The New York Times gives front page coverage to a new Brennan Center for Justice “study” purporting to show that 19 anti-voter fraud laws and 2 executive orders in 14 states, “could make it significantly harder for more than five million eligible voters to cast ballots in 2012.”
Notice the qualifier “could” there. The word is key because Brennan fails to produce any actual evidence that any of the laws in question will actually reduce voter turnout. By contrast, there is plenty of evidence from previous laws Brennan has opposed, that common sense anti-fraud laws do not harm voter turnout. The Heritage Foundation’s Hans von Spakovsky recently detailed in National Review:
Election data in Georgia demonstrate that concern about a negative effect on the Democratic or minority vote is baseless. Turnout there increased more dramatically in 2008 — the first presidential election held after the state’s photo-ID law went into effect — than it did in states without photo ID. Georgia had a record turnout in 2008, the largest in its history — nearly 4 million voters. And Democratic turnout was up an astonishing 6.1 percentage points from the 2004 election, the fourth-largest increase of any state. The black share of the statewide vote increased from 25 percent in 2004 to 30 percent in 2008, according to the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies. According to Census Bureau surveys, 65 percent of the black voting-age population voted in the 2008 election, compared with only 54.4 percent in 2004, an increase of more than ten percentage points.
For those who might reply that this was because Barack Obama was on the ballot, think again. Mississippi, with an equally large black population and no voter ID, had its Democratic turnout increase by only 2.35 percentage points. Georgia’s registration records show that while only 42.9 percent of registered black Georgians voted in 2006, when there was no photo-ID requirement, 50.4 percent voted in the 2010 congressional elections — an increase of more than seven percentage points. Georgia’s secretary of state recently pointed out that, compared with 2006, voter turnout in 2010 “among African Americans outpaced the growth of that population’s pool of registered voters by more than 20 percentage points.”
Indiana witnessed similar results. In the state considered to have the nation’s strictest voter-ID law, turnout in the Democratic presidential primary in 2008 quadrupled from the 2004 election, when there was no photo-ID law. In the general election, the turnout of Democratic voters increased by 8.32 percentage points from 2004, the largest increase in Democratic turnout of any state. Neighboring Illinois, which has no photo-ID requirement and is Obama’s home state, had its Democratic turnout increase by only 4.4 percentage points — barely half of Indiana’s increase. In the 2010 election, Indiana was one of the states with a substantial increase in black turnout: “The black share of the state vote was higher in 2010 than it was in 2008, a banner year for black turnout,” according to the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies. The black share of the total vote went from only 7 percent in 2008 to 12 percent in 2010.
Numerous studies — including those by the Heritage Foundation, the University of Missouri, the University of Delaware, and the University of Nebraska–Lincoln — have looked at data from many states and several elections and concluded that voter ID does not depress turnout. In fact, the Delaware/Nebraska study said that “concerns about voter-identification laws affecting turnout are much ado about nothing.”
For those who might reply that this was because Barack Obama was on the ballot, think again. Mississippi, with an equally large black population and no voter ID, had its Democratic turnout increase by only 2.35 percentage points. Georgia’s registration records show that while only 42.9 percent of registered black Georgians voted in 2006, when there was no photo-ID requirement, 50.4 percent voted in the 2010 congressional elections — an increase of more than seven percentage points. Georgia’s secretary of state recently pointed out that, compared with 2006, voter turnout in 2010 “among African Americans outpaced the growth of that population’s pool of registered voters by more than 20 percentage points.”
Indiana witnessed similar results. In the state considered to have the nation’s strictest voter-ID law, turnout in the Democratic presidential primary in 2008 quadrupled from the 2004 election, when there was no photo-ID law. In the general election, the turnout of Democratic voters increased by 8.32 percentage points from 2004, the largest increase in Democratic turnout of any state. Neighboring Illinois, which has no photo-ID requirement and is Obama’s home state, had its Democratic turnout increase by only 4.4 percentage points — barely half of Indiana’s increase. In the 2010 election, Indiana was one of the states with a substantial increase in black turnout: “The black share of the state vote was higher in 2010 than it was in 2008, a banner year for black turnout,” according to the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies. The black share of the total vote went from only 7 percent in 2008 to 12 percent in 2010.
Numerous studies — including those by the Heritage Foundation, the University of Missouri, the University of Delaware, and the University of Nebraska–Lincoln — have looked at data from many states and several elections and concluded that voter ID does not depress turnout. In fact, the Delaware/Nebraska study said that “concerns about voter-identification laws affecting turnout are much ado about nothing.”
Von Spakovsky’s article also details how real voter fraud sill is. But this story from Tennessee just last week is a doozy:
State Sen. Bill Ketron contends a critic of his voter ID law proved the legislation is needed by being a convicted felon who fraudulently voted for several years.
“This is about following the laws we have on the books,” said Ketron, a Murfreesboro Republican who sponsored the voter ID law. “He disenfranchised my rights.”
Ketron held a press conference Monday afternoon and teamed with former Rutherford County Democratic Party Chairman Jonathon Fagan. The duo named current local Democratic Party Vice Chairman Tony Pegel as a former convicted felon who they contend was allowed to vote from 1992 through 2010 even though Pegel failed to provide required details about his conviction to the Rutherford County Election Commission.
“This is about following the laws we have on the books,” said Ketron, a Murfreesboro Republican who sponsored the voter ID law. “He disenfranchised my rights.”
Ketron held a press conference Monday afternoon and teamed with former Rutherford County Democratic Party Chairman Jonathon Fagan. The duo named current local Democratic Party Vice Chairman Tony Pegel as a former convicted felon who they contend was allowed to vote from 1992 through 2010 even though Pegel failed to provide required details about his conviction to the Rutherford County Election Commission.
