Instances of discrimination in voter ID (and other areas) that occur on election day can be documented (and often deterred) captured by effective monitoring of the polls, which ain't rocket science but does require people getting out and getting their hands dirty. I had an article about effective monitoring.
Of course, that leaves individuals who do not have the requisite ID and therefore do not bother to go to the polls. Currently such victims have to be discovered through inquiry and investigation on a state-by-state basis. Another avenue is post-election analysis of provisional ballots, as Mike Pitts was or is doing in Indiana. I had an op-ed identifying specific places/circumstances likely to generate potential victims in TX, where I think their proposed voter ID law will be highly vulnerable to legal challenge.
I'd be happy to chat off-list with anyone contemplating an actual lawsuit.
On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 10:08 AM, Doug Hess
<douglasrhess@gmail.com> 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
>
>