Thanks for responding, David. Now let's take a look at what you cited to support your assertion that "the real-life experience is that voter participation after enactment of voter I.D. has increased".
David Blaska wrote:A study by the University of Missouri on turnout in Indiana showed that turnout actually increased by about 2 percentage points overall in Indiana in 2006 in the first election after the voter ID law went into effect.
Interesting (and telling) that the link looks
like it heads to The Beaufort Observer
, but actually takes you to the Heritage Foundation. Hadn't heard of the Observer
before, but a cursory examination shows that's it's a right-wing mouthpiece publication, so no surprise that it should redirect me, I guess.
However, the actual study
is real. So let's look into it-- specifically, who funded it
[author] Milyo said he had received a grant, but hemmed and hawed and couldn’t seem to remember from whom it came.
As it turned out, Milyo's grant money for his study came from an organization created by Mark F. "Thor" Hearne, the former Bush/Cheney '04 national general counsel, and one of the Republican Party's top operatives behind pushing for such photo ID laws around the country. Hearne was, in fact, instrumental in creating the very Indiana law which Milyo's study claims to show, has caused no voter disenfranchisement in the state.
Turns out, reading more from that link, that Milyo has a habit of publishing "research" that's friendly to right-wing causes. Indeed, Milyo turns out to be a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute
, which was co-founded by, *surprise!* Charles Koch.
Ok, I think we can safely put that one aside.
David Blaska wrote:An in-depth survey by former Federal Elections Commission member Hans Van [sic] Spakovsky reports that "record turnout in Georgia in the 2008 presidential primary election—over 2 million voters, more than twice as much as in 2004 when the voter photo ID law was not in effect (the law was first applied to local elections in 2007). The number of African–Americans voting in the 2008 primary also doubled from 2004."
Another Beaufort/Heritage link. Nice. Guess this makes sense, though, since von Spakovsky is a Senior Legal Fellow
at the Heritage Foundation.
to the Washington Post
Career Justice Department lawyers involved in a Georgia case said von Spakovsky pushed strongly for approval of a state program requiring voters to have photo identification. A team of staff lawyers that examined the case recommended 4 to 1 that the Georgia plan should be rejected because it would harm black voters; the recommendation was overruled by von Spakovsky and other senior officials in the Civil Rights Division.
Von Spakovsky served as Republican Party chairman in Fulton County, Georgia and as a Republican appointee to the Fulton County Registration and Election Board, where he championed strict voter-identification laws. While in Georgia, von Spakovsky was a member of the politically conservative Federalist Society. He worked as a lawyer for George W. Bush's team during the 2000 Florida Presidential election recount.
Nope, no bias there. But let's look at the actual claim that the voter ID law had no depressive effect on minority voters in Georgia in 2008. As Sundeep Iyer writes
Even if turnout increases at the same time as the adoption of a new voter ID law, there may be something other than the voter ID law – Mr. Levitt identified campaign mobilization, in particular – that caused the turnout increase. In other words, correlation does not imply causation.
By comparing Georgia’s turnout with turnout in other similar states that do not have voter ID requirements, it is possible to control for other factors that influence turnout.
In other words, the black turnout jump in North Carolina, a state without voter ID laws, was more than twice the size of the jump in Georgia, a state with stringent voter ID laws. When appropriately contextualized, Georgia’s voter ID law no longer looks quite so harmless.
David Blaska wrote:This study from Columbia University says that tho the authors' sympathies are against voter I.D., they could find no evidence that it reduced participation.
Technically true. In the abstract
, they phrase it as follows:
Stimulated by the pressing policy debate, recent scientific research on the turnout question is largely inconclusive: different datasets, measurement rules and statistical models produce different and contradictory findings.
Our findings suggest that the data are not up to
the task of making a compelling statistical argument.
So yes, these two authors feel the data doesn't support vote suppression. They also
feel the data doesn't discount
it, either. Inconclusive; however, they most certainly do not suggest that voter turnout increased, which is your claim.
David Blaska wrote:Furthermore, the 2007 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld Indiana's Voter I.D. (Crawford v. Marion County)
True, the law survived a SCOTUS ruling. How does that prove that "voter participation after enactment of voter I.D. has increased"?
Not quite right
David Blaska wrote:30 states have some form of Voter I.D., 18 require a photo.
. Only seven states have strict voter ID laws (Wisconsin now being one of them), where a photo is required
. Seven additional states ask for photo ID, but allow you to vote if you "can meet certain other critieria", which varies by state. Sixteen additional states require some sort of ID, such as utility bill or bank statement, which included Wisconsin until recently.
However, this is all beside the point. We were trying to prove that voter turnout generally goes UP in a state after a photo ID law is passed, right?
David Blaska wrote:I will grant you one point, Mr. Beans: Voter I.D. does reduce turnout among fraudulent voters.