[EL] new ID data

[Justin Levitt]

With respect, the study that Jonathan linked to may well be the most 
thorough empirical analysis of the impact of voter ID laws _on turnout_ 
thus far (and I look forward to reading it more thoroughly, and seeing 
whether it solves some of the problems with modeling turnout effects of 
single election laws that Erickson and Minnite 
<http://www.columbia.edu/%7Erse14/erikson-minnite.pdf> have identified).

But as I've written <http://ssrn.com/abstract=2017228>, laws increasing 
barriers to entry have an impact beyond the marginal person who voted 
last time.  A law permanently prohibiting any person who didn't vote in 
2008 from voting in the future would have shown only a modest effect on 
aggregate turnout, at least in the short run -- the vast majority of 
2012 voters were also 2008 voters.  But I would not say that such a law 
has only a minimal impact.

If you're only looking at turnout, that's better than just looking at 
the outcome of a Presidential race ... but it's still only part of the 
impact.

Justin


On 7/23/2013 10:33 AM, Jonathan Rodden Stanford wrote:
> Re: [EL] new ID data I haven't seen it posted on this list yet, so 
> here is a link to what is by far the most thorough empirical analysis 
> of the impact of voter id laws:
>
> http://kyledropp.weebly.com/uploads/1/2/0/9/12094568/dropp_voter_id.pdf
>
> Best,
> Jonathan
>
>
>
> On 7/23/13 10:10 AM, "Rick Hasen" <rhasen at law.uci.edu> wrote:
>
>       I'd add that a .3 swing is a pretty significant risk of swinging
>     a swing state even if one were concerned only about presidential
>     elections.
>
>     On 7/23/13 10:06 AM, Justin Levitt wrote:
>
>
>
>         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
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20130723/f827e3ec/attachment.html>