[EL] more news 10/8/14
Rick Hasen
rhasen at law.uci.edu
Wed Oct 8 09:44:35 PDT 2014
Breaking: WI Voter ID Challengers File New Stay Request at #SCOTUS
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66511>
Posted onOctober 8, 2014 9:40 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66511>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
This new request
<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/14A-Emergency-Application-for-a-Stay-LULAC.pdf> from
the challengers to Wisconsin's voter id law seeks a stay of the judgment
on the merits issued by the 7th Circuit while the first stay request was
pending before the Supreme Court. (Here ismy analysis
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66413>of that 7th circuit opinion). It is
not clear whether this new request for a stay is necessary, but it does
seem a prudent course to make sure that the new opinion does not moot
the question of the propriety or the precipitous rollout of voter ID in
Wisconsin just weeks before the election (a separate question from
whether Wisconsin voter id is legal if rolled out in an orderly and
reasonable way).
The challengers late last nightalso filed this reply
<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/14A-Emergency-Application-for-a-Stay-LULAC.pdf>to
Wisconsin's opposition to the original stay request.
Whether the new request will delay a ruling on the first stay request is
not clear. AlreadyI would have expected a Court
ruling<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66469>in at least the North
Carolina case.
A ruling on NC and the two WI requests could come at any time, although
Justice Kagan could ask WI to reply to the new request.
Stay tuned.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D66511&title=Breaking%3A%20WI%20Voter%20ID%20Challengers%20File%20New%20Stay%20Request%20at%20%23SCOTUS&description=>
Posted inelection administration
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,Supreme Court
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>,The Voting Wars
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>,voter id
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9>,voter registration
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=37>,Voting Rights Act
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
GAO Report on Voter ID Laws Finds Laws Can Decrease Voter Turnout,
Finds Measuring In Person Voter Fraud Difficult
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66509>
Posted onOctober 8, 2014 8:36 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66509>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
From the summary of the report,Issues Related to State Voter
Identification Laws
<http://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/gao-report-voter-identification-laws-2014?inline=file>:
What GAO Found
The studies GAO reviewed on voter ownership of certain forms of
identification
(ID) documents show that most registered voters in the states that
were the
focus of these studies possessed the selected forms of state-issued
ID, and the
direct costs of required ID vary by state. GAO identified 10 studies
of driver's
license and state ID ownership, which showed that estimated
ownership rates
among all registered voters ranged from 84 to 95 percent, and that
rates varied
by racial and ethnic groups. For example, one study estimated that
85 percent of
White registered voters and 81 percent of African-American
registered voters in
one state had a valid ID for voting purposes. The costs and
requirements to
obtain certain forms of ID, including a driver's license, state ID,
or free state ID,
vary by state. GAO identified direct costs for these forms of ID in
17 states that
require voters to present a photo or government-issued ID at the
polls and do not
allow voters to affirm their own identities, and found that driver's
license direct
costs, for example, range from $14.50 to $58.50.
Another 10 studies GAO reviewed showed mixed effects of various forms of
state voter ID requirements on turnout. All 10 studies examined
general elections
before 2008, and 1 of the 10 studies also included the 2004 through 2012
general elections. Five of these 10 studies found that ID
requirements had no
statistically significant effect on turnout; in contrast 4 studies
found decreases in
turnout and 1 found an increase in turnout that were statistically
significant.
GAO conducted a quasi-experimental analysis to compare voter turnout in
Kansas and Tennessee to turnout in the four comparison states that
did not have
changes in their voter ID requirements from the 2008 to 2012 general
elections.
In selecting these states from among 14 potential states that
modified their ID
requirements and 35 potential comparison states, GAO applied
criteria to ensure
that the states did not have other factors present in their election
environments
that may have significantly affected turnout. GAO selected states
that did not
experience contemporaneous changes to other election laws that may have
significantly affected voter turnout; had presidential general
elections where the
margin of victory did not substantially change from 2008 to 2012 and
all other
statewide elections, such as U.S. Senate races, were non-competitive
in both the
2008 and 2012 general elections; and ballot questions were not present,
noncompetitive, or similarly competitive in both the 2008 and 2012
general
elections. GAO analyzed three sources of data on turnout among
eligible and
registered voters, including data from official voter records and a
nationwide
survey. GAO's evaluation of voter turnout suggests that turnout
decreased in two
selected states---Kansas and Tennessee---from the 2008 to the 2012
general
elections (the two most recent general elections) to a greater
extent than turnout
decreased in the selected comparison states---Alabama, Arkansas,
Delaware,
and Maine. GAO's analysis suggests that the turnout decreases in
Kansas and
Tennessee beyond decreases in the comparison states were attributable to
changes in those two states' voter ID requirements. GAO found that
turnout
among eligible and registered voters declined more in Kansas and
Tennessee
than it declined in comparison states---by an estimated 1.9 to 2.2
percentage
points more in Kansas and 2.2 to 3.2 percentage points more in
Tennessee---
and the results were consistent across the different data sources
and voter
populations used in the analysis.
To further assess the validity of the results of this analysis, GAO
(1) compared
Kansas and Tennessee with different combinations of comparison
states and
with individual comparison states, and (2) controlled for demographic
characteristics that can affect turnout, such as age, education,
race, and sex.
GAO also conducted an analysis using survey data on registrants from
Kansas
and Tennessee and a nationwide comparison group of all states other
than the
selected comparison states. These additional analyses produced
consistent
results. GAO's estimates are limited to turnout in the 2012 general
election in
Kansas and Tennessee and do not apply to other states or time periods.
GAO also estimated changes in turnout among subpopulations of
registrants in
Kansas and Tennessee according to their age, length of voter
registration, and
race or ethnicity. In both Kansas and Tennessee, compared with the four
comparison states, GAO found that turnout was reduced by larger amounts:
. among registrants, as of 2008, between the ages of 18 and 23 than
among
registrants between the ages of 44 and 53;
. among registrants who had been registered less than 1 year than among
registrants who had been registered 20 years or more; and
. among African-American registrants than among White,
Asian-American, and
Hispanic registrants. GAO did not find consistent reductions in
turnout among
Asian-American or Hispanic registrants compared to White
registrants, thus
suggesting that the laws did not have larger effects among these
subgroups.
A small portion of total provisional ballots in Kansas and Tennessee
were cast for ID reasons in 2012, and less than half were counted.
In Kansas, 2.2 percent of all provisional ballots in 2012 were cast
due to ID reasons, and 37 percent of these provisional ballots were
counted. In Tennessee, 9.5 percent of all provisional ballots in
2012 were cast due to ID reasons and 26 percent were counted.
Provisional ballots cast for ID reasons may not be counted for a
variety of reasons in Kansas and Tennessee, including the voter not
providing valid ID during or following an election. GAO's analysis
showed that provisional ballot use increased between the 2008 and
2012 general elections by 0.35 percentage points in Kansas and by
0.17 percentage points in Tennessee, relative to all other
comparison states combined; these findings are not generalizable.
Challenges exist in using available information to estimate the
incidence of in person voter fraud. For the purposes of this report,
"incidence" is defined as the number of separate times a crime is
committed during a specific time period. Estimating the incidence of
crime involves using information on the number of crimes known to
law enforcement authorities---such as crime data submitted to
a central repository based on uniform offense definitions---to
generate a reliable set of crime statistics. Based on GAO's review
of studies by academics and others and information from federal and
state agencies, GAO identified various challenges in information
available for estimating the incidence of in-person voter fraud that
make it difficult to determine a complete picture of such fraud.
First, the studies GAO reviewed identified few instances of
in-person voter fraud, but contained limitations in, for example,
the completeness of information sources used. Second, no single
source or database captures the universe of allegations or cases of
in-person voter fraud across federal, state, and local levels, in
part because responsibility for addressing election fraud is shared
among federal, state, and local authorities. Third, federal and
state agencies vary in the extent they collect information on
election fraud in general and in-person voter fraud in particular,
making it difficult to estimate the incidence of in-person voter fraud.
In comments on draft report excerpts the Kansas, Tennessee, and
Arkansas Secretary of State Offices disagreed with GAO's criteria
for selecting treatment and comparison states and Kansas and
Tennessee questioned the reliability of one dataset used to assess
turnout. GAO notes that any policy evaluation in a non-experimental
setting cannot account for all unobserved factors that
could potentially impact the results. However, GAO believes its
methodology was robust and valid as, among other things, GAO's
selection of treatment and comparison states controlled for factors
that could significantly affect voter turnout, and GAO used three
data sources it determined to be reliable to assess turnout effects.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D66509&title=GAO%20Report%20on%20Voter%20ID%20Laws%20Finds%20Laws%20Can%20Decrease%20Voter%20Turnout%2C%20Finds%20Measuring%20In%20Person%20Voter%20Fraud%20Difficult&description=>
Posted inelection administration
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,The Voting Wars
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>,voter id
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9>
Texas Appeals Court Sides with Texas Democrats Over King Street
Patriots in Campaign Finance Case <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66506>
Posted onOctober 8, 2014 8:27 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66506>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
You can read the 30 page opinionat this link
<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/KSP.opinion.pdf>.
King Street Patriots engages in "poll watching" and other activities and
has leadership overlapping with True the Vote.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D66506&title=Texas%20Appeals%20Court%20Sides%20with%20Texas%20Democrats%20Over%20King%20Street%20Patriots%20in%20Campaign%20Finance%20Case&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,chicanery
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>,The Voting Wars
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
--
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
http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/
http://electionlawblog.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20141008/71a5e769/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20141008/71a5e769/attachment.png>
View list directory