I must take issue with my former colleague's Jason's post, which is
substantively incomplete, and in places inaccurate.
First, the Georgia photo ID law passed in 2005 (and enjoined by the federal
court), along with the new law passed in Georgia last week, are not at all
"similar" to the laws listed by Jason. In all of those states listed,
including Florida, and in Georgia prior to the passage of the 2005 photo ID
law, voters did NOT have to show a photo ID. They had to show one of
approximately 17-20 forms of identification that the legislature determined
only the voter could gain access to, like government issued photo ID, but
also non-government photo ID (like student IDs, etc.), or non-photo ID (like
utility bills, bank statements, etc.). Even if the voter did not have one
of these many forms of ID, the voter was STILL allowed to cast a REGULAR
ballot, so long as they signed an affidavit under penalty of perjury
affirming they were who they said they were. To my knowledge, I have never
heard of a single instance of fraud relating to any such affidavit, and no
voters were turned away under these laws. Therefore, there were sufficient
safeguards to prevent any negative impact on minority turnout.
The 2005 Georgia law (and the newly-passed Georgia law) require a voter to
show one of only 5-6 forms of government issued photo ID. If voters do not
have such an ID with them (either because they don't have it, they lost it,
it was stolen, or they forgot to bring it with them), they are DENIED to
right to cast a regular ballot. They have two choices -- either they can
vote a provisional ballot, and hope to get the requisite ID to the county
registrar just a few days after the election, or they get turned away. The
only other state to currently hold elections under such a law is Indiana,
which also passed their law (which is in litigation right now) in 2005.
Thus, as Dan Tokaji correctly points out, there have been no statewide
elections held under the new restrictive photo ID laws, so the jury is still
out. However, I will note that though many in the legislature and in the
minority community asked for it, the legislators who pushed these laws
through the Georgia legislature refused to provide any evidentiary support
for the need for or effect of this law. No evidence of voter impersonation
fraud has been offered to justify the law (and as Michael McDonald
convincingly points out, the name-matching done by newspapers is so flawed
as to have no evidentiary value, even though it purported to demonstrate
that, at most, approximately .01% of votes -- a remarkably low number -- in
Georgia over a 20 year period may have been cast by ineligible voters).
Indeed, the evidence suggests that there is no evidence of such fraud in
Georgia (as the Secretary of State testified), and if it does occur, as Hans
von Spakovsky suggests, it occurs in absentee ballots (which have
liberalized requirements under the new Georgia law, and which are expressly
excluded from the severe ID requirement -- absentee voters, which are
disproportionately white and wealthy nationwide and in Georgia, don't need
to show any ID at all to vote in Georgia). No real evidence of minority
impact was offered, though it's the state's burden of demonstrating no
retrogressive effect, and though they could easily have compared the voter
rolls (which include race in Georgia) to the drivers' license records to
determine how many voters did not have the requisite ID (and if that
percentage was disproportionately minority).
Therefore, it's disingenuous to draw any conclusions from the turnout levels
in these states, and it's even more problematic when one considers that
turnout in general increased nationwide between the 1996 and 2000
presidential elections, and even more between 2000 and 2004 (1996 had the
lowest overall turnout for a presidential election since before 1960).
Finally, as for the letter to Kit Bond, this properly belongs with the Ohio
letters from June, 2005 and the two contradictory 2005 Arizona letters sent
regarding provisional balloting. Prior to 2005, it was unheard of, and
expressly against DOJ policy to issue any kind of advisory or conclusory
opinion about the legality of any law or practice. If DOJ investigation
resulted in a determination that no lawsuit would be filed, a simple letter
to that effect would be sent (as in the recent case of Vista, CA). DOJ
expressly kept out of situations where lawsuits might be filed, but where
the DOJ concluded that it would not be filing a lawsuit. However, the
recent letters listed above are of a new character, and have several of the
same characteristics -- they all came in anticipation of lawsuits that might
be or were filed shortly thereafter, they all support Republican positions,
and they all read like defense briefs. There's a good reason that such
letters were not offered by DOJ in the past -- it is not the DOJ's job to
defend state enactments or actions EVER.
That said, I appreciate Jason's posts, though I think this one was off the
mark. And Jason, I promise not to troll for your past campaign
contributions! ;-)
David J. Becker
Election Consultant and Voting Rights Attorney
(202) 550-3470
(202) 521-4040 fax
david.j.becker@electionconsulting.com
www.electionconsulting.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu
[mailto:owner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu] On Behalf Of Jason
Torchinsky
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 11:41 AM
To: David Schultz; election-law@majordomo.lls.edu
Subject: RE: Photo ids and voter turnout
DOJ said the following in a letter to Senator Bond in October of 2005
(which can be found here:
http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/voting/misc/ga_id_bond_ltr.htm ):
Election data from Georgia as well as other states with voter
identification requirements likewise reveals that, contrary to the
presumptions of some, voter identification provisions have had no
adverse impact on African-American voter turnout. For example, in the
November 2000 election, the first presidential election in which
Georgia's original identification requirement was in effect, the Census
Bureau reported that turnout of eligible African-American voters
increased from the 1996 election, from 45.6% to 49.6%. White voter
turnout, on the other hand, declined slightly from 52.3% to 52.2% after
the voter identification requirement. In the November 2004 presidential
election, when the new identification requirements of the Help America
Vote Act of 2002 ("HAVA") were first effective nationwide,5 the Census
Bureau reported that the turnout among African-American voters in
Georgia went up again, from 49.6% to 54.4%.
Other states with large minority populations, including Florida,
Alabama, Louisiana, and Virginia, have identification requirements
similar to those in Georgia, yet have had no negative effect on the
turnout of minority voters according to available data. Florida, for
example, passed an identification requirement in 1998. Yet
African-American turnout in the presidential election, as a percentage
of registration, actually increased from the 1996 to the 2000 election,
and, significantly, at a higher rate than white turnout. After Alabama
passed an identification requirement in 2002, the turnout rate of its
African-American voters as a percentage of registration rose by 8.3
percentage points from the 2000 to the 2004 presidential election, or
over twice the rate of increase among white voters, and the turnout rate
among African-American voters in Alabama actually exceeded that of white
voters.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu
[mailto:owner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu] On Behalf Of David
Schultz
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 7:04 PM
To: election-law@majordomo.lls.edu
Subject: Photo ids and voter turnout
There is a proposal being introduced in the MN legislature to mandate
photo ids for voting.
Can anyone refer me to studies that look at th eimpact of these ids on
voter turnout?
What has happened in Georgia with this requirement?
Thanks.
David Schultz, Professor
Hamline University
Graduate School of Management
MS-A1740
1536 Hewitt Avenue
St. Paul, Minnesota 55104
651.523.2858 (voice)
651.523.3098 (fax)
http://davidschultz.efoliomn2.com