<x-flowed>I would urge caution in drawing conclusions (such as Mr. Torchinsky's)
about the impact of id rules on turnout. Given the multiple
demographic, economic, and especially political factors that affect
turnout, it really is too simplistic to conclude that ID rules have "no
adverse impact on African- American voter turnout," by looking only at
whether aggregate turnout (in this case, for African Americans) went up
or down between elections where a new administrative rule intervened.
Electoral turnout is highly sensitive to a large number of factors,
some of which work to increase turnout, with others having the opposite
affect. More sophisticated techniques for measuring the effect of any
one factor need to be used. Moreover, the impact of rules like
Georgia's photo ID requirement settle in, meaning they are likely to
have larger effects over time, especially if mobilization efforts
mounted to overcome the information costs the new rules impose are
relaxed. So, it is probably too soon to tell what impact these new
rules are having on turnout.
Jason Torchinsky wrote:
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
</x-flowed>