P
Patriot Games
Guest
http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20071127/NATION/111270031/1002
Photo ID law didn't hurt turnout in Indiana
November 27, 2007
Voter turnout among Democrats improved slightly last year in Indiana,
despite a new law requiring voters to show photo identification at the
polls, according to a new report that comes months before the Supreme Court
hears a case challenging the law.
Jeffrey D. Milyo, a professor at the University of Missouri, compared the
2006 midterm elections - the first since Indiana's law was enacted - to the
2002 elections and said voter turnout increased about two percentage points.
He said the increase was consistent across counties with the highest
percentage of Democrats.
"A lot of the claims out there about a new disenfranchisement are really
just overblown rhetoric and fear-mongering," Mr. Milyo said.
He said the conventional wisdom is that voter-identification laws,
particularly those that require a photo, keep voters away from the polls.
But he said his findings suggest that isn't true, at least not in Indiana.
"Those fears, they're not supported by everything we know in theory and
previous evidence, and this latest study also does not support that," he
said.
But Michael P. McDonald, an assistant professor at George Mason University,
said one election isn't enough to draw any conclusions about Indiana's law,
and said Indiana's performance doesn't say anything about laws popping up in
other states.
"We need more data to know this for sure, because 2006 was a good year for
Democrats and 2002 was arguably a good year for Republicans, so saying that
Democrats were turning out more in 2006 than in 2002 doesn't really tell us
much," he said.
In particular, Indiana had several hotly contested U.S. House races which
Democrats won.
Voter-identification laws have become a bitter battlefield, with Republican
state legislatures moving to crack down on what they see as voter fraud and
Democrats tarring the laws as a modern-day disenfranchisement scheme similar
to a poll tax.
A federal appeals court has upheld Indiana's law, but the Supreme Court
announced in September that it would hear the Indiana Democratic Party's
challenge. A ruling is expected by the end of the court's session in June.
There are studies on both sides of the argument - some have found poor and
minority voters are less likely to have identification and more likely to be
Democratic voters, but other studies have found the effects to be minimal.
Even if overall turnout isn't affected, though, the Supreme Court could
invalidate the law if it finds evidence that individual voters are likely to
be disenfranchised. Indiana's law has been called the strictest in the
nation.
Voters are required to show photo identification issued either by the state
or the U.S. government. Those who cannot or refuse to show photo
identification can cast a provisional ballot, which will be counted if the
voter later produces identification or signs an affidavit citing religious
concerns or indigency as reasons for not having photo identification.
Photo ID law didn't hurt turnout in Indiana
November 27, 2007
Voter turnout among Democrats improved slightly last year in Indiana,
despite a new law requiring voters to show photo identification at the
polls, according to a new report that comes months before the Supreme Court
hears a case challenging the law.
Jeffrey D. Milyo, a professor at the University of Missouri, compared the
2006 midterm elections - the first since Indiana's law was enacted - to the
2002 elections and said voter turnout increased about two percentage points.
He said the increase was consistent across counties with the highest
percentage of Democrats.
"A lot of the claims out there about a new disenfranchisement are really
just overblown rhetoric and fear-mongering," Mr. Milyo said.
He said the conventional wisdom is that voter-identification laws,
particularly those that require a photo, keep voters away from the polls.
But he said his findings suggest that isn't true, at least not in Indiana.
"Those fears, they're not supported by everything we know in theory and
previous evidence, and this latest study also does not support that," he
said.
But Michael P. McDonald, an assistant professor at George Mason University,
said one election isn't enough to draw any conclusions about Indiana's law,
and said Indiana's performance doesn't say anything about laws popping up in
other states.
"We need more data to know this for sure, because 2006 was a good year for
Democrats and 2002 was arguably a good year for Republicans, so saying that
Democrats were turning out more in 2006 than in 2002 doesn't really tell us
much," he said.
In particular, Indiana had several hotly contested U.S. House races which
Democrats won.
Voter-identification laws have become a bitter battlefield, with Republican
state legislatures moving to crack down on what they see as voter fraud and
Democrats tarring the laws as a modern-day disenfranchisement scheme similar
to a poll tax.
A federal appeals court has upheld Indiana's law, but the Supreme Court
announced in September that it would hear the Indiana Democratic Party's
challenge. A ruling is expected by the end of the court's session in June.
There are studies on both sides of the argument - some have found poor and
minority voters are less likely to have identification and more likely to be
Democratic voters, but other studies have found the effects to be minimal.
Even if overall turnout isn't affected, though, the Supreme Court could
invalidate the law if it finds evidence that individual voters are likely to
be disenfranchised. Indiana's law has been called the strictest in the
nation.
Voters are required to show photo identification issued either by the state
or the U.S. government. Those who cannot or refuse to show photo
identification can cast a provisional ballot, which will be counted if the
voter later produces identification or signs an affidavit citing religious
concerns or indigency as reasons for not having photo identification.
