[EL] Voter ID isn't a game-changer (paraphrasing)
Joe La Rue
joseph.e.larue at gmail.com
Tue Jul 23 19:29:00 PDT 2013
Thank you Justin. I appreciate your thoughtful response.
On Jul 23, 2013, at 6:45 PM, Justin Levitt <levittj at lls.edu> wrote:
> Well, confidence in the integrity of an election runs both ways. If you're worried that people are voting who shouldn't be, you'll feel less confident in the integrity of the election. If you're worried that eligible people would like to vote but are having unnecessary difficulty, you'll also feel less confident in the integrity of the election. The only actual empirical research that I've seen (a study by Ansolabehere and Persily) found no statistically significant correlation between the presence of ID laws and voters' confidence in the integrity of their elections. And I think I've seen (but can't immediately cite) other research that finds the largest driver of voter confidence in the integrity of an election (by far) to be whether the voter's favored candidate won or lost.
>
> All of this is a discussion of tradeoffs. I'm all in favor of measures to increase security that don't have significant negative impacts on real eligible citizens. I have to think harder about measures to increase security to deal with real, serious problems that also have significant negative impacts on real eligible citizens. I tend not to favor measures to increase security that aren't necessary to deal with serious problems and that also have significant negative impacts on real eligible citizens. And particularly where measures ostensibly designed to increase security are likely to drive real fraudsters to a voting method with more known fraud risk (e.g., absentee voting), while negatively impacting real eligible citizens, I wonder if the outcome is suited to produce security or security theater.
>
> So for me, no, it's not the concept of an ID that's anathema (though I know others on the list feel differently). It's part of why I keep saying that ID laws are not all the same, and that the differences between (say) RI and TX are meaningful. The less pragmatic possibility that an eligible citizen who wants to vote ends up out in the cold, the less objectionable. In that vein, I thought Ross Miller's suggestion in Nevada was intriguing, particularly if -- a significant if -- it could be implemented smoothly and evenly: if you've got ID when you get to the polls, show it, and otherwise, we'll take your picture.
>
> Justin
>
>
> On 7/23/2013 6:14 PM, Joe La Rue wrote:
>> Which brings up an interesting point, Justin. There may be inequal travel costs for some people. But I, and you, had to miss work to get an ID. Isn't that just part of our responsibility in being good citizens?
>>
>> Further, what about the cost to public confidence in our elections by allowing more cases of voter fraud? I accept the Progressive premise that such fraud is slight and unlikely to flip an election - for now. But I still don't like it. And every election, I am forced to wonder how many people voted fraudulently in states without ID laws. I'm not alone. Many are losing confidence in the integrity of our elections.
>>
>> For me, and the many like me, it's not about keeping the poor, or Black or Latino people, or Democrats from voting. It's about making sure that those who vote and ultimately choose our public officials are qualified to do so.
>>
>> Consequently, I would happily embrace a law that made it super easy for anyone here legally, and qualified to vote, to get an ID, if the same law required the production of such an ID to vote. Would you likewise support that? Or is the very concept of an ID anathema?
>>
>> On Jul 23, 2013, at 5:53 PM, Justin Levitt <levittj at lls.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> Solely to the first point: even if the cards are free, the underlying documents aren't. Neither is the trip to the DMV (which, in Texas, the court found may be 100-125 miles away, one-way, without a driver's license), or the wages lost in traveling to the DMV during working hours.
>>>
>>> Saying that the ID card is free is like saying that dinner at any restaurant is free. You just have to pay for the purchase, preparation, and delivery of the food, and the time at the table. But the eating is free.
>>> --
>>> 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 5:37 PM, Joe La Rue wrote:
>>>> Two quick sets of questions in reply. First, is it not true that in most states proposing voter ID laws these days, ID cards would be given to the indigent for free? If so, how can you claim that voter ID laws "target" the "underclass?"
>>>>
>>>> Second, you assume that those who do not pay traffic fines lack the ability to do so. Is it not possible that many simply refuse to pay because they think themselves above the law? Regardless, if one believes himself too poor to pay traffic fines, shouldn't he choose to obey - rather than break - traffic laws? What has happened to personal responsibility?
>>>>
>>>> On Jul 23, 2013, at 10:14 AM, "Thomas J. Cares" <Tom at TomCares.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I'd like to chime in quickly (though I could write tens of thousands of words evaluating how the nuances - big and small - of our democratic republic disparage effective representation for America's underclass/struggling).
>>>>>
>>>>> Voter ID may circumstantially disparage non-whites and/or Democrats, but that's not the primary descriptor for those upon whom its target falls - our underclass: those who don't bank, travel, drive, etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> It may never be a game changer in determining the nationally dominant party [FN 1], but that doesn't mean it's not significant in further disparaging effective representation for the underclass.
>>>>>
>>>>> While there are surely thousands, I'll include one example of how this manifests.
>>>>>
>>>>> If I remember some old research correctly, a plurality of misdemeanor convictions in California are for driving on a suspended license and (unless I remember incorrectly, in which case I apologize for the error) most of those misdemeanor-conviction-yielding suspensions are for failure to pay traffic fines.
>>>>>
>>>>> ...We give people misdemeanors for simultaneously being indigent and doing something which most adult livelihoods depend on.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's without a voter ID law - possibly just an effect of the partisan primaries (before top two was implemented), which were almost-always the only deciding election in legislative contests and had very low turnouts of which indigents were negligible..
>>>>>
>>>>> I do suspect that some legislators simply prefer to be more in the service of the affluent and comfortable than the poor and struggling; particularly, I think some concern is owed to the intra-party effects of voter ID.
>>>>>
>>>>> I recall there was once puzzlement on this listserv about Rhode Island's democratic legislature adopting voter ID.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's not a puzzle. There are democratic legislators who'd prefer to further imbalance the influence and representation of affluent and comfortable democrats over those not-so-economically-comfortable.
>>>>>
>>>>> In summary, I wouldn't dismiss it being an "apocalypse" for the hope of getting policy-makers and the organism of government to care about those who don't have cars or bank accounts.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -Thomas Cares
>>>>>
>>>>> FN 1. However, when you compound many distorting factors such as gerrymandering, disparate per-capita influence resulting from the US Senate and Electoral College, and then add on new things like Voter ID (and the bill described in the second post below, etc), I wouldn't write off that 'aggregated distortions' can surely determine the nationally dominant party.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 9:24 AM, Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu> wrote:
>>>>>> “Finally, Real Numbers on Voter ID”
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Posted on July 23, 2013 9:21 am by Rick Hasen
>>>>>> Nate Cohn:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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. 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <share_save_171_16.png>
>>>>>> Posted in election administration, The Voting Wars | Comments Off
>>>>>> “North Carolina Republicans Push Extreme Voter Suppression Measures”
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Posted on July 23, 2013 9:17 am by Rick Hasen
>>>>>> Ari Berman’s latest:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here are the details, via North Carolina State Senator Josh Stein (D-Wake County):
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If anyone had any doubt about the bill’s intent to suppress voters, all he/she has to do is read it. The bill now does the following:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *shortens early voting by 1 week,
>>>>>> *eliminates same day registration and provisional voting if at wrong precinct,
>>>>>> *prevents counties from offering voting on last Saturday before the election beyond 1 pm,
>>>>>> *prevents counties from extending poll hours by one hour on election day in extraordinary circumstances (like lengthy lines),
>>>>>> *eliminates state supported voter registration drives and preregistration for 16/17 year olds,
>>>>>> *repeals voter owned judicial elections and straight party voting,
>>>>>> *increases number of people who can challenge voters inside the precinct, and
>>>>>> *purges voter rolls more often.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Meanwhile, it floods the democratic process with more money. The bill makes it easier for outside groups to spend on electioneering and reduces disclosure of the sources. It also raises the contribution limits to $5k per person per election from $4k and indexes to amount to rise with inflation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <share_save_171_16.png>
>>>>>> Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off
>>>>>> “RECENT HITS (for all papers announced in the last 60 days) TOP 10 Papers for Journal of LSN: Election Law & Voting Rights (Topic)”
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Posted on July 23, 2013 9:06 am by Rick Hasen
>>>>>> I’ll try to post the SSRN Recent Hits in this area every two months:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> RECENT HITS (for all papers announced in the last 60 days)
>>>>>> TOP 10 Papers for Journal of LSN: Election Law & Voting Rights (Topic) <rss_small.png>
>>>>>> May 24, 2013 to July 23, 2013
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Rank Downloads Paper Title
>>>>>> 1 167 The Seventeenth Amendment and Federalism in an Age of National Political Parties
>>>>>> David Schleicher,
>>>>>> George Mason University – School of Law, Faculty,
>>>>>> Date posted to database: May 25, 2013
>>>>>> Last Revised: May 25, 2013
>>>>>> 2 163 Three Wrong Progressive Approaches (and One Right One) to Campaign Finance Reform
>>>>>> Richard L. Hasen,
>>>>>> University of California, Irvine – School of Law,
>>>>>> Date posted to database: July 15, 2013
>>>>>> Last Revised: July 19, 2013
>>>>>> 3 150 Shelby County and the Illusion of Minimalism
>>>>>> Richard L. Hasen,
>>>>>> University of California, Irvine – School of Law,
>>>>>> Date posted to database: July 9, 2013
>>>>>> Last Revised: July 9, 2013
>>>>>> 4 76 A Reply to Professors Cain and Charles
>>>>>> Lawrence Lessig,
>>>>>> Harvard University – Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics, Harvard Law School,
>>>>>> Date posted to database: July 4, 2013
>>>>>> Last Revised: July 4, 2013
>>>>>> 5 70 Fixing 501(c)(4): Recalibrating the Tax Subsidy for Lobbying and Political Activity
>>>>>> David S. Miller,
>>>>>> Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft,
>>>>>> Date posted to database: June 7, 2013
>>>>>> Last Revised: June 7, 2013
>>>>>> 6 61 Alexander’s Genius
>>>>>> Mitchell N. Berman,
>>>>>> University of Texas School of Law,
>>>>>> Date posted to database: May 23, 2013
>>>>>> Last Revised: June 12, 2013
>>>>>> 7 47 Corruption Temptation
>>>>>> Guy-Uriel E. Charles,
>>>>>> Duke Law School,
>>>>>> Date posted to database: May 31, 2013
>>>>>> Last Revised: May 31, 2013
>>>>>> 8 47 Photo ID, Provisional Balloting, and Indiana’s 2012 Primary Election
>>>>>> Michael J. Pitts,
>>>>>> Indiana University – Robert H. McKinney School of Law,
>>>>>> Date posted to database: June 13, 2013
>>>>>> Last Revised: July 8, 2013
>>>>>> 9 37 A Cure Worse than the Disease?
>>>>>> Ellen D. Katz,
>>>>>> University of Michigan Law School,
>>>>>> Date posted to database: May 31, 2013
>>>>>> Last Revised: June 6, 2013
>>>>>> 10 35 The Election Law Connection and U.S. Federalism
>>>>>> Kirsten Nussbaumer,
>>>>>> Stanford University,
>>>>>> Date posted to database: July 17, 2012
>>>>>> Last Revised: June 11, 2013
>>>>>> <share_save_171_16.png>
>>>>>> Posted in pedagogy | Comments Off
>>>>>> Archived Webcast of UCI Law Supreme Court Term in Review Now Available
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Posted on July 23, 2013 9:00 am by Rick Hasen
>>>>>> Watch here: [corrected link]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mario Barnes, UCI Law
>>>>>> Joan Biskupic, Reuters
>>>>>> Erwin Chemerinsky, UCI Law
>>>>>> Miguel Estrada, Gibson Dunn (DC office)
>>>>>> Adam Liptak, New York Times
>>>>>> Doug NeJaime, UCI Law
>>>>>> Moderated by Rick Hasen, UCI Law
>>>>>> <share_save_171_16.png>
>>>>>> Posted in Supreme Court | Comments Off
>>>>>> “Watchdogs’ Filing Reminds FEC that it Has No Authority to Declare Federal Laws Unconstitutional”
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Posted on July 23, 2013 8:56 am by Rick Hasen
>>>>>> See here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <share_save_171_16.png>
>>>>>> Posted in campaign finance | Comments Off
>>>>>> “Michele Bachmann says Barack Obama can use executive order to give voting rights to illegal immigrants legalized under Senate bill”
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Posted on July 23, 2013 8:55 am by Rick Hasen
>>>>>> PANTS ON FIRE!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <share_save_171_16.png>
>>>>>> Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off
>>>>>> “The Aftermath of Shelby County v. Holder: Will Voting Rights Be Diminished?”
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Posted on July 23, 2013 8:53 am by Rick Hasen
>>>>>> Norman Siegel and Janos Marton blog.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <share_save_171_16.png>
>>>>>> Posted in Voting Rights Act | Comments Off
>>>>>> “OPEN Act Would End Secret Corporate Political Spending”
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Posted on July 23, 2013 8:52 am by Rick Hasen
>>>>>> Corporate Counsel reports.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <share_save_171_16.png>
>>>>>> Posted in campaign finance | Comments Off
>>>>>> “House Committees Want IRS Chief Counsel’s Documents”
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Posted on July 23, 2013 8:51 am by Rick Hasen
>>>>>> Corporate Counsel reports.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <share_save_171_16.png>
>>>>>> Posted in campaign finance, tax law and election law | Comments Off
>>>>>> “IRS Scrutinized Some Liberal Groups”
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Posted on July 22, 2013 7:40 pm by Rick Hasen
>>>>>> Politico reports.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <share_save_171_16.png>
>>>>>> Posted in campaign finance, tax law and election law | Comments Off
>>>>>> “Julius Henson ‘Robo Call’ Verdict Affirmed by Md. Appeals court”
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Posted on July 22, 2013 7:38 pm by Rick Hasen
>>>>>> AP: “Maryland’s second-highest court has affirmed the verdict in the election fraud trial of a campaign consultant involving Election Day automated calls that prosecutors said were aimed at keeping Black voters from the polls.”
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Via Robbin Stewart, who offers some thoughts about the case.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <share_save_171_16.png>
>>>>>> Posted in chicanery | Comments Off
>>>>>> “FEC To Vote To Treat Married Same-Sex Couples Equally”
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Posted on July 22, 2013 7:33 pm by Rick Hasen
>>>>>> TPM reports.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <share_save_171_16.png>
>>>>>> Posted in campaign finance, federal election commission | Comments Off
>>>>>> Hey, If You Love or Hate Rick Pildes’s Post on Election Fraud and the Civil War…
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Posted on July 22, 2013 4:00 pm by Rick Hasen
>>>>>> then address your comments to him about this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I’ve been getting lots of email.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <share_save_171_16.png>
>>>>>> Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off
>>>>>> “Super PACs, other independent political groups already setting pace for 2016 presidential race”
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Posted on July 22, 2013 3:32 pm by Rick Hasen
>>>>>> WaPo reports.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <share_save_171_16.png>
>>>>>> Posted in campaign finance | Comments Off
>>>>>> Jack Balkin’s Teaching Notes for Shelby County
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Posted on July 22, 2013 3:29 pm by Rick Hasen
>>>>>> They are here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We cover much the same ground in the 2013 Election Law casebook supplement.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And I take much of the same viewpoint as Jack in my APSA paper, Shelby County and the Illusion of Minimalism.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <share_save_171_16.png>
>>>>>> Posted in Supreme Court, Voting Rights Act | Comments Off
>>>>>> Justice Scalia, Statutory Interpretation and Godwin’s Law
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Posted on July 22, 2013 12:34 pm by Rick Hasen
>>>>>> Via the NYT Taking Note blog.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dynamic statutory interpretation apparently leads to Naziism.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <share_save_171_16.png>
>>>>>> Posted in statutory interpretation | Comments Off
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Rick Hasen
>>>>>> Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science
>>>>>> UC Irvine School of Law
>>>>>> 401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
>>>>>> Irvine, CA 92697-8000
>>>>>> 949.824.3072 - office
>>>>>> 949.824.0495 - fax
>>>>>> rhasen at law.uci.edu
>>>>>> hhttp://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/
>>>>>> http://electionlawblog.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> 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/20130723/b6992a2e/attachment.html>
View list directory