From: "Justin Levitt" <LevittJ@juris.law.nyu.edu>
To: "<Jason Torchinsky" <JTorchinsky@holtzmanlaw.net>
Cc: <election-law@majordomo.lls.edu>
Subject: Re: Photo ids and voter turnout


Jason correctly cites the DOJ's letter to Senator Bond.  I note, however, =
three limitations of the DOJ's analysis:
=20
First, neither Georgia's original identification provision nor HAVA =
required the voter to show _photo_ ID.
=20
Second, none of the other states (Florida, Alabama, Louisiana, and =
Virginia) cited as having identification requirements purportedly similar =
to Georgia's H.244 actually required the voter to show photo ID; all of =
them allowed the voter either to show nonphoto ID or to submit a sworn =
affidavit confirming his or her identity.
=20
Third, the DOJ's turnout statistics do not attempt to isolate the effect =
of identification requirements on turnout; they merely note that turnout =
increased among African-Americans from 1996 to 2000, and again from 2000 =
to 2004, and also that some identification requirements were introduced =
during this period.  I understand that there may be significant methodologi=
cal difficulties with attempting to isolate the particular effects of an =
identification requirement * which is the sort of study that I understood =
David Schultz to be seeking.  Nevertheless, it seems an unwarranted =
logical leap to conclude from an overall increase in turnout in two of the =
most closely contested elections in recent history that identification =
requirements have no adverse impact on turnout, particularly among =
minority communities.
=20
Justin Levitt