• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Study finds Voter ID laws would reduce voting by 19-29 yo minorities by up to 700,000

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,574
5
81
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57511312/study-voter-id-law-would-exclude-up-to-700000-young-minorities/

For those who argue that there's no strong evidence that voter ID laws will significantly suppress voting in certain groups, here's a study by the non-partisan Black Youth Project that finds that voting by minorities under 30 would be reduced by between 540,000 and 700,00 in states with voter ID laws.

As many as 700,000 minority voters under age 30 may be unable to cast a ballot in November because of photo ID laws in certain states, according to a new study. The lower turnout could affect several House races as well as the tight presidential contest.

Using calculations based on turnout figures for the past two presidential elections, researchers at the University of Chicago and Washington University in St. Louis concluded that overall turnout this year by young people of color ages 18-29 could fall by somewhere between 538,000 to 696,000 in states with photo ID laws.

"Our estimates are conservative. We are looking at demobilization from 9 to 25 percent," said Cathy Cohen, a University of Chicago expert on young and minority voters, who worked on the study with Jon Rogowski of Washington University. "If young people really have valid IDs at a rate of only 25 or even 50 percent, the number of young people of color disenfranchised will be even greater than what we estimate."

.
.
An analysis by the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University's law school found that 11 percent of Americans lack a government-issued photo ID such as a passport, driver's license, state ID card or military ID. Nine percent of whites don't have such ID, compared with 25 percent of blacks and 16 percent of Hispanics, the Brennan study said.

.
.
.

The analysis by Cohen and Rogowski was released this week by the Chicago-based Black Youth Project, a nonpartisan effort launched in 2004 to examine the political participation of African-Americans aged 15 to 25. It estimated that new photo requirements potentially could turn away:

170,000 to 475,000 young black voters.
68,000 to 250,000 young Hispanic voters.
13,000 to 46,000 young Asian-American voters.
1,700 to 6,400 young Native American voters.
700 to 2,700 young Pacific Islander voters. hites don't have such ID, compared with 25 percent of blacks and 16 percent of Hispanics[/B], the Brennan study said.

.
.
.
Other findings in the Cohen and Rogowski study include:

Changes in Florida's voting laws could leave more than 100,000 young minority voters unable to vote -- far more than the 537-vote margin of victory for George W. Bush in the contested 2000 presidential election.
If Pennsylvania's photo ID law is upheld by the state Supreme Court, 37,000 to 44,000 young voters of color may stay home, or be unable to vote.
In Georgia, photo ID requirements could prevent a "significant number" of the 275,000 black and Latino residents of the redrawn 12th Congressional District from voting.
And in case you doubt the legitimacy of these and other similar findings, highly respected voter statistician Nate Silver of the New York Times' fivethirtyeight blog today wrote that his analysis was including a 2% vote-suppression estimate in his data for Pennsylvania until yesterday's suspension of that state's voter ID statute:

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/

Pennsylvania Dropping From List of Swing States

On Tuesday, a Pennsylvania judge delayed implementation of provisions of a new voter identification law, essentially neutering its impact for this November’s elections.

Based on academic studies of the effect of changes to voter ID laws, we had estimated that the law would have reduced turnout in Pennsylvania by 2 percent and reduced President Obama’s margin relative to Mitt Romney by about 1 percentage point. So while that isn’t a huge effect, it is now one less thing for Mr. Obama to worry about.
These laws are despicable, and there's not a shred of evidence that voter ID fraud is anything more than an insignificant problem.

Let's see some principled right-wingers labeling these laws what they actually are: A cynical, deeply un-American strategy to suppress Democratic voting.
 

Yreka

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2005
4,084
0
76
Seems like we might need to look at what the hindrance is in actually getting an ID.. The bigger issue here might be why so many citizens don't have one.

Voting laws aside, how can you begin to expect to participate in modern society (in any western country) without one. You need it for literally everything else BUT voting.

Also, not to be pedantic, but:

... examine the political participation of African-Americans aged 15 to 25. It estimated that new photo requirements potentially could turn away:
Why age 15 to 25? Shouldn't it at least be 18+ if we are talking about people potentially being turned away from voting? It would make sense (to me) to not have an ID at these ages unless you are fortunate enough to get your DL at 16... I know quite a few people that didnt get ID until they turned 18.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,574
5
81
Seems like we might need to look at what the hindrance is in actually getting an ID.. The bigger issue here might be why so many citizens don't have one.

Voting laws aside, how can you begin to expect to participate in modern society (in any western country) without one. You need it for literally everything else BUT voting.

Also, not to be pedantic, but:



Why age 15 to 25? Shouldn't it at least be 18+ if we are talking about people potentially being turned away from voting? It would make sense (to me) to not have an ID at these ages unless you are fortunate enough to get your DL at 16... I know quite a few people that didnt get ID until they turned 18.
This was their age in 2004, and this group is being followed over time.
 

IGBT

Lifer
Jul 16, 2001
17,699
47
91
yet the same voters would be required to have a picture ID to vote in a union election/contract or get in the door at the DNC.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,574
5
81
yet the same voters would be required to have a picture ID to vote in a union election/contract or get in the door at the DNC.
Why are you comparing a highly-motivated minority conventioneer, who has traveled hundreds or thousands of miles, and spent days away from normal home-life, to a typical minority voter? And why are you comparing a highly motivated union member, whose livelihood and benefits are directly effected by the vote, to a typical minority voter?

The point is, there's almost no meaningful "suppression" effect in the examples you give. Furthermore, the IDs serve a legitimate purpose (do you REALLY think that there would be no significant attempts to disrupt political conventions if non-conventioneers were not excluded? DO you REALLY think there would be no significant attempts to break up union solidarity if non-union-memmbers were not excluded?).

Compare this with voter ID laws. There's essentially ZERO upside and abundant downside.
 

keird

Diamond Member
Jan 18, 2002
3,718
9
81
I agree with voter ID laws.

I think that the cited statistics appear credible and I also think that individuals who require ID should have them furnished at no cost. You can tack a fee of around $2-$5 on most drivers’ license fees every 5 years to fund a voter ID initiative. I would pay that to have some substantial check in place to prevent fraud.

Look, some people will abuse any system. If you didn’t mandate identification to purchase alcohol or tobacco, it would be abused. It’s the same for subsidized healthcare (prescription drugs that are abused or resold), the same for loans or cell phones or any number of the daily transactions that typically require ID. There is a real monetary incentive for people to commit voter fraud.

I’m watching disability requirements become less and less stringent so that people can get subsidized healthcare and I’m in the healthcare system seeing prescription and illicit drug abuse becoming more predominant. The reported fraud in disability, SNAP, housing benefits is just scratching the surface and the voters are apparently enabling it. With all of the fraud that we know is not caught how is a voter ID law not appealing to me?

With the entitlement fraud, lobbyists, special interests, corporate interests, gross waste in government programs… this 2 party system really sucks but I think some measure emplaced against voter fraud and I don’t think the voter rolls are cutting it anymore.
 
Last edited:

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,574
5
81
I agree with voter ID laws.

I think that the cited statistics appear credible and I also think that individuals who require ID should have them furnished at no cost. You can tack a fee of around $2-$5 on most drivers’ license fees every 5 years to fund a voter ID initiative. I would pay that to have some substantial check in place to prevent fraud.

Look, some people will abuse any system. If you didn’t mandate identification to purchase alcohol or tobacco, it would be abused. It’s the same for subsidized healthcare (prescription drugs that are abused or resold), the same for loans or cell phones or any number of the daily transactions that typically require ID. There is a real monetary incentive for people to commit voter fraud.

I’m watching disability requirements become less and less stringent so that people can get subsidized healthcare and I’m in the healthcare system seeing prescription and illicit drug abuse becoming more predominant. The reported fraud in disability, SNAP, housing benefits is just scratching the surface and the voters are apparently enabling it. With all of the fraud that we know is not caught how is a voter ID law not appealing to me?

With the entitlement fraud, lobbyists, special interests, corporate interests, gross waste in government programs… this 2 party system really sucks but I think some measure emplaced against voter fraud and I don’t think the voter rolls are cutting it anymore.
Your response indicates you think there's enough voter ID fraud to warrant laws to prevent it. Yet there's essentially zero evidence to back up that assertion, and there's abundant evidence that voter ID laws discourage hundreds of thousands of otherwise qualified voters from voting.

Let me make an analogy:

Suppose a law were passed that required that everyone getting a yearly physical receive a test for the presence of the Ebola virus, because such a test would prevent outbreaks of Ebola hemorrhagic fever in the United States. Suppose further that this test required collection of spinal fluid (which necessitates a spinal tap, an expensive, painful, and somewhat risky procedure that can cause permanent paralysis).

Advocates of the "Ebola law" assert out that the American public deserves to be protected from the horrific effects of Ebola hemorrhagic fever, and that the only way to do this effectively is to subject everyone who voluntarily shows up for a physical to the Ebola test. Opponents of the law point out that there's never been a case of human Ebola in the U.S., and the law will therefore "solve" a nonexistent problem. Further, opponents present studies that show that the law will discourage hundreds of thousands of those who would otherwise get yearly physicals from receiving them (because of the fear of pain and of being paralyzed during spinal-fluid collection), causing hundreds of unnecessary deaths each year.

Would you support the "Ebola law?" And if not, what is your reasoning?
 

keird

Diamond Member
Jan 18, 2002
3,718
9
81
Your response indicates you think there's enough voter ID fraud to warrant laws to prevent it. Yet there's essentially zero evidence to back up that assertion, and there's abundant evidence that voter ID laws discourage hundreds of thousands of otherwise qualified voters from voting.

Let me make an analogy:

Suppose a law were passed that required that everyone getting a yearly physical receive a test for the presence of the Ebola virus, because such a test would prevent outbreaks of Ebola hemorrhagic fever in the United States. Suppose further that this test required collection of spinal fluid (which necessitates a spinal tap, an expensive, painful, and somewhat risky procedure that can cause permanent paralysis).

Advocates of the "Ebola law" assert out that the American public deserves to be protected from the horrific effects of Ebola hemorrhagic fever, and that the only way to do this effectively is to subject everyone who voluntarily shows up for a physical to the Ebola test. Opponents of the law point out that there's never been a case of human Ebola in the U.S., and the law will therefore "solve" a nonexistent problem. Further, opponents present studies that show that the law will discourage hundreds of thousands of those who would otherwise get yearly physicals from receiving them (because of the fear of pain and of being paralyzed during spinal-fluid collection), causing hundreds of unnecessary deaths each year.

Would you support the "Ebola law?" And if not, what is your reasoning?
Yes. I think that there is voter fraud occurring. That 'essentially zero' statement is not something I agree with. I'm certain that entitlement fraud is underreported. I'm wondering what the the correlation is. I'd be willing to pay an extra $5 every 5 years so that voters weren't disenfranchised.

The Ebola analogy doesn't do it for me. Where is the incentive to get Ebola (fraud)?
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,574
5
81
Yes. I think that there is voter fraud occurring. That 'essentially zero' statement is not something I agree with. I'm certain that entitlement fraud is underreported. I'm wondering what the the correlation is. I'd be willing to pay an extra $5 every 5 years so that voters weren't disenfranchised.

The Ebola analogy doesn't do it for me. Where is the incentive to get Ebola (fraud)?
The analogy is: Passing a law that creates a much bigger problem than it solves.

Your comparison of entitlement fraud with voter ID fraud is fallacious. Those committing entitlement fraud receive significant personal benefits - thousands of dollars worth in many cases. What benefit would a person impersonating a registered voter receive?

For it to make any sense at all, there would need to be organized groups paying thousands of people (it would take at least that many to swing an election in a closely-contested states) to impersonate voters, and these organized groups would need to know for sure that very, very few of the voters being impersonated would show up to vote (otherwise, suspicions would be raised). And do you think that thousands of paid impersonators would all be able to keep their mouths shut? We're talking "voter ID fraud" here, not "election fraud," which is another matter altogether.

Even the State of Pennsylvania, defending its voter ID law, stipulated that voter ID fraud was not a problem, and was not anticipated to be a problem even without the law.

Again, you've got abundant evidence that these laws have a major negative effect, and no evidence at all that there's a problem needing correction.
 

keird

Diamond Member
Jan 18, 2002
3,718
9
81
The analogy is: Passing a law that creates a much bigger problem than it solves.

Your comparison of entitlement fraud with voter ID fraud is fallacious. Those committing entitlement fraud receive significant personal benefits - thousands of dollars worth in many cases. What benefit would a person impersonating a registered voter receive?
Money. Why do you think there are some fighting such a common sense law like this? They'd get less money. Water is wet, the sky is blue and special interests groups want money and power.

P&N is like debate team practice, at best.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,574
5
81
Money. Why do you think there are some fighting such a common sense law like this? They'd get less money. Water is wet, the sky is blue and special interests groups want money and power.

P&N is like debate team practice, at best.
What money? How much? How many? Where's you evidence? Don't just spew unsubstantiated opinions, cite facts.

I'm an example of someone fighting "common sense laws" such as this and I can assure you there's not a penny in it for me.

Why do you have so much difficulty understanding that a law that prevents 100 (or even 1000) fraudulent votes but suppresses 700,000 legitimate votes is a BAD LAW?
 

keird

Diamond Member
Jan 18, 2002
3,718
9
81
What money? How much? How many? Where's you evidence? Don't just spew unsubstantiated opinions, cite facts.

I'm an example of someone fighting "common sense laws" such as this and I can assure you there's not a penny in it for me.

Why do you have so much difficulty understanding that a law that prevents 100 (or even 1000) fraudulent votes but suppresses 700,000 legitimate votes is a BAD LAW?
I think that the cited statistics appear credible and I also think that individuals who require ID should have them furnished at no cost. You can tack a fee of around $2-$5 on most drivers’ license fees every 5 years to fund a voter ID initiative. I would pay that to have some substantial check in place to prevent fraud.
It's called compromise. Do you see what I did there? It meets both standards. No one is disinfranchised and there is lessened voter fraud. All for about $1/year for the average licensed driver.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,574
5
81
It's called compromise. Do you see what I did there? It meets both standards. No one is disinfranchised and there is lessened voter fraud. All for about $1/year for the average licensed driver.
Yes, I saw that in your earlier post. But it's apparently not the cost that's the suppressor. In fact, Pennsylvania's law already provides free IDs, yet the estimate for suppressed votes in Pennsylvania was 2% of the total. That's a HUGE effect. How prevalent is voter ID fraud?

http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/policy_brief_on_the_truth_about_voter_fraud/

Fraud by individual voters is both irrational and extremely rare. Most citizens who take the time to vote offer their legitimate signatures and sworn oaths with the gravitas that this hard-won civic right deserves. Even for the few who view voting merely as a means to an end, however, voter fraud is a singularly foolish way to attempt to win an election. Each act of voter fraud risks five years in prison and a $10,000 fine - but yields at most one incremental vote. The single vote is simply not worth the price.

Because voter fraud is essentially irrational, it is not surprising that no credible evidence suggests a voter fraud epidemic. There is no documented wave or trend of individuals voting multiple times, voting as someone else, or voting despite knowing that they are ineligible. Indeed, evidence from the microscopically scrutinized 2004 gubernatorial election in Washington State actually reveals just the opposite: though voter fraud does happen, it happens approximately 0.0009% of the time. The similarly closely-analyzed 2004 election in Ohio revealed a voter fraud rate of 0.00004%. National Weather Service data shows that Americans are struck and killed by lightning about as often.
Compare 2% with .00009% (the larger of the two numbers cited above) and you have a factor of over 22,000. That is, assuming voter ID laws could eliminate every fraudulent vote, 1 fraudulent vote would be prevented for every 22,000 votes suppressed. And this would be in a state that already provides FREE IDs.

Given the facts of the matter, there's no rational basis for implementing voter ID laws. They unavoidably stop a vastly greater number of people from voting than they stop fraudulent votes.
 

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,445
0
0
Did he really post that the Black Youth Project was really non-partisan?
Without smiling?
and post about a "study" that's non peer reviewed and pretend it has credence?
and really compare getting a spinal tap to getting a photo ID ?
and really compare getting a spinal tap to getting a photo ID ? really?
Thanks for the laugh.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,574
5
81
Did he really post that the Black Youth Project was really non-partisan?
Without smiling?
and post about a "study" that's non peer reviewed and pretend it has credence?
and really compare getting a spinal tap to getting a photo ID ?
and really compare getting a spinal tap to getting a photo ID ? really?
Thanks for the laugh.
Oh, I see. If the subject of a study is "black youth," then it's impossible that the study is non-partisan. Similarly, any study whose subject is "women," "gays," "Muslims," "climate change," "nuclear power," or "wolves" must be biased, too. Because it's not possible to perform an objective study of any of these subjects.

You are a black hole of stupidity.
 

boomerang

Lifer
Jun 19, 2000
18,897
638
126
Given the facts of the matter, there's no rational basis for implementing voter ID laws. They unavoidably stop a vastly greater number of people from voting than they stop fraudulent votes.
Only a progressive like yourself would make an argument against something that is nothing more than common sense. People need ID in our modern society just as they did in days of old. It's not like elections are a big surprise. It's time for the brothers to go mainstream. They're going to need one to get a job and we all know they desperately want one so what better time than now?

You don't get to be President without ID. It's time to emulate the Commander-in-Chief.
 
Last edited:

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,445
0
0
Oh, I see. If the subject of a study is "black youth," then it's impossible that the study is non-partisan. Similarly, any study whose subject is "women," "gays," "Muslims," "climate change," "nuclear power," or "wolves" must be biased, too. Because it's not possible to perform an objective study of any of these subjects.

You are a black hole of stupidity.
No, I just took the time to do a casual search of them. You get angry when your intellectual dishonesty gets pointed out to you?

http://research.blackyouthproject.com/about-us/cathy-j-cohen/

http://www.blackyouthproject.com/
 

nextJin

Golden Member
Apr 16, 2009
1,848
0
0
With 98 percent of black Americans voting Democrat its hard to see this being anything but bias.
 
Jan 25, 2011
16,084
7,573
146
Only a progressive like yourself would make an argument against something that is nothing more than common sense. People need ID in our modern society just as they did in days of old. It's not like elections are a big surprise. It's time for the brothers to go mainstream. They're going to need one to get a job and we all know they desperately want one so what better time than now?

You don't get to be President without ID. It's time to emulate the Commander-in-Chief.
That is a statement that reality does not support. The fact that over 10% of the U.S. population is without a photo ID that would be deemed acceptable for voting shows that they do NOT need to have one.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,574
5
81
No, I just took the time to do a casual search of them. You get angry when your intellectual dishonesty gets pointed out to you?

http://research.blackyouthproject.com/about-us/cathy-j-cohen/

http://www.blackyouthproject.com/
Maybe you should learn to read. The "non-partisan" adjective comes straight from the CBS news article. I repeat the sentence here for your edification:

The analysis by Cohen and Rogowski was released this week by the Chicago-based Black Youth Project, a nonpartisan effort launched in 2004 to examine the political participation of African-Americans aged 15 to 25.
But you keep right on ignoring science and scholarly reports. Nate Silver? He's a know-nothing expert on political polling who just randomly came up with that 2% suppression number out of thin air. The Brennan Center? More bias disguised as an academic study.

You know better, because you have that certainty right in your own head. You don't need data, just an opinion backed by righteous indignation.
 

boomerang

Lifer
Jun 19, 2000
18,897
638
126
That is a statement that reality does not support. The fact that over 10% of the U.S. population is without a photo ID that would be deemed acceptable for voting shows that they do NOT need to have one.
Notwithstanding the fact that your comments make little sense, U.S. population? Did you mean citizens? You have to be a citizen to vote so you can't count illegals in any percentage with no ID. But as I said, you drew some kind of bizarro world parallel that makes no sense whatsoever.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,599
5
0
That is a statement that reality does not support. The fact that over 10% of the U.S. population is without a photo ID that would be deemed acceptable for voting shows that they do NOT need to have one.
And how much of those are actually voting?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY