The falsehoods of voter ID laws suppressing turnout

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Grampa Murked U, Jun 2, 2012.

  1. Grampa Murked U
    Offline

    Grampa Murked U Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2011
    Messages:
    47,514
    Thanks Received:
    8,770
    Trophy Points:
    2,055
    Location:
    Kansas City
    Ratings:
    +23,758
    New State Voting Laws: Barriers to the Ballot

    Snip:
    Actual election results also confirm that voter ID does not hurt minority turnout. Voting in both Georgia and Indiana increased more dramatically in 2008 in both the presidential preference primary and the general election in the first presidential elections held after their photo ID laws went into effect than in some states without photo ID.

    There was record turnout in Georgia in the 2008 presidential primary election—over 2 million voters, more than twice as many as in 2004 when the 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. In fact, there were 100,000 more votes in the Democratic Primary than in the Republican Primary.

    In the 2008 general election when President Obama was elected, Georgia, with one of the strictest voter ID laws in the nation, had the largest turnout in its history—more than 4 million voters. Democratic turnout was up an astonishing 6.1 percentage points from the 2004 election when there was no photo ID requirement, the fifth largest increase of any state. Overall turnout in Georgia went up 6.7 percentage points, the second highest increase in the country, a striking increase even in an election year where there was general increase in turnout over the prior presidential election. The black share of the statewide vote increased from 25% in 2004 to 30% in 2008 according to the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies. According to Census Bureau surveys, 65% of the black voting age population voted in the 2008 election compared to only 54.4% in 2004, an increase of over 10 percentage points.

    By contrast, the Democratic turnout in the nearby state of Mississippi, also a state with a high percentage of black voters but without a voter ID requirement, increased by only 2.35 percentage points. Turnout in the 2010 congressional election in Georgia was over 2.6 million voters – an increase of almost 500,000 voters over the 2006 election. While only 42.9% of registered black Georgians voted in 2006, 50.4% voted in 2010 with the voter ID law in effect, an increase of over seven percentage points. As Georgia’s Secretary of State recently pointed out, when compared to the 2006 election, voter turnout in 2010 “among African Americans outpaced the growth of that population’s pool of registered voters by more than 20 percentage points.”

    The Georgia voter ID requirement was upheld in final orders issued by every state and federal court in Georgia that reviewed the law, including the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit and the Supreme Court of Georgia. These courts held that such an ID requirement is not discriminatory and does not violate the Constitution or any federal voting rights laws, including the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

    Just as has happened in every state that has considered voter ID legislation, organizations in Georgia like the ACLU and the NAACP made apocalyptic claims that there were hundreds of thousands of Georgians without photo ID. Yet when the federal district court dismissed all of their claims, the court pointed out that after two years of litigation, none of the plaintiff organizations had been able to produce a single individual who did not have a photo ID or could not easily obtain one. The district court judge concluded that this “failure to identify those individuals ‘is particularly acute’ in light of the Plaintiffs’ contention that a large number of Georgia voters lack acceptable Photo ID…the fact that Plaintiffs, in spite of their efforts, have failed to uncover anyone ‘who can attest to the fact that he/she will be prevented from voting’ provides significant support for a conclusion that the photo ID requirement does not unduly burden the right to vote.”

    In Indiana, which the U.S. Supreme Court said has the strictest voter ID law in the country, turnout in the Democratic presidential preference primary in 2008 quadrupled from the 2004 election when the photo ID law was not in effect—in fact, there were 862,000 more votes cast in the Democratic primary than the Republican primary. In the general election in November, the turnout of Democratic voters increased by 8.32 percentage points from 2004, the largest increase in Democratic turnout of any state in the nation. According to Census Bureau surveys, 59.2% of the black voting age population voted in the 2008 election compared to only 53.8% in 2004, an increase of over 5 percentage points.
    The neighboring state of Illinois, with no photo ID requirement and President Obama’s home state, had an increase in Democratic turnout of only 4.4 percentage points—only half of Indiana’s increase. Turnout in the 2010 congressional election in Indiana was almost 1.75 million voters—an increase of more than 77,000 voters over the 2006 election. According to the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, Indiana was one of the states with a “large and impressive” increase in black turnout in the 2010 election: “the black share of the state vote was higher in 2010 than it was in 2008, a banner year for black turnout.” In fact, the black share of the total vote went from only seven percent in 2008 to 12 percent in 2010.

    Just as in Georgia, the federal court in Indiana noted the complete inability of the plaintiffs to produce anyone who would not be able to vote because of the photo ID law:

    Despite apocalyptic assertions of wholesale voter disenfranchisement, Plaintiffs have produced not a single piece of evidence of any identifiable registered voter who would be prevented from voting pursuant to [the photo ID law] because of his or her inability to obtain the necessary photo identification. Similarly, Plaintiffs have failed to produce any evidence of any individual, registered or unregistered, who would have to obtain photo identification in order to vote, let alone anyone who would undergo any appreciable hardship to obtain photo identification in order to be qualified to vote.

    Some erroneously claim that requiring an ID, even when the state will provide a free ID, amounts to a “poll tax” because of the incidental costs like possible travel to a registrar’s office or obtaining a birth certificate that may be involved. The federal court in Georgia dismissed this claim, agreeing with the Indiana federal court that concluded that such an:

    argument represents a dramatic overstatement of what fairly constitutes a “poll tax.” Thus, the imposition of tangential burdens does not transform a regulation into a poll tax. Moreover, the cost of time and transportation cannot plausibly qualify as a prohibited poll tax because those same “costs” also result from voter registration and in-person voting requirements, which one would not reasonably construe as a poll tax.

    As a general matter, statistics from the U.S. Department of Transportation show that there are currently 205,781,457 valid driver’s licenses issued by states across the country for individuals 18 years of age or older, while the U.S. Election Assistance Commission cites 186,874,157 total registered voters.[4] That means there are almost 19 million more driver’s licenses than registered voters nationwide. This number does not even include the additional 3 or 4 percent of individuals who, according to a Federal Election Commission study, have an identification card issued by state motor vehicle agencies in lieu of a driver’s license.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  2. Jroc
    Offline

    Jroc יעקב כהן Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2010
    Messages:
    19,201
    Thanks Received:
    6,244
    Trophy Points:
    390
    Location:
    Michigan
    Ratings:
    +11,519
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. Darkwind
    Offline

    Darkwind Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2009
    Messages:
    14,143
    Thanks Received:
    2,592
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +4,258
    It stands to reason that when people begin to think that their vote will not be negated through the graveyard vote, they will start to turn out in hopes of actually having their voices heard.
     
  4. Grampa Murked U
    Offline

    Grampa Murked U Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2011
    Messages:
    47,514
    Thanks Received:
    8,770
    Trophy Points:
    2,055
    Location:
    Kansas City
    Ratings:
    +23,758
    Strange as it may seem, the same man that wouldn't prosecute the Black Panthers for voter intimidation or any other crime for that matter, is now going after states with voter ID laws in place.
     
  5. tjvh
    Offline

    tjvh Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    6,893
    Thanks Received:
    916
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +916
    It's not about the poor, it's about all those "Illegal Aliens" that don't get to Vote Democrat.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  6. The Infidel
    Offline

    The Infidel EVIL CONSERVATIVE

    Joined:
    May 19, 2010
    Messages:
    17,252
    Thanks Received:
    3,170
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    AMERITOPIA
    Ratings:
    +3,173
    This is going to go down as one the MOST corrupt presidencies in history... sunlight is a good disinfectant, and I cant wait till some light is shed on it all :doubt:
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  7. Grampa Murked U
    Offline

    Grampa Murked U Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2011
    Messages:
    47,514
    Thanks Received:
    8,770
    Trophy Points:
    2,055
    Location:
    Kansas City
    Ratings:
    +23,758
    There is clearly PROOF that after ID laws have been instituted that turnout has increased, even among minorities.

    Where is the proof that it does the opposite? Is there any?

    I suspect that we all know its about being able to vote multiple times or other dubious illegal voting schemes.
     
  8. tjvh
    Offline

    tjvh Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    6,893
    Thanks Received:
    916
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +916
    FRAUD is the ONE, and ONLY reason to oppose ID's there IS. It's been proven time, after time with facts, that requiring an ID does NOT harm anyone who HAS the Right to Vote.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  9. Grampa Murked U
    Offline

    Grampa Murked U Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2011
    Messages:
    47,514
    Thanks Received:
    8,770
    Trophy Points:
    2,055
    Location:
    Kansas City
    Ratings:
    +23,758
    Oh im quite confident that you are 100% correct. I would just like to hear a decent argument from the other side. One that actually makes sense if possible... :uhoh3:
     
  10. Grampa Murked U
    Offline

    Grampa Murked U Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2011
    Messages:
    47,514
    Thanks Received:
    8,770
    Trophy Points:
    2,055
    Location:
    Kansas City
    Ratings:
    +23,758
    Bump the FACTS for our liberal friends to fester over.
     

Share This Page

Search tags for this page

voterid 28880