I have to weigh in here in favor of Doug Hess's suggestion.
Far too many debates in the area of election administration have relied on anecdotes and storytelling. Attempts to analyze the impact of various laws, rules, and procedures in a systematic fashion are hampered by the paucity of data. (Doug Chapin made this point compellingly in a recent electionline Director's Note about the EAC's EAVS survey.)
With respect to voter ID, some of the smartest people that I know in my discipline have attempted to understand the impact of voter ID. Doug is very familiar with these studies, and I suspect that he feels, as I do, that however sophisticated the methodology, the lack of good data makes reliable conclusions almost impossible.
It remains embarrassing that, ten years after Bush v. Gore and eight years after HAVA, that we still don't know what would seem to be the most basic pieces of information about the performance of our election system: how many people try to turn out to vote, how many actually check in and are attempt to fill out a ballot, and how many fill out the ballot for the various races.
I disagree that this creates an unreasonable burden on poll workers. This is not rocket science. We already have sophisticated electronic pollbooks. I am not a technology person, but it does not seem to me unreasonable to create an entry field on an electronic poll book that is designated "VOTER ID FAIL" and if that button is pressed, immediately the screen prompts "ENTER REASON 1, 2, 3 ..."
Similarly, if a voter ID is being compared to something--presumably a paper printout--then include some fields for the poll worker to check off on the paper printout. After all, and sorry for the all caps, but you are DENYING A CITIZEN THE RIGHT TO VOTE. It's not asking too much, is it, to record the reason why?
---
Paul Gronke Ph: 503-517-7393
Fax: 734-661-0801
Professor, Reed College
Director, Early Voting Information Center
3203 SE Woodstock Blvd
Portland, OR 97202
EVIC: http://earlyvoting.net
On Apr 6, 2011, at 7:08 AM, Doug Hess wrote:
I certainly agree that the laws are misguided, but if they must go
forward collecting some data on who is turned away may be the best way
to help demonstrate discriminatory impact, or even than they are
burdensome, or ensure that people's rights are not violated.
Otherwise, we will only be left with a bunch of academics arguing over
regression studies and judges uncertain as to what it all means.
Ignoring the other survey idea (which could be designed to be
non-intrusive through sampling), requiring that some data is recorded
each time somebody is turned away due to ID policy would be one of the
best ways to make sure that people are not improperly turned away in
the future, etc. If we have to live with these laws (which I'd rather
we do not for the reasons many have given in the past).
No?
Doug
On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 9:51 AM, Estelle Rogers <erogers@projectvote.org> wrote:
I agree that burdening already-streesed pollworkers should be avoided.
That's just one more reason that onerous, unnecessary, and
politically-motivated ID laws are such a bad idea!
Estelle H. Rogers, Esq.
Director of Advocacy
Project Vote
202-546-4173, ext. 310
The information contained in this email is confidential and may contain
proprietary information. It is meant solely for the intended recipient(s).
Access to this email by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not the
intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action
taken or omitted in reliance on this, is prohibited and may be unlawful.
On Apr 6, 2011, at 9:39 AM, John Tanner wrote:
I believe there was such an order in Arizona
More data would be great, but I am wary of assigning additional
responsibilities to poll workers lest there be delays for voters and other
foul-ups that generally accompany any new element in the polls.
On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 6:59 PM, KRISTEN CLARKE <KCLARKE@naacpldf.org> wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: Doug Hess <douglasrhess@gmail.com>
To: election-law <election-law@mailman.lls.edu>
Sent: 4/5/2011 6:11:38 PM
Subject: [EL] What to attach to ID laws
I don't know if the voter ID bills floating around will make
additional headway this year, but if any go forward it would be
helpful to attach a requirement that precincts collect data on each
person turned away, or asked to go through additional steps, so that
the impact of the law could be studied. Do any states currently
collect data or retain records on who is affected by the laws? Even if
just the names were kept that would be helpful.
That actually brings up another point: given how many people show up
on elections, it would be useful for some states to include a random
sample survey as a part of the election day experience, either as an
attachment of a question or two to the ballot or a separate short
survey that is handed out with the ballot and collected before the
voters (or voters turned way) exit the precinct. Do any states or
counties do this? Seems a "customer survey" is something people are
familiar enough with that it would be useful. (E.g., determining where
lines were long, machines were malfunctioning or confusing, people
asked for ID where they shouldn't be, etc.)
Doug
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
election-law mailing list
election-law@mailman.lls.edu
http://mailman.lls.edu/mailman/listinfo/election-law