Voter photo IDs -- a bad idea

Tennessee's GOP is using the theft of data from election offices as a chance to push for photo IDs of voters under the guise that it will prevent voter fraud. It's a bad idea and one that is likely to disenfranchise voters, particularly those most likely to vote Democratic.

The best information on the process comes from independent research done in Indiana which has the most restrictive voter laws in the nation and requires a photo ID. The work was done by researchers from the University of Washington, University of California and University of New Mexico. Their report says low income and less educated members of Indiana's population are less likely to have access to photo identification, making it less likely they will be able to vote.

They also say:

Our results suggest that income has the most robust impact on access to valid forms of identification in Indiana. This law therefore directly impacts roughly one-fifth of Indiana residents, as 21% of Indiana households earned less than $20,000 in the year 2000. Similarly, African Americans who are also less likely to have access to photo identification in our study comprise nearly 9% of the state population.

We also learn why the GOP wants to see tighter restrictions on who is allowed to vote.

While the ability of rigid voting requirements to achieve the goal of reducing voter fraud is debatable at best, our results from four separate locations clearly indicate that these requirements have significant electoral implications. Not only does the Indiana law disproportionately impact the communities most vulnerable to changes in the electoral process, there is also a clear partisan bias associated with these laws as well. Our data suggests that a greater number of Democrats than Republicans or Independents are excluded from voting under Indiana’s voter identification laws. This is particularly concerning given the very narrow vote margins associated with several federal, state, and local races in recent memory. While the state interest of preventing voting fraud is an important one, our results here question whether this interest should be advanced despite apparent evidence that this ostensible method of fraud prevention disproportionately impacts specific segments of the electorate.

While having fair elections is vital to confidence in our system, the process doesn't need to be restrictive in order to be safe. Wisconsin is a prime example.

Wisconsin offers on site, election day registration. During the 2004 elections, I worked as poll watcher and observed dozens of people arrive at a precinct, many who had never voted before, walk in, be registered and vote. Expecting a high turnout for the election, officials had brought in extra staff to handle the registration chores while allowing registered voters to move through the polls smoothly. The process worked and only a handful of ballots were later disqualified.

It is possible to have fair, open and honest elections without silencing the voices of any segment of the population.

Beware of those who propose solutions that limit the ability the vote -- their goal is anything but a fair election.

    - Jim Grinstead

Comments

[Bill Hobbs]

Requiring voters to show a photo ID before voting does not reduce turnout among poor, elderly and minority voters, yet another new study has found. The AP reports that the study, by a professor at the University of Missouri, indicates that the requirement does not affect voter turnout.

(AP story: http://www.wmctv.com/global/story.asp?s=7563708)

Jeffrey Milyo, professor of economics and public affairs at the University of Missouri and the Hanna Family Scholar in the Center for Applied Economics at the University of Kansas, notes that overall voter turnout in Indiana actually increased after the implementation of photo ID. His study evaluated the effects of photo identification requirements by comparing county-level turnout in Indiana in the 2002 and 2006 mid-term elections, since the current ID law was not in place in ‘02.

“Previous studies have examined the effects of voter ID laws more generally, but none of these separately analyzes the effects of so called ‘mandatory photo ID’ on turnout in Indiana,” Milyo said. “I examined a variety of models on voter turnout. After controlling for several factors that influence county-wide turnout, I found no consistent or statistically significant evidence that the photo ID law depressed turnout in counties with greater percentages of minority, poor or elderly voters. Contrary to conventional wisdom, turnout in Democratic-leaning counties actually increased in the wake of the new photo ID requirements, all else constant.”

The Indiana law is currently before the U.S. Supreme Court this term and will be decided by early summer, potentially setting the precedent for pending legislation nationwide. Opponents contend that stringent photo ID requirements place a burden on the right to vote and lower turnout from Democrats, minorities, the elderly and low-income citizens. Specifically, the Indiana law has been described as the “most onerous” or “most Draconian” in the nation. Milyo said nothing could be further from the truth.

"Existing theory and empirical research suggest that the impact of photo ID on voter turnout should be negligible; overwrought claims to the contrary are simply not supported by the evidence," he said. "If opponents of voter ID laws really want to remove barriers to voting, they should consider working to make it easier for people to keep their voter registration current, rather than working to undermine the enforcement of voter registration laws."

The study, "The Effects of Photographic Identification on Voter Turnout in Indiana: A County Level Analysis," was published by the Institute of Public Policy in the Truman School of Public Affairs at the University of Missouri and can be downloaded at this link:

http://truman.missouri.edu/uploads/Publications/Report%2010-2007.pdf

[Jim Grinstead]

There's a major difference between these two studies -- and one that's very important.

The University of Missouri study you cite was based solely on statistics. Those can only report what happened, not what might have happened.

The study I cite was based on interviews with voters and potential voters, thus getting at what people did or might have done.

That difference in methodology makes a HUGE impact on the findings.

[karrde]

Let me get this straight...

One study says that people might or might not have done things differently due to the change in law.

Another study says that there is no measurable difference between the effects of the old law and the effects of the new law.

Thus, you claim that the second study is worthless, and the first study is much more important.

Comparison
Suppose I am about to purchase a car. I have a choice between cars that are effectively the same, but one car has air bags and the other doesn't.

My friends give me a study saying that people who are interested in air bags are more likely to drive dangerously, and think the air-bags will save them. However, I have found another study which shows that actual accident rates per mile driven aren't any different when comparing cars with and without air-bags.

So, by your logic, I should trust the first study--even though the second study gives me a much better idea of how drivers respond to the situation, and gives me a better idea of what the probability of an accident is when driving either car.

If I wanted to agree with you, I'd have to twist my risk-avoidance logic into a strange configuration that has no relation I can see to reality.

Return to subject at hand
If one method of identifying voters has the benefit of significantly increasing the barriers to vote-fraud, and has no measurable impact on the voting patterns of the poorest voters, then we should use it.

However, that's if. I know enough about statistics to know that a talented researcher can look at a set of data and filter it to make it say nearly anything.

The true test of the research is if another researcher would draw the same conclusions from another set of data gathered in the same way. We haven't seen that yet, so the jury is still out.

[Jim Grinstead]

It's confusing, I agree. I disagree with your comparison because the occurrence of accidents is not something the individual generally has control over. The decision to vote is totally within the individual's control. That makes it subjective and thus, in my opinion, it has more validity than simply a look back at what happened.

But your point is sound -- the jury is still out. Because of that, it seems we should opt for policies that are inclusive rather than ones that might be a barrier to voting.

As noted before, other states have voting systems that work without such restrictions and instances of voter fraud are almost nonexistent.

Since fair elections are proven to be possible, don't we want to do everything we can to encourage participation in the process?

[lcreekmo]

Shouldn't we be more concerned about people of low income not being able to "access" photo IDs, if in fact that is the case?? I'm sorry, I don't know how my life would be possible without a photo ID. It's required for most major financial transactions and countless other everyday scenarios in middle-class America.

I hate to say I don't believe the survey, but I fail to see how ANY person of any income would be capable of getting a voter registration card, but not capable of getting a photo ID/driver's license.