Voter ID Laws: Necessary to combat rampant fraud or subtle subjugation of the Democratic demographic

[ElvisL1ves]

@Rand_Rover

Does anyone have any evidence that Republicans actually desire to disenfranchise likely Democratic voters? Ive never seen any, yet it’s an article of faith among some.

You really think they’d admit it in public?

Surely you know how to connect a dot, don’t you?

[Bricker]

@davidm

My state, Pennsylvania, will spent millions of dollars to implement this. The Pennsylvania Budget and Policy Center gave an estimate of $11,000,000.

http://pennbpc.org/voter-mandates-costly-taxpayer

Granted, it’s a left-leaning organization. Even so, whatever the actual figure is, it will cost millions of dollars. This while school districts budgets are being cut, among other things.

Why is voter confidence suddenly so all-fired important that we have to spend money bolstering it now, during hard economic times?

Isn’t that a question for the elected officials of Pennsylvania?

I’ll tell you how I’d answer it, if I were one.

I’d say that for years, the problem never really arose, because margins of votes were so high that it was obvious no critical contests were in doubt. Sure, the local dogcatcher might have come down to six votes, or even a US Congress seat here and there, but we didn’t have a combination of a razor-tight election and control of the House – in other words, even if one seat went D or R, the House (or Senate) as a whole was unaffected).

In 2000, that changed. The rules didn’t change, mind you, but our collective noses were rubbed in the fact that it was possible for the Presidency to hinge on a single state’s outcome AND to have that single state’s results be so close as to be a statistical tie. Suddenly, the spectre of 500-ish votes determining a state’s electoral votes happened, and that state simultaneously being the single key state for the entire election.

So since that time, our priorities have shifted. Of course school spending is important. But in Pennsylvania, we spent $26,000 million dollars for elementary and secondary education in the state (PDF, page xv, Table 1). You’re talking about one half of one thousandth of that amount, used to guarantee that the state can more solidly guarantee that our citizens can vote and count on the integrity of the system that counts those votes.

[BrainGlutton]

@davidm

Some have complained that it will disenfranchise certain Republican voters, so they are admitting that it does disenfranchise people.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/04/12/462977/pennsylvania-voter-id-amish-voters/?mobile=nc
If you read the article you’ll see that the complaint is that they have to jump through hoops to get the exemption and that many will feel it’s too much trouble and won’t bother. You’ll also see that most Amish who vote, vote Republican.

I have to believe that there are more non-Amish than Amish that will have to jump through hoops to prove that they can vote, and I have to believe that the poor and minorities (who tend to vote Democratic) will on average have less resources to aid them in jumping those hoops.

Personally, I don’t want to disenfranchise anyone, the Amish included.

Hm. I always thought it was against the Amish religion to vote, or do military service, and a lot of other things.

[davidm]

Bricker,
You yourself state that the laws won’t stop existing voter fraud. If that’s true then all the stuff about margins and statistical ties isn’t really relevant other than it’s supposed effect on voter confidence.

Is voter confidence really affected by this one way or the other? If it is, does that in turn affect voter behavior? Your’e assuming that it does. That may not be a safe assumption.

John_Stamos’_Left_Ear posted a link to a Harvard Law Review study that concludes that voter ID laws appear to have no effect on voter confidence.
http://projects.iq.harvard.edu/cces/files/Ansolabehere_Persily-_Vote_Fraud_in_the_Eye_of_the_Beholder.pdf

From the conclusion:

Although a sizable share of the population believes that vote fraud commonly or occasionally occurs, there is little or no relationship between beliefs about the frequency of fraud and electoral participation (reported, validated, or intended). Nor does it appear to be the case that universal voter identification requirements will raise levels of trust in the electoral process. Such fears appear unaffected by stricter voter ID laws, given that individuals asked to produce ID seem to have the same beliefs about the frequency of fraud as those not asked for ID.

Is this conclusion correct? I have no idea and I don’t at the moment have time to read the whole study. But I believe that it does show that the assumption that ID laws increase voter confidence is not necessarily correct.

[davidm]

@BrainGlutton

Hm. I always thought it was against the Amish religion to vote, or do military service, and a lot of other things.

I thought so too. I am also surprised that pacifists would vote for Republicans. Obviously we were both mistaken.

[ElvisL1ves]

@Bricker

In 2000, that changed. The rules didn’t change, mind you

What the hell do you call the Supreme Court hijacking an election if not “changing the rules”? And why do you fail to address that event’s effect on the problem you purport to decry, public confidence in the process? :dubious:

to have that single state’s results be so close as to be a statistical tie.

Elections are not “statistical”. There is one event, and one total vote for each candidate.

You’re talking about one half of one thousandth of that amount, used to guarantee that the state can more solidly guarantee that our citizens can vote and count on the integrity of the system that counts those votes.

You left out a “not”. The changes you demand would make it harder, not easier, for citizens to vote. And you *know *that, of course. Why not say so? Or do you have some basis for your calmly presented, but nevertheless counterfactual, claim that adding restrictions actually improves guarantees of voting rights?

Never mind, we all know, and you do too.

[Bricker]

@davidm

Bricker,
You yourself state that the laws won’t stop existing voter fraud. If that’s true then all the stuff about margins and statistical ties isn’t really relevant other than it’s supposed effect on voter confidence.

Is voter confidence really affected by this one way or the other? If it is, does that in turn affect voter behavior? Your’e assuming that it does. That may not be a safe assumption.

Under ordinary circumstances, I have agreed that voter fraud is not likely to be a statistically relevant concern. When the margin of victory is 50,000 votes, we’re not worried that 400 votes might have been illegally cast.

But when the margin of victory is 500 votes, and there is a possibility that more than 250 of them were illegal, the problem changes dramatically. In fact, even if 100 of them were illegal, the problem changes dramatically.

THIS is where voter confidence becomes key.

John_Stamos’_Left_Ear posted a link to a Harvard Law Review study that concludes that voter ID laws appear to have no effect on voter confidence.
http://projects.iq.harvard.edu/cces/files/Ansolabehere_Persily-_Vote_Fraud_in_the_Eye_of_the_Beholder.pdf

From the conclusion:
Is this conclusion correct? I have no idea and I don’t at the moment have time to read the whole study. But I believe that it does show that the assumption that ID laws increase voter confidence is not necessarily correct.

I don’t believe so. Quoting from the link:

We begin this Essay in Part I by situating the argument about fears
of fraud within the debate over voter identification requirements and
election law more generally. The argument follows a path familiar to
campaign finance law, in which the Court elided difficult questions
about the empirics of campaign contributions and corruption by relying on the prevention of the appearance of corruption as a state interest sufficient to justify restrictions on campaign contributions and expenditures.

Part II describes the unique national survey we
conducted to assess how widespread popular fear of two different
types of election fraud is, and the relationship between such fear and
the likelihood of people turning out to vote. Part III discusses our
findings about the prevalence of perceptions of vote fraud and how
those perceptions vary among political, racial, and other demographic
subgroups. In Part IV, we present findings suggesting that such fears
of fraud, while held by a sizable share of the population, do not have
any relationship to a respondent’s likelihood of intending to vote or
turning out to vote. Part V then assesses whether voter identification
laws might make a difference in quelling such fears of fraud. We find
that voters who have been forced to show identification are no less
likely to perceive fraud than those not similarly subject to an ID requirement. Part VI presents our conclusions.

I suggest that the questions answered miss the mark. The real question would be: if voter ID is universal, and understood as a strict requirement in the jurisdiction, would voters still perceive fraud in equal strength?

[davidm]

I think you’re really reaching here. If I’m forced to show ID then I’m going to assume that everyone is being forced to show ID.

Whether that assumption is correct or not is irrelevant. We’re discussing what is in the voter’s mind.

[Bricker]

As a follow-up, I completely reject this reasoning from the study:

The particular structure of the Cooperative Congressional Election
Study allows us to measure the use of voter identification at the aggregate state level and the individual level. The 2006 CCES asked individuals whether they were asked to show picture identification when
they voted.
40
Approximately half of all voters said that they were
asked to show photo identification, with the highest rates in the southern states and the lowest rates in the northeast.
41
States served as the
sampling frame for the 2006 CCES, and the very large 36,500-person
sample creates sufficient density of cases in each state that we can aggregate the individual-level responses to the state level to estimate the
frequency with which voter identification is required in the states. Of
course, only a few states actually mandate photo identification as the
only acceptable form of identification in order to vote.
42
We suspect
that most respondents who say they were asked for photo ID, in fact,
were merely asked for some form of ID and they produced a photo ID
— the most likely type of identification voters would have handy.
Nevertheless, one might suspect that if more stringent identification
requirements produce more confidence in elections, voters who say
they needed to produce ID would have lower fears of fraud than those
not similarly asked.
43
Moreover, although the aggregated responses
differ from what the law on the books actually requires in many states,
one still might expect that respondents from states where larger shares
of people say they were required to produce a photo ID might have
different views on the prevalence of fraud.

This misunderstands the value of photo ID. When a voter knows he is not REQUIRED to produce photo ID, he knows the ID requirements are weak or useless --even if he was personally asked for and able to provide a photo ID.

[Robot_Arm]

@Bricker

I’d say that for years, the problem never really arose, because margins of votes were so high that it was obvious no critical contests were in doubt. Sure, the local dogcatcher might have come down to six votes, or even a US Congress seat here and there, but we didn’t have a combination of a razor-tight election and control of the House – in other words, even if one seat went D or R, the House (or Senate) as a whole was unaffected).

In 2000, that changed. The rules didn’t change, mind you, but our collective noses were rubbed in the fact that it was possible for the Presidency to hinge on a single state’s outcome AND to have that single state’s results be so close as to be a statistical tie. Suddenly, the spectre of 500-ish votes determining a state’s electoral votes happened, and that state simultaneously being the single key state for the entire election.

I remember 2000. I remember the uncertainty over the election results in Florida, and I don’t remember anything about it being due to voter fraud. It was all about hanging chads, and absentee ballot deadlines, and recounts in specific districts. If every vote in Florida was cast by the individual who was entitled to do so (and I haven’t got any reason to think they weren’t), it wouldn’t have changed a thing. If you really want to improve confidence in elections, develop a foolproof, tamper-proof means of voting and calculating the results.

The solution you propose has nothing to do with the problem you want to solve.

[Gagundathar]

This has almost certainly been asked before but I am feeling lazy this morning so here goes.

In some other countries, especially those who are new to actually voting for a candidate (as opposed to elections that only have one person per seat on the ballot), once a voter has cast her vote, that person’s hand is marked in some manner. Usually it is a permanent dye applied to the forefinger. This mark is looked for by the election officials to disallow the voter from voting more than once.

This seems like a very easy solution and I imagine that there is a very good reason why it is not implemented here, but for the life of me, I can’t figure out what that reason is.

Might someone help me with my ignorance?

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

I don’t have a problem, in principle, with voter ID laws, and I don’t think they are invariably thinly veiled Republican attempts at disenfranchisement. However, they have little or no effect on actual fraud. If they were genuinely interested in preventing fraud, they’d be fixing the absentee ballot system, where 99% of actual fraud occurs.

[davidm]

Bricker, I still think you’re reaching. While this study does not definitively prove that voter ID laws have no effect on confidence, it certainly calls that assumption into question. So the benefit of the doubt is on you to prove that it does have an effect.

But let’s ignore that and look at another part of my quote from that document.

Although a sizable share of the population believes that vote fraud commonly or occasionally occurs, there is little or no relationship between beliefs about the frequency of fraud and electoral participation (reported, validated, or intended).

Beliefs in the frequency of fraud (which I believe is equivalent to confidence) have little or no effect on electoral participation. So, even if ID laws do increase confidence, it’s meaningless because the level of confidence has little or no effect on voter turnout.

So, we have laws that do not provably prevent fraud; do not provably increase turnout, do provably disenfranchise voters (of both parties) and provably cost money (hey, a million here and a million there and soon we’re talking real money!).

Sorry, but that doesn’t make sense to me.

[Robot_Arm]

@Bricker

Under ordinary circumstances, I have agreed that voter fraud is not likely to be a statistically relevant concern. When the margin of victory is 50,000 votes, we’re not worried that 400 votes might have been illegally cast.

But when the margin of victory is 500 votes, and there is a possibility that more than 250 of them were illegal, the problem changes dramatically. In fact, even if 100 of them were illegal, the problem changes dramatically.

Over the years, the laws on who is eligible to vote have changed. As far as I can recall, the changes have always been to allow greater participation. I would say the intent of an election is to measure the will of the people in choosing who will govern them. It’s not a perfect measure, but I hope it has gotten better over the years.

If the effort to stop 100 fraudulent votes prevents 1,000 people from voting who otherwise would have, are we closer to the ideal or further away?

[davidm]

@Robot_Arm

Over the years, the laws on who is eligible to vote have changed. As far as I can recall, the changes have always been to allow greater participation. I would say the intent of an election is to measure the will of the people in choosing who will govern them. It’s not a perfect measure, but I hope it has gotten better over the years.

If the effort to stop 100 fraudulent votes prevents 1,000 people from voting who otherwise would have, are we closer to the ideal or further away?

Thank you. You’ve said it better than all of my cites and arguments could have.

And I’ll add: In reference to the comments about “confidence”; what is the upper limit on the number of people it’s worth disenfranchising in order to give the rest of us a warm fuzzy feeling about our elections?

[Algher]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

I don’t have a problem, in principle, with voter ID laws, and I don’t think they are invariably thinly veiled Republican attempts at disenfranchisement. However, they have little or no effect on actual fraud. If they were genuinely interested in preventing fraud, they’d be fixing the absentee ballot system, where 99% of actual fraud occurs.

Do you have a cite for that? There just are so few situations where someone actually goes back and checks ballots, I was wondering if anyone had pinpointed absentee as the source of problems.

I think that is one of the issues with this debate - we don’t spend the money to go back and dig through the ballots that often. I have linked before to the information on the Dornan-Sanchez race where the House of Representatives did an investigation:

Decently footnoted wiki link:

Bob Dornan

A thirteen-month House of Representatives investigation ensued, during which Sanchez was seated provisionally, pending the inquiry.[15] A task force found 748 votes that had been cast illegally—624 from non-citizens in addition to 124 that had already been thrown out by California officials. This was not enough to overturn Sanchez’ margin of victory and she was allowed to keep her seat.[16] However, in consultation with the INS, the House committee identified as many as 4,700 questionable registration affidavits.[17] The probe was dropped before these affidavits could be investigated.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

The issue there seems to be the registrations themselves, rather than the overlying votes. Voter ID laws address the latter.

[Algher]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

The issue there seems to be the registrations themselves, rather than the overlying votes. Voter ID laws address the latter.

I agree on that one, I was still wondering if there had been any other large scale reviews of all ballots in an area to see how much of a problem there really is.

Absentee is certainly a risk point. I just mailed in my ballot for California, and nobody is checking my ID with it. The state of CA just sends it to my house, along with my wife’s. At one point I was getting the ballot of a former tenant as well.

[Bryan_Ekers]

Just have voters dip a finger in ink, already. Why is this being made so complicated?

[davidm]

@Bryan_Ekers

Just have voters dip a finger in ink, already. Why is this being made so complicated?

It isn’t just a question of whether or not they’ve already voted. It’s a question of whether or not they’re even eligible to vote in the first place. And it’s also a question of whether or not they’re eligible to vote in that precinct.