WP: States with higher black turnout are more likely to restrict voting

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

Click on the link to read the rest.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2013/12/17/states-with-higher-black-turnout-are-more-likely-to-restrict-voting/?clsrd

 

 

In most elections, the intricacies of voting procedures rarely warrant headlines or interest most Americans.  But in 2012, voter identification laws took center stage.  In fact, in the five years preceding the 2012 election, almost half of states enacted some form of legislation restricting voter access — such as requiring photo identification or proof of citizenship to vote, more stringently regulating voter registration drives, shortening early voting periods, repealing same-day voter registration, or further restricting voting by felons.

These are the legislative realities.  But the real intent of this legislation remains highly contested.  On the left, voter identification laws are viewed as thinly veiled attempts by Republicans to depress turnout among Democratic-leaning constituencies, such as minorities, new immigrants, the elderly, disabled, and young.  On the right, these laws are viewed as a bulwark against electoral fraud and a means of preserving electoral legitimacy.  In a new article, we examined the dominant explanations (and accusations) advanced by both the right and left, as well as the factors political scientists know are important for understanding state legislative activity.  We began with no assumptions about the veracity of any claim.  What we found was that restrictions on voting derived from both race and class.  The more that minorities and lower-income individuals in a state voted, the more likely such restrictions were to be proposed. Where minorities turned out at the polls at higher rates the legislation was more likely enacted.

 

 

[AsburySkinsFan]

They're just trying to protect the results.....erm I mean the integrity of the elections.

[twa]

Minority turnout was not decreased by the law was it?

 

Nuff said

[mistertim]

I wonder how many eebil large scale voting fraud conspiracies were stopped by these laws. 

[Mad Mike]

Minority turnout was not decreased by the law was it?

 

Nuff said

 

NO. Not by a LONG shot has enough been said. 

 

You don't have any evidence that what you say is true. You are just making **** up. The only way to get numbers would be to hold two elections on the same day with different rules. Since that is not possible the only rational way to look at this is with simple logic. Something you are in short supply of.

 

Simple logic says that when you restrict voting to working hours on week days the working poor are the ones who are restricted most because they need the hours, and are less likely to be able to take time off even if they are willing. And when you take away voting stations it is the poor who have the most trouble traveling to vote.

 

This is bull ****.  Thomas Jefferson would loose his mind if he saw the way that republicans are subverting democracy. Our founding fathers would denounce this **** in no uncertain terms. 

 

This 12 year old shows more sense than you.

 

[btfoom]

I rarely post in political type of threads, but this was just so egrigious that I had to point something out.  The link goes to a blog, not a real article in the WP.  The writer wants everyone to believe that 'restricting' voting is due to this:

 

"In most elections, the intricacies of voting procedures rarely warrant headlines or interest most Americans.  But in 2012, voter identification laws took center stage.  In fact, in the five years preceding the 2012 election, almost half of states enacted some form of legislation restricting voter access — such as requiring photo identification or proof of citizenship to vote, more stringently regulating voter registration drives, shortening early voting periods, repealing same-day voter registration, or further restricting voting by felons."

 

Yes, this is his whole issue.  I'm sorry, but if you think that that showing ID or restricting felons makes these state 'racist' - which is the entire tenor of this blog, then you will believe anything you want to believe is racist.

 

Very Sad.

[twa]

Mad Mike, try looking up the turnout results for states that enacted the laws....or keep ranting

 

whatever floats ya boat

[Mad Mike]

I wonder how many eebil large scale voting fraud conspiracies were stopped by these laws. 

 

Thats an easy number to find... ZERO

 

Iowa Republican debunks his own voter fraud claims | MSNBC

 

 

Iowa Secretary of State Matt Schultz has been a big proponent of voter ID and many of the other “voting reform” efforts that look a lot like voter suppression. Since taking office in 2011 he has repeatedly invoked voter fraud as a justification for those effects, but after spending $150,000 on an official state investigation, he’s uncovered five definitive cases of fraud. 

That’s the finding of a report from the Des Moines Register, which tracked the results of the voter fraud investigation he directed the Iowa Division of Criminal Investigation to start in July 2012. Sixteen cases were passed along to local county officials by the DCI: five led to guilty pleas; five have been dismissed; the rest are pending. 

Those five cases of definite fraud are a tiny fraction of 1.58 million votes cast in Iowa during the 2012 election. The additional pending cases primarily involve potential noncitizen voters. 

 

In 5-Year Effort, Scant Evidence of Voter Fraud - New York Times

 

Cases of voter-ID election fraud found 'virtually non-existent' | MinnPost

 

On the other hand...

 

Florida finds evidence of voter fraud by GOP-tied firm - Salon.com

 

Jack Villamaino, Former GOP Candidate, Gets 4 Months In Jail For Felony Voter Fraud

[Mad Mike]

Mad Mike, try looking up the turnout results for states that enacted the laws....or keep ranting

 

whatever floats ya boat

 

Try learning about the scientific method. Turnout results can NOT be used to show that people were or were not prevented from voting. The only way to do that would be to hold two elections at the same time and compare numbers. That is a fact.

 

I rarely post in political type of threads, but this was just so egrigious that I had to point something out.  The link goes to a blog, not a real article in the WP.  The writer wants everyone to believe that 'restricting' voting is due to this:

 

"In most elections, the intricacies of voting procedures rarely warrant headlines or interest most Americans.  But in 2012, voter identification laws took center stage.  In fact, in the five years preceding the 2012 election, almost half of states enacted some form of legislation restricting voter access — such as requiring photo identification or proof of citizenship to vote, more stringently regulating voter registration drives, shortening early voting periods, repealing same-day voter registration, or further restricting voting by felons."

 

Yes, this is his whole issue.  I'm sorry, but if you think that that showing ID or restricting felons makes these state 'racist' - which is the entire tenor of this blog, then you will believe anything you want to believe is racist.

 

Very Sad.

 

Very sad indeed that you would try to restrict the argument.  Try explaining the value of restricting voting hours and early voting.

 

Study predicts voting laws will change political landscape - The Washington Post

 

 

More than 5 million voters could be affected by recent changes to state voting laws as the nation prepares for next year’s presidential election, according to a study released Monday.

The report by the New York University School of Law’s Brennan Center for Justice analyzed 19 laws and two executive orders that were issued in 14 states this year in an attempt to measure their impact on individuals.

 

 

 

The report, which points to emboldened Republican control in state legislatures as a cause for the wave of new laws, found that the new restrictions “fall most heavily on young, minority, and low-income voters, as well as on voters with disabilities.” The laws could change the “political terrain,” the report warns.

 

 Will five million voters be prevented from voting? No. Not likely. But a few thousand here and there can make a hell of an impact. And if one eligible voter is disenfranchised or prevented from voting it is a crime against democracy.

[twa]

and one illegal vote nullifys a legal vote and is a crime, but go ahead and drag up the lack of prosecution against illegal voters that cannot be traced and prosecuted w/o voter id while clinging to your scientific method line of BS.

 

garbage in,garbage out

[elkabong82]

yeah, because illegals are just lining up to vote. They are getting fake ID's and somehow registering to vote with them or they are getting fake ID's copied off other people and going to that district and then voting early in the morning in the hopes they get there ahead of that person. And they are doing this in such great numbers that it affects elections. 

 

Does that seriously sound logical? I'd like to actually see from those in favor of these laws examples of how an illegal alien could pull off voter fraud and explain where the incentive to do so is.

[Larry]

and one illegal vote nullifys a legal vote and is a crime, but go ahead and drag up the lack of prosecution against illegal voters that cannot be traced and prosecuted w/o voter id while clinging to your scientific method line of BS.

garbage in,garbage out

Ah, got it.

There is no proof that voter fraud is happening, therefore it's happening.

There is no proof that these laws are suppressing legitimate votes, therefore it's not happening.

[mistertim]

I rarely post in political type of threads, but this was just so egrigious that I had to point something out.  The link goes to a blog, not a real article in the WP.  The writer wants everyone to believe that 'restricting' voting is due to this:

 

"In most elections, the intricacies of voting procedures rarely warrant headlines or interest most Americans.  But in 2012, voter identification laws took center stage.  In fact, in the five years preceding the 2012 election, almost half of states enacted some form of legislation restricting voter access — such as requiring photo identification or proof of citizenship to vote, more stringently regulating voter registration drives, shortening early voting periods, repealing same-day voter registration, or further restricting voting by felons."

 

Yes, this is his whole issue.  I'm sorry, but if you think that that showing ID or restricting felons makes these state 'racist' - which is the entire tenor of this blog, then you will believe anything you want to believe is racist.

 

Very Sad.

Yes it was a link to a blog...that had a link to the actual study that was done. Looks pretty extensive. It isn't just some random person saying "hey, like, Republicans suck and they hate minorities".

 

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayFulltext?type=6&fid=9122052&jid=PPS&volumeId=11&issueId=04&aid=9122051&bodyId=&membershipNumber=&societyETOCSession=&fulltextType=RA&fileId=S1537592713002843

 

So multiple studies have concluded that these voter laws disproportionately affect minorities, the poor, the young, the disabled. All of those demographics tend to vote more for Democrats instead of Republicans. Minority and youth votes are going up every election and have a bigger and bigger impact. This hurts Republicans. The states that enact these laws and the areas they are enacted in are overwhelmingly controlled by Republicans and the laws are overwhelmingly pushed by Republicans. 

 

And this is all just coincidence, yes? 

 

The whole voter fraud thing is also laughable seeing as how every single time studies are done (and many of them have been financed by Republicans) the results show no large scale voter fraud conspiracies and very little, if any, individual instances (5 out of over 1,500,000 votes cast in Iowa). Texas and Florida I believe both did some of the same sort of studies and came up empty handed as well. I know twa seems to believe that if it can't be seen it must be there, but I'm not really going to even go down that road because he is just grasping at straws at that point.

 

I'm sure there are tons of regular people who feed at the trough of conservative talk radio and other media and as a result honestly believe that there is some huge, concerted effort by lubruls to undermine democracy and destroy our country by allowing "dead people and illegals (or whatever the current meme of the day is)" to vote. But you can be damn sure that the actual political operatives who plan this stuff and send out the talking points know damn well what they're doing.

 

Sad indeed.

[Kilmer17]

Ah, got it.

There is no proof that voter fraud is happening, therefore it's happening.

There is no proof that these laws are suppressing legitimate votes, therefore it's not happening.

Or vice versa

[skinsmarydu]

Minority turnout was not decreased by the law was it?

 

Nuff said

But "can be decreased by the law" is almost a certainty. And "can be decreased" doesn't work with the Constitution.

Thanks for playing.

[Zguy28]

Does seem like correlation is there. That does not imply causation though.

Try learning about the scientific method. Turnout results can NOT be used to show that people were or were not prevented from voting. The only way to do that would be to hold two elections at the same time and compare numbers. That is a fact.

 

 

Very sad indeed that you would try to restrict the argument.  Try explaining the value of restricting voting hours and early voting.

 

Study predicts voting laws will change political landscape - The Washington Post

 

 

 

 Will five million voters be prevented from voting? No. Not likely. But a few thousand here and there can make a hell of an impact. And if one eligible voter is disenfranchised or prevented from voting it is a crime against democracy.

yes, but just as TWA cannot definitely say that there were no decrease, you cannot say there was an increase in voters turned away. While this study does seem to have indicators supporting the conclusions you make, correlation does not necessarily imply causation. You are making a valid argument, but is it sound?

[skinsmarydu]

Does seem like correlation is there. That does not imply causation though. yes, but just as TWA cannot definitely say that there were no decrease, you cannot say there was an increase in voters turned away. While this study does seem to have indicators supporting the conclusions you make, correlation does not necessarily imply causation. You are making a valid argument, but is it sound?

What makes it "sound"? If it impacts one vote, it stinks. Long lines make folks leave & not vote. They either can't stand long enough, or don't have time for what lawmakers have done to make the lines longer.

[Zguy28]

What makes it "sound"? If it impacts one vote, it stinks. Long lines make folks leave & not vote. They either can't stand long enough, or don't have time for what lawmakers have done to make the lines longer.

From a critical standpoint, it's sound if the premises are true.

[Larry]

Does seem like correlation is there. That does not imply causation though. yes, but just as TWA cannot definitely say that there were no decrease, you cannot say there was an increase in voters turned away. While this study does seem to have indicators supporting the conclusions you make, correlation does not necessarily imply causation. You are making a valid argument, but is it sound?

I'll certainly agree that it can be iffy, at best, to assign motives to actions, I do think that it's possible to come to some reasonable conclusions. For example, by looking at patterns of actions.

Analogy:

There were several posts, on here, years ago, of cases where some Republican congressman stepped on his crank, where Fox News ran pictures of the disgraced politician, with him labeled as a Democrat.

As us predictable, some people announced that thus was proof of Fox outright, intentionally, lying to its audience. Others (all of whom swore that they weren't defending Fox, and that they never watched it) rushed to claim that there was no proof that it wasn't an accident, or to assert (without any evidence) that they were certain that The Liberal Media does the same thing, or at least, would do so, if this or son had been a Dem.

My position on the debate, however, is to observe that:

Only one station has ever been caught doing this.

That one station has been caught doing it, dozens of times. Spanning years, and multiple disgraced politicians.

And, every single time it's happened, it has been done in the same political direction.

I observe that, when somebody, say, makes a math mistake on a bill they send me, then yeah, it might be a mistake.

BUT, when it happens multiple times, and every single mistake happens to be in that person's favor? Then the "there's no proof it's intentional" theory becomes tougher to sell.

----------

I'd be a whole lot more likely to believe the claims that suppressing Democratic votes is simply the accidental side effect of their noble attempt to secure the integrity of the process, if it weren't for the fact that EVERY SINGLE THING THEY PROPOSE didn't just happen to accidentally have the side effect of suppressing Democrat votes.

[Bang]

Every study that has been done on this keeps showing up that there is no problem.

enough with the idiocy. People REALLY aren't as stupid as some would like to believe.

~Bang

[Larry]

People REALLY aren't as stupid as some would like to believe.

You're in the comedy business, and you can say that with a straight face?

[Bang]

You're in the comedy business, and you can say that with a straight face?

LOL.. the best jokes are the smartest ones.. even if there is a fart involved.

~Bang

[mistertim]

Completely unrelated but I just noticed that Bang has the Nova Scotia Weather Report guy in his sig now.

 

hahaha

[NoCalMike]

When study after study shows there is no rampant voter fraud. (and I don't think you could argue that these laws are being enacted to root out the 10's of voter fraud instances nationwide)  then the question becomes, what is the motive for putting these laws into effect and who will it present the biggest obstacles to for voting who didn't previously have those obstacles in place. (and it's already been established that the laws are attempting to address an issue that doesn't even exist in the first place, so there's that too).

[Bang]

Completely unrelated but I just noticed that Bang has the Nova Scotia Weather Report guy in his sig now.

 

hahaha

Frankie is AWESOME. he's on the bang Radio Hour this week. Click it and listen. (No voter ID required!)

 

And the sig changes with each new podcast

Clockwise from bottom left.. obviously Jerruh,, the bengals punter, Josh McCown, Tom Brady, Frankie McDonald, myron Cope, BRH poet laureate John Tillyard, Black santa, and Megyn kelly.

 

~bang