Lori suggests:
 
 "The debate should be about disproportionate burdens that weigh most heavily on those citizens with the least material and educational resources.  Do we want those people on the margins of society voting or not?  If we do, then public policy should be designed accordingly."
 
Well, this debate is easily won by the supporters of voter ID.  In the court cases filed so far regarding voter ID laws, the Plaintiffs have not been able to identify a single person who has been denied the right to vote because of the voter ID requirement.  So the burden is zero.  Jim Bopp
 
In a message dated 12/4/2010 11:40:14 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, lminnite@gmail.com writes:

I think  we need to ask questions about the claim that "the public overwhelming favors  photo ID largely because, with or without empirical evidence, they see it as  an easy attack point on the system, and rightly or wrongly do not see  opponents of photo ID as having the made their case."

Alternative  hypothesis - the public overwhelmingly supports photo ID because the public  overwhelmingly possesses photo ID.  I have not yet seen a poll that  properly conditions the question about support for photo ID to control for the  fact that in some states over 90 percent of the voting age population has  photo ID.  The issue here never should be simple support for photo  ID.  The debate should be about disproportionate burdens that weigh most  heavily on those citizens with the least material and educational  resources.  Do we want those people on the margins of society voting or  not?  If we do, then public policy should be designed  accordingly.

Lori Minnite

On 12/4/10 11:26 AM, Smith, Brad  wrote:  

  
 
David,
 
 
 
I agree with much of what you write but  I disagree with you how you characterize the logical result of the pro-ID  argument.  I take them to be arguing that claims that there is very  little voter impersonation understate the problem, because there  is no mechanism to catch it. Thus, anecdotal evidence where people  are caught or schemes have been tried should be logically magnified,  they argue, to account for this in considering the extent of the  problem. I person caught may represent literally hundreds of people not  caught.  I do not take them to be saying that if voter ID were enacted,  it would be caught (i.e. there would be prosecutions, etc.).  Rather, I  take them to be saying that if voter ID were enacted, it would be  deterred.  
 
 
 
Thus I agree when you write:  

"As I read the debate on voter fraud, those who  argue in favor of photo IDs contend that currently there more fraud out  there in the election process than is currently detected by the existing  election rules and processes. John Fund and many others, including the  Minnesota Majority, definitely belief that. If we can take their claims at  claims at face value, they are making an EMPIRICAL claim that fraud exists  but that it is hard to detect. If that is true, then there must be a way to  test or verify their claims. Phrased otherwise, can we reformulate their  assertions into testable hypotheses?"
 

But I disagree when you  follow with:
 

"One way to test their claim is instituting photo  ID. Photo ID should reveal attempted fraud and therefore studies should be  able to demonstrate that the implementation of these IDs yields more reports  of attempted fraud."
 

Because attempted voter  impersonation would be rather foolish in a photo ID regime, it would be  expected that in such a regime there will be very few reports of  attempted fraud.  Indeed, if they had any effect, it would probably be  fewer reported attempts of fraud.
 

You are correct that this  creates a bit of an "is to,"/"is not" argument.  But from a standpoint  of enacting public policy, the public overwhelming favors photo ID largely  because, with or without empirical evidence, they see it as an easy attack  point on the system, and rightly or wrongly do not see opponents of  photo ID as having the made their case.  Thus my thought would be that  if you want to change public policy in the area, you need to focus more on  the case that the laws are burdensome than that they are not  necessary.
 

My two  cents.
 
 
Bradley A.  Smith

Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault  Designated Professor of Law

Capital University Law  School

303 E. Broad St.

Columbus, OH 43215

(614) 236-6317

http://www.law.capital.edu/Faculty/Bios/bsmith.asp
 

 

---

From: election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu  on behalf of David A. Schultz
Sent: Sat 12/4/2010 9:48  AM
To: LarryLevine@earthlink.net; election-law@mailman.lls.edu;  Mark.Scarberry@pepperdine.edu
Subject:  Re: [EL] photo IDs and detection of voter fraud

 
 
 

Maybe I am just unclear but what seems to have eluded others in my  comments is a simple proposition?debates over voter fraud and photo ID are  essentially empirical propositions and not matters of conjecture. Let me  explain my bias and the issue here.
 

Public policy should be fact-based. It should be forged not on hopes and  beliefs but upon good social science research and empirical facts to guide  decisions. Too often we act on belief, hope, conjecture, rumor, and  prejudice. None of these should be substitutes for basing policy based on  what we know or show.
 

As I read the debate on voter fraud, those who argue in favor of photo  IDs contend that currently there more fraud out there in the election  process than is currently detected by the existing election rules and  processes. John Fund and many others, including the Minnesota Majority,  definitely belief that. If we can take their claims at claims at face value,  they are making an EMPIRICAL claim that fraud exists but that it is hard to  detect. If that is true, then there must be a way to test or verify their  claims. Phrased otherwise, can we reformulate their assertions into testable  hypotheses?
 

One way to test their claim is instituting photo ID. Photo ID should  reveal attempted fraud and therefore studies should be able to demonstrate  that the implementation of these IDs yields more reports of attempted fraud.  Yet no one has produced a study to show this.
 

This then leads to a backup claim: Implementation of voter ID deters  attempted fraud. Ok, good claim but show me the evidence. If you are going  to claim it deters attempted fraud then there has to be some baseline  pre-existing fraud which you can document and that the new levels of  (attempted) fraud show a decrease from that baseline. Thus, this is again an  EMPIRICAL claim. Another way to argue this: If photo ID deters attempted  fraud then show me the evidence that supports that. Show me how attempted  fraud or fraud have decreased as a result of the implementation of the ID.  Alas, no evidence is offered because the argument is that without ID we  cannot detect and show fraud. The argument here is circular at best.
 

I would just like supporters of photo ID to be honest. They are  advocating for a public policy when they have no real empirical evidence to  show that fraud is a significant problem. Be honest like Mark and simply  state that he likes ID because it appeases voters who believe (falsely) that  fraud is a problem. Just admit that there is no real empirical evidence of  serious fraud to support your policy option and we can move on.
 

Now I happen to believe, especially after working as a housing and  economic planner and being a government administrator, and now one who  teaches public policy, that laws and policy should be based on facts and not  conjecture. I admit some fraud exists in the USA, but the levels are  minuscule. The issue is to ask a cost-benefit question. It is impossible to  have a 100% fraudless and perfect election system. Errors will exist so long  as we are humans. We need to ask what are the additional measures that can  be taken to reduce errors and fraud, how likely those measures are to work,  and what are the costs associated with those measures. It only makes sense  to ask these questions if we have real EMPIRICAL data about fraud that we  can assess.



 
David Schultz, Professor
Editor, Journal of  Public Affairs Education (JPAE)
Hamline University
School of  Business
570 Asbury Street
Suite 308
St. Paul, Minnesota  55104
651.523.2858 (voice)
651.523.3098 (fax)
http://davidschultz.v2efoliomn.mnscu.edu/
http://works.bepress.com/david_schultz/
http://schultzstake.blogspot.com/

>>>  "Scarberry, Mark" 12/04/10 1:16 AM >>>
 
 
I suppose, since Larry has joined  David in disagreeing with me, I should respond simply to say that David's  point seems to me quite unpersuasive. Proponents of photo ID do not argue that it is the lack  of a current photo ID requirement that prevents us from documenting the  full extent of current voter fraud. I haven?t heard anyone argue that photo  IDs are needed to document how much voter fraud, if any,  is now  occurring. Of course, to the extent people stupidly try to vote with  obviously false photo IDs, such attempts at voting fraud would be likely to  be detected if there were a photo ID requirement. But such stupid voter  fraud attempts are not the kind of voter fraud that proponents worry  about.

 
 
I've already stated that I agree that the evidence does  not seem to suggest widespread current voter fraud. That does not  necessarily mean it is unwise to take steps to try to ensure that voter  fraud does not become more prevalent in the future or to try to deter  whatever voter fraud may now be occurring beneath the radar or to allow  voters to have more confidence in the integrity of the voting system. If I  recall correctly, surveys indicate that many voters think it is strange that  photo ID is generally not required and that many voters would have more  confidence in the system if it were required. Perhaps someone on the list  will have the survey information at his or her  fingertips.

 

 
 
Best wishes,

Mark

 
 
Mark S. Scarberry

Pepperdine Univ. School of Law


 

---

From: Larry Levine [mailto:LarryLevine@earthlink.net]
Sent:  Fri 12/3/2010 6:57 PM
To: David A. Schultz; election-law@mailman.lls.edu;  Scarberry, Mark
Subject: Re: [EL] photo IDs and detection of voter  fraud

 
 
I'm not sure the matter of voter  confidence is relevant. I've never seen anything indicating voters lack  confidence in the process of voting. I have seen information that indicates  some voters have questions about vote counting, particularly when there is  no paper ballot or backup. So, voter confidence as a reason for photo ID  seems to be a red herring.

Neither have I seen any evidence of  wide spread voter fraud, let alone fraud that would be caught or  deterred by photo IDs, in spite of the frequency with which the issue is  raised on this list.

It seems to me that the call for  photo IDs in the political realm always comes from the same political party.  Could the entire subject be a red herring?

Larry
 

----- Original Message -----
 
From:  David A.  Schultz <mailto:dschultz@gw.hamline.edu>  
 
To: LarryLevine@earthlink.net ; election-law@mailman.lls.edu ; Mark.Scarberry@pepperdine.edu
 
Sent: Friday, December 03, 2010 2:32  PM
 
Subject: RE: [EL] photo IDs and  detection of voter fraud
 

 
Mark:
 
 
 
You are still making my point.  They will argue that current  studies fail to document the full extent of fraud because we do not have  photo IDs.  At the same time they argue that the use of IDS deters  fraud.    You cannot argue this points at the same  time.   The reason is that you have no created an assertionwhere  it is impossible to falsify either claim empirically.
 
 
 
I am not interested in what someone can assert but in what on can  prove.


 
David Schultz, Professor
Editor, Journal of  Public Affairs Education (JPAE)
Hamline University
School of  Business
570 Asbury Street
Suite 308
St. Paul, Minnesota  55104
651.523.2858 (voice)
651.523.3098 (fax)
http://davidschultz.v2efoliomn.mnscu.edu/
http://works.bepress.com/david_schultz/
http://schultzstake.blogspot.com/

>>>  "Scarberry, Mark" 12/03/10 4:06 PM >>>
   
 

The  proponents of photo ID are not arguing that it is needed to detect fraud  (so that we can know how much fraud has been occurring). Rather, they are  arguing that it is needed to prevent fraud. Most of the prevention would  result from deterrence due to the fear of detection, not from actual  detection of voter fraud. As Larry Levine?s post suggests, detection would  result only in cases of very inept attempted fraud. As he put it, if  someone shows up with photo ID that has someone else?s picture on it, that  ?would be evidence of stupidity more than fraud.?

 
As  best I can tell, the evidence is strong that currently there are few  instances of actual voter fraud of the kind that would be deterred or  detected by photo ID laws. Perhaps the stronger argument for such laws is  not that they will prevent voter fraud but rather that they will enhance  voter confidence in the system. It might also be argued that photo ID laws  will give some protection against future corruption of the voting system  by future schemes to use voter fraud to rig elections. Isn?t it the case  that such schemes have been used in the past? Isn?t it reasonable to be  concerned that they might be used again? Of course, to the extent fake  photo IDs can be obtained easily, the protection given by a photo ID  scheme is reduced. But somehow it seems less likely that people will be  willing to obtain fake photo ID for purposes of voting than that they  could be induced to show up at multiple precincts to vote using different  names.

 
Mark  Scarberry

Pepperdine  Univ. School of Law

 
 
 

From: Larry Levine  [mailto:LarryLevine@earthlink.net]  
Sent: Friday, December 03, 2010 12:39 PM
To: David A.  Schultz; election-law@mailman.lls.edu;  Scarberry, Mark
Subject: Re: [EL] photo IDs and detection of  voter fraud

 

That's the kind of evidence that will be suspect on its  face.
 
 

Larry
 

 

-----  Original Message -----

 

From: David A.  Schultz <mailto:dschultz@gw.hamline.edu>  

 

To: election-law@mailman.lls.edu ; Mark.Scarberry@pepperdine.edu  

 

Sent: Friday,  December 03, 2010 12:32 PM

 

Subject: Re: [EL]  photo IDs and detection of voter fraud

 

 
 

You make my  point exactly.

 

 
 

One cannot  simultaneously contend that photo IDs are needed to detect fraud and  then also argue that the implementation and use of them reveals no  increased fraud because it deters attempted fraud.

 

 
 

However, I  am still looking for evidence of increased detection of fraud as a  result of IDs.

 

 
 

 
 
 

David  Schultz, Professor
Editor, Journal of Public Affairs Education  (JPAE)
Hamline University
School of Business
570 Asbury  Street
Suite 308
St. Paul, Minnesota 55104
651.523.2858  (voice)
651.523.3098 (fax)
http://davidschultz.v2efoliomn.mnscu.edu/
http://works.bepress.com/david_schultz/
http://schultzstake.blogspot.com/


>>>  "Scarberry, Mark" 12/03/10 2:25 PM >>>

The  tricky point here is that voter photo ID requirements might be supported  because of uncertainty about the amount of voter fraud, but, to the  extent implementation of voter photo ID requirements deter  *attempts* to commit voter fraud (or are unsuccessful in  detecting voter fraud), little useful data will be generated. I don?t  suppose any variation in turnout could be determined to be caused by  deterrence of voter fraud, because lots of other factors are at work.  

Mark  Scarberry

Pepperdine  Univ. School of Law

 
 

From: election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu  [mailto:election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu]  On Behalf Of David A. Schultz
Sent: Friday, December  03, 2010 11:46 AM
To: election-law@mailman.lls.edu
Subject:  [EL] photo IDs and detection of voter fraud

 

One  of the arguments among advocates of photo voter IDs is that currently we  do not know the full scope of potential voter fraud without them. This  is because the fraud is undetected. There is thus an empirical argument  here. Specifically, the implementation of photo ID for voting should  reveal or detect fraud that was otherwise previously hidden.


Are  there any studies or analysis on the use of photo voter IDs that address  this issue? Have any states that have instituted photo IDs produced  numbers or stats on changes in reported or detected fraud? I would be  interested to see or know about these studies for a paper I am  constructing.


Thank  you.

 

David  Schultz, Professor
Editor, Journal of Public Affairs Education  (JPAE)
Hamline University
School of Business
570 Asbury  Street
Suite 308
St. Paul, Minnesota 55104
651.523.2858  (voice)
651.523.3098 (fax)
http://davidschultz.v2efoliomn.mnscu.edu/
http://works.bepress.com/david_schultz/
http://schultzstake.blogspot.com/

---

_______________________________________________
election-law  mailing list
election-law@mailman.lls.edu
http://mailman.lls.edu/mailman/listinfo/election-law

_______________________________________________
election-law mailing list
election-law@mailman.lls.edu
http://mailman.lls.edu/mailman/listinfo/election-law

_______________________________________________
election-law  mailing  list
election-law@mailman.lls.edu
http://mailman.lls.edu/mailman/listinfo/election-law

---

_______________________________________________
election-law mailing list
election-law@mailman.lls.edu
http://mailman.lls.edu/mailman/listinfo/election-law