the pile.

For those who think the most important measure of the impact of an 
electoral policy is the outcome of a Presidential race, why have a 
national election at all?  Polling science is pretty good: we could just 
declare the winner of every state where the margin of victory is larger 
than the margin of error in several consecutive polls in the last week 
of October, and only bother with actually letting people vote in the 
very few states where polls don't deliver a clear answer.  Holding an 
election seems like a really expensive way to confirm the 
pretty-much-guaranteed winner.  Or, put differently, if you're just 
focused on Presidential outcome, "the electoral consequences of holding 
an election seem relatively marginal."

Justin

-- 
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

On 7/23/2013 9:24 AM, Rick Hasen wrote:
>
>
>     "Finally, Real Numbers on Voter ID"
>     <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53331>
>
> Posted on July 23, 2013 9:21 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53331> 
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Nate Cohn 
> <http://www.newrepublic.com/article/113986/voter-id-north-carolina-law-hurts-democrats>:
>
>     These data leave no question about whether voter ID laws have a
>     disparate impact on non-white voters. In that sense, Democratic
>     fears and Republican hopes are confirmed. But the North Carolina
>     data also suggests that voter ID laws are unlikely to flip the
>     outcome of a national election, even if it does have an
>     objectionable, disparate impact on non-white and
>     Democratic-leaning voters. That doesn't mean it couldn't play a
>     role in a close election---and close elections do happen. But
>     Republicans expecting to flip Pennsylvania or Democrats fearing
>     that Republicans will steal elections with voter ID should be
>     circumspect about the comparatively modest electoral consequences.
>     Many of the registered voters without a photo ID just aren't
>     voting and 40 percent of them are probably voting Republican. If
>     you want voter ID because you think you'll steal Pennsylvania, or
>     you're opposed because you're concerned it's a Democratic
>     apocalypse, move on. It's not the apocalypse, even if it is an
>     affront to voting rights.
>
> That's pretty much the conclusion I drew last year in /The Voting Wars 
> <http://www.amazon.com/The-Voting-Wars-Election-Meltdown/dp/0300198248/ref=tmm_pap_title_0?ie=UTF8&qid=1329286945&sr=1-2-catcorr>/.  
> What's missing from this analysis is the role that the voter id debate 
> plays on both sides in driving up turnout and spurring fundraising.
>
> Posted in election administration 
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, The Voting Wars 
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60> | Comments Off

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20130723/e0b8edf9/attachment.html>