What’s the real effect of voter ID on turnout?
posted at 10:01 am on October 20, 2012 by Jazz Shaw
One of the most common complaints we hear from opponents of voter ID laws is that such rules would suppress voter turnout and make it more difficult for people to get to the polls. But for states who have already enacted such legislation, has the predicted effect proven true? Are there really less people making it out to cast their ballots on Tuesday? The Wall Street Journal takes a look at the question this weekend and finds that it’s not exactly an easy calculation to make.
Voters in more than two dozen states next month will be asked to provide some form of identification before casting a ballot. How many Americans who would otherwise vote will be turned away or won’t turn up at all remains a hotly contested number.
Some researchers have tried to count the number of voters affected, by surveying people about whether they have the required ID. This has produced a wide range of results, though, and some researchers question whether people whose IDs aren’t valid are aware of it, and whether they would rectify the situation if their state passed a tough ID law.
Just as with any other sort of predictive analysis based on a combination of public polling and sifting through data which is frequently ambiguous at best, several studies cited in the article were unable to make a definitive case in either direction. It remains an impossible task for us to ever predict what “would have happened” if some other hypothetical set of conditions existed. And for the data we do have, the requirement for some form of voter ID – or the lack thereof – is only one of many factors which determine how many people will show up to vote. The appeal of the candidates, the state of the economy… even the weather can all be big factors. The only two states with voter photo ID laws before the last presidential election – Georgia and Indiana – actually saw a sharp uptick in voter turnout, but that was compounded by what they describe as “an historic election” and an unusually high level of minority voter participation.
This left one analyst throwing up her hands.
Lorraine C. Minnite, a Rutgers University political scientist and a senior fellow at Demos, a liberal think tank, looked for a turnout effect in a 2009 paper she co-authored with Columbia University political scientist Robert S. Erikson. They didn’t turn up definitive evidence, concluding, “our data and tools are not up to the task of making a compelling statistical argument for an effect.”
Whether the inability to find an effect means there is no effect is contentious. To Prof. Minnite, it means the tools aren’t sharp enough, not that ID laws don’t curb voting.
Another item which can’t be quantified into hard numbers but which is acknowledged by these studies is the question of how likely the people most affected were to vote anyway. The majority of those without any form of photo ID were people who were apparently not all that big into participating in the public forum in the first place. This doesn’t mean that we should actively seek to stop them from voting – quite the opposite – but it does make it all the harder to figure out what the final effect of these laws are on turnout.
I still maintain that any such law should be enacted in a way that doesn’t put a direct fee in the way of someone being able to register or vote. That flies in the face of the constitution. But we also can’t allow ourselves to fall into the trap of eliminating any proposal which requires even the slightest additional effort to vote. Participating in virtually every aspect of our society requires some measure of effort. And if your state requires you to have a free photo ID – assuming you don’t have one of the most common ones already – then that’s an effort you’ll need to make. It takes an effort to get up off your couch and go to the polls anyway.
Related Posts:








Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Unexpectedly!
Washington Nearsider on May 7, 2013 at 10:44 AM
How do you like your dose of Lean Forward, Libyans? Right into the mass grave.
Good job, Preznit Smart Power.
Bishop on May 7, 2013 at 10:45 AM
Whats the difference….h clinton……
crosshugger on May 7, 2013 at 10:47 AM
“This is some rescue. When you came in here, didn’t you have a plan for getting out?” -Average Libya citizen
“He’s the brains, sweetheart!” -Hillary, pointing at Barack
Chris of Rights on May 7, 2013 at 10:49 AM
Well, this is going much better than expected, isn’t it?
hawkeye54 on May 7, 2013 at 10:49 AM
Clearly tea party… Err. LIBYAN tea party.
Gatsu on May 7, 2013 at 10:50 AM
Samantha Powers takes a bow !
Jabberwock on May 7, 2013 at 10:52 AM
One stupid step for Obama…
One giant leap for Jihad.
coldwarrior on May 7, 2013 at 10:54 AM
“Into the garbage chute, no-fly-zone-boy” – (pointing at Barack)
Difficultas_Est_Imperium on May 7, 2013 at 10:54 AM
And once again, we see why a POTUS must have Congress on board when going to war.
Had Congress given its imprimatur, they too would be on the hook for this mess, and would be under pressure to fix it. But, no. Team Liar and President Gutsy Call just had to do it on their own.
And now, the music has stopped, and they are the ones without a chair…
JohnGalt23 on May 7, 2013 at 10:57 AM
I note Ms. Power hasn’t been heard from lately.
R2P = R2FU
PattyJ on May 7, 2013 at 10:58 AM
Because Chaos is Progressive…
Lean Forward!
workingclass artist on May 7, 2013 at 10:59 AM
So this was another war for oil,right?
docflash on May 7, 2013 at 11:04 AM
Are we even sure that that wasn’t the intended consequence?
1) Allow radical muslims to come to power.
2) Be able to blame riots and attacks on a video no one’s seen
3) Get on board the muslim push for a UN treaty that outlaws blasphemy
4) Get rid of the First Amendment, along with the Second etc., which are part of a charter of negative rights anyhow.
rbj on May 7, 2013 at 11:05 AM
Legacy baby
cmsinaz on May 7, 2013 at 11:06 AM
Take heart, Libyans because this situation was brought to you by a dude who won a Nobel Peace Prize, that’s worth something, right?
Bishop on May 7, 2013 at 11:09 AM
Hmmm, looks about right.
hawkeye54 on May 7, 2013 at 11:11 AM
And dear leader went around Congress for this boondoggle didn’t he
cmsinaz on May 7, 2013 at 11:13 AM
I’m sure the Administration will see this as a simple ‘evolution’ in the ‘process of transition’. “Nothing serious, nothing to worry about. Hey! What time do you want to head to the course and do nine holes?”
Liam on May 7, 2013 at 11:13 AM
Which would be true, but this wasn’t a “War” in the traditional sense.
This was probably the worse ‘Covert Action’ ever run by a Administration…
For what?
Was Khadaffi replaced by a more open minded government?
Was any Strategic or National Intelligence gained by this move?
Are we better off now, before this boondoggle was launched?
Talk about a deficit of political capitol.
BlaxPac on May 7, 2013 at 11:13 AM
Libs care not for outcomes, but only for intentions.
Difficultas_Est_Imperium on May 7, 2013 at 11:17 AM
Arab Spring!
myiq2xu on May 7, 2013 at 11:25 AM
Apparently the resignation was withdrawn.
YiZhangZhe on May 7, 2013 at 11:33 AM
A really well done piece:
Difficultas_Est_Imperium on May 7, 2013 at 12:01 PM
What if we hadn’t intervened? Ghaddafi’s tanks would have leveled Benghazi and thousands would have died. There would have followed a period of intense repression and Ghaddafi would have ceased any cooperation with the West. There would be the probability of ongoing conflict and Islamification…another Syria, as rebels fought a diehard regime.
That’s not happening now and there is gratitude in Libya for what we did.
That being said, Obama’s intervention was at the 11th hour, reluctant and short-lived. He let the war go on too long and botched the aftermath. That’s his real legacy.
breffnian on May 7, 2013 at 12:04 PM
I actually disagree with the bolded part above. I actually think Ghaddafi would have done exactly the opposite. He would have attempted to increase his ties with the West as an act of self-preservation.
I think he would have pointed gone to the western nations and said he was fighting their enemies vis-a-vis Ansar al Sharia. He would have asked why we would want to support the rebels, backed by jihadist groups that hate us. He also probably would have said that supporting his regime would provide a bulwark against the Arab Spring spreading further and throwing the entire region into chaos… witness Syria. That once one nation stands up against this regime change, other rebel groups in other nations… Syria, Bahrain, etc… will be less emboldened to begin or continue high profile protests and outright civl war for regime change in their states. I think he probably would have acknowledged privately that he knows we don’t like him, but our choices would be his Libyan state or turning Libya into another Somalia in North Africa.
And it’s certainly looking like we are going to get the latter… Somalia Redux in Libya.
gravityman on May 7, 2013 at 12:47 PM
Al Watan, the MB party, is founded by Bel Hadj, he was the leader of the Libyan Fighting Group, he runs camps for Syrian jihadists in the desert, he brought in Bin Qumu, head of Ansar al Sharia, to train the militants during the war,
narciso on May 7, 2013 at 1:35 PM