GAO: Voter ID laws suppress voting, not fraud

Post Reply New Topic

Yea, it seems pretty flimsy. Do the 200 pages go into more detail as to why voter ID specifically caused lower voter turnout in these states? The summery itself says that 5 studies showed it had no statistically significant effect on turnout, 4 showed decreases, and 1 even showed an increase. Comparing just Kentucky and Kansas to certain comparison states and finding correlation doesn't really prove anything.

Again, I said I had no problem with transportation being provided, not that it be a requirement.

As for voter suppression laws... er, I mean voter fraud laws not really being motivated by racism - considering that a great many of them are enacted within those states that have had long histories of racial discrimination, the charge is hardly far fetched, and is in fact very probable.

And no, I don't accuse all conservatives of racism, just those who have had a preexisting history of it.

But when you want to make it a government provided service a requirement is implied. You can't just call any government entity and request a ride to the polls. The task would have to be assigned to an agency to provide or arrange and that would be driven by a requirement.


For the millionth time this is 2014, not 1964. Outside of a small part of one state you have demonstrated to have very little knowledge of the world beyond. Your sources of information on the outside world are obviously filtered.

But what you post illustrates something different. Not to worry, though, because accusations of racism, homophobia, trollery, thuggery, and general asshattery from the left only serve as indicators that we must be doing something right.

• First of all: The study compares Tennessee and Kansas with certain comparison states.
• Second of all: 9 out of the previous 10 studies do not investigate the latest Voter ID laws at all. All but one use data exclusively from before 2008.
• Third of all:

As evident above, the earlier mentioned drop in turnout in Tennessee and Kansas is the drop in excess of the general drop in turnout from 2008 to 2012. Here, the drop was 5.1 percent in Kansas and 4.8 percent in Tennessee.

However, since the general drop in turnout from 2008 to 2012 in the comparison states is 2.1 percent, this translates into an excess drop in turnout of 3.0 percent in Kansas and 2.7 percent in Tennessee. And it is within this excess drop that a disproportionately large drop in voter turnout is found among African-American voters.

As such - as I have stated twice now - unique circumstances wrt. the 2008 election cannot be invoked as an explanation of the excess drop in turnout in Kansas and Tennessee, as these have already been taken into account.

Source:
http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/665966.pdf (see page 158-159)

(Also see page 133-143 on why Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware and Maine were chosen as comparison states.)

Starting January 1, 2012:

1. Kansas voters must show photographic identification when casting a vote in person; and
2. Kansas voters must have their signature verified and include a copy of an acceptable form of photographic identification or provide a full Kansas driver's license or nondriver ID number when voting by mail.

Tennessee and Kansas, it doesn't matter. They attributing a drop in turnout a drop in turnout to these laws when it could possibly be explained other ways or just be an outlier. It would be more convincing if it analyzed all of the states with voter ID laws to all of the states that don't so it couldn't be accused of cherry picking. Doesn't the fact that it doesn't seem to "suppress" the hispanic vote kind of blow the theory that it is a racist out of the water?

To select comparison states, we applied four primary criteria to the universe of 35 states that either had no ID requirement or had an ID requirement that allowed voters to show a nonphoto, nongovernment ID as of the November 2012 general election. This process ensured that various confounding variables were held constant at the state level for the treatment and comparison states. In effect, we applied ?exact? matching methods to balance state-level covariates. The criteria were as follows:

1. States did not implement changes to voter ID laws between the 2008 and 2012 general elections, when Kansas and Tennessee implemented their amended ID requirements.
2. The election cycles for statewide elected offices were similar to those of Kansas and Tennessee.
3. The states did not have competitive general elections for federal and statewide elected offices and statewide ballot questions in 2008 and 2012.
4. The states did not experience contemporaneous changes to other
   laws between the 2008 and 2012 general elections that may have significantly affected voter turnout on Election Day.

To apply the first criterion, we reviewed state voter ID requirements to identify states that did and did not implement changes to voter ID requirements between the 2008 and 2012 general elections. If a state
implemented changes to its ID requirements, we did not further consider it for selection.

To apply the second criterion, we matched the election schedules for U.S. Senate and governor?s offices ? years in which the elections for these offices are held ? in the treatment and potential comparison states. Matching election cycles controls for the presence of statewide political campaigns, which typically run programs to encourage turnout. These voter mobilization efforts could coincide with changes to ID laws and bias our impact estimates. In instances where the cycles did not precisely match, we matched either the U.S. Senate cycle or the governors? race cycle (rather than both). We considered states that met any of these cycle match requirements and excluded all others.

To apply the third criterion, we reviewed the competitiveness of general elections in 2008 and 2012, using the margins of victory in state-wide elections for federal, gubernatorial, and statewide political offices and for statewide ballot questions. We sought to make the pattern in electoral competition similar in the treatment and comparison states, particularly in those cases where the election cycles did not precisely match.

To apply the fourth criterion, we reviewed election laws for changes that may significantly affect voter turnout, including changes in no-excuse absentee voting, early voting, Election Day registration, felon
disenfranchisement, and third-party registration, identifying states where such changes did not occur or were unlikely to affect turnout significantly.

In addition to these four criteria, we considered other factors that could affect turnout, such as geographic proximity to Kansas and Tennessee, similarity in voter turnout histories between comparators and
the treatment states, and unique events, such as the effect of Hurricane Sandy striking the East Coast 8 days before Election Day in 2012. The quality of state voter registration data was also an important consideration when selecting comparison states, as our estimates of turnout percentages require accurate state records of registered voters at the time of the 2008 and 2012 general elections.

Regardless, I do not find these laws to be an undue burden on anyone even if some groups are more effected than others. It is a change and people will just get use to it.

First of all: It does matter, as it influences the validity of the conclusion. See the "Second of all" reason.

Second of all: I specifically linked to page 133-143 to inform you about the reasons for choosing Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware and Maine as comparison states. By your response it is obvious that you *did not* bother to actually consult those pages in the report - despite the fact that you have been complaining about being presented with a 200+ page report with no guidelines for navigating it.

So here are the actual passages:


In other words: The entire purpose of the comparison was to eliminate the risk of other possible explanations for changes in turnout contaminating the results.


Regardless, I do not find the Grandfather clauses of Jim Crow laws to be an undue burden on anyone even if some groups are more affected than others. It is a change and people will just get used to it.

Well first of all dude I don't appreciate the condescension, tone it down a bit alright? This is a discussion forum not a circle jerk, why did you post this thread if you didn't want people to question and debate?

I don't really care about how this study justifies its reasoning for restricting its analysis either, it would be more convincing to me personally if all the information was there and I could make determination myself.

If there is information the contradicts this study even because of other factors, it should still be presented.

Comparing it to the Grandfather clauses in the Jim Crow south is nonsensical. I suppose Canada and the Netherlands are pining for a return to the Antebellum South too?

You have demonstrated a consistent pattern of intellectual dishonesty across a wide range of topics in this sub-forum (please - oh pretty please - ask me for examples). You are fully deserving of any condescension aimed at you. If this upsets you, then you are to blame.


Took me 5 seconds on Google.
http://elections.gmu.edu/Turnout_2008G.html
http://elections.gmu.edu/Turnout_2012G.html


It's a free country. Present it.


No, *you* are pining for a return to the Antebellum South. You explicitly claimed that Voter ID laws are not a "burden on anyone even if some groups are more effected than others". This is *the* textbook Jim Crow argument.

Since you are foreign perhaps you have a poor understanding of what Grandfather laws in the Jim Crow south were all about, the grandfather clauses in the south were made to specifically exempt whites from the literacy tests and poll taxes of the time

Please elaborate on this.

The Grandfather clauses exempted people eligible to vote before the Civil War and their descendents from poll tax and literacy tests thus protecting poor and or illiterate Southern whites right to vote.

Source, please.

It makes sense to me that residency must be established, because they put local taxing/bond issues on these presidential/congressional ballots. If someone is voting on property taxes for a local community, then it should *only* be the people with residency in that community.

For example:
"Elected officials across California salivated at the prospect of putting their favorite tax measures on the Nov. 4 presidential election ballot
"The Los Angeles Community College District has prepared its own $3.5-billion property tax increase to repair and replace aging campuses"
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jul/12/local/me-tax12

If there is no ID and thus no residency check, then why not go in and vote to raise taxes on people in another community - who cares Or do they resolve this somehow ? But how could they if no ID is required to show residency ?