26 thoughts on “‘Strict ID Laws Don’t Stop Voters’

  1. The usual complaint about voter ID laws is how difficult it is for some to obtain one. That and states who change what is an acceptable for of identification. So it is not the ID requirement itself. It is making it difficult for someone of limited means, including transportation, to obtain the ever-changing acceptable forms.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. The study suggests that the usual complaint is without merit. As reported, “Turnout in general doesn’t decline when these laws are in effect. Minority turnout in particular doesn’t decline.”

      Like

      1. The study does not address the ability for one to obtain a valid ID. It just says there is no issue with people using valid ID’s that have them.

        Leaving out the ever-changing valid ID’s is an issue that is NOT addressed.

        Like

        1. Or, the problem of “ever-changing valid ID’s” doesn’t even exist.

          The working paper notes, “In addition, the fact that the data follow individuals over time allows us to test the robustness of the results to specifications controlling for voter fixed effects and estimating the laws’ impact out of individuals who faced them for some but not all years.”

          If “ever-changing valid IDs” were an actual probelm, we should expect it to emerge in the study.

          Like

          1. “If “ever-changing valid IDs” were an actual problem, we should expect it to emerge in the study.”

            Not if those conducting the study, like yourself, IGNORE the issue.

            Like

  2. Is “harmless” another word you do not understand? People having to spend time, effort and money to satisfy requirements that are not needed and serve no valid public purpose is NOT harmless. The fact that these efforts by the GOP to cut down voter turn-out made many people angry and backfired on them does not make them “harmless.”

    Liked by 1 person

    1. So what you are saying is providing proof of who you are is needless and serves no valid public purpose? I’ll remember that the next time I am asked for ID for anything and tell them Paul said so. I’m sure they will say “oh, then forget the ID because Paul says it’s Ok”

      Like

      1. When you register to vote you definitely have to prove who you are and where you live. That is how you get on the voter rolls. The issue is what form of identification do you need when you show up to vote on election day.

        In the past common sense prevailed and a wider variety of evidence such as a student ID, a recent electric bill or an expired drivers license or even a simple affidavit of identity offered under oath allowed you to vote. Your name was then marked and no one else could cast that vote. This system worked with NO SIGNIFICANT in-person voter fraud for centuries. People simply do not risk serious legal trouble or even jail to cast votes they are not entitled to cast. It is a simple risk-reward equation – Too much risk for too little reward. That is why – in spite of tens of millions of dollars of our money trying to find it – in-person voter fraud simply is not a problem.

        That is why these more stringent GOP voter ID requirements serve no valid public purpose – they address a problem that did not exist. It is a sign of the strength of Democracy that Republicans have only succeeded in hurting themselve with this nonsense.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. So I will get an affidavit in November 2022 that I am Paul Murphy and vote for you, Ok? Then I will get one saying I am Len and another saying I am Adam, etc, etc. That’s all Ok with you?

          Like

          1. Good luck with that. And seeing as you have Just admitted to a premeditated attempt at voter fraud, IN WRITING, I do hope you enjoy your time at FCI Petersburg.

            Like

          2. Uh, in the good old days you did not have to “get an affidavit”, you simply produced one by affirming on the spot under penalty of perjury that you are the person whose name is on the rolls.

            There would not be much problem carrying out your plan if you thought the risk of jail time was worth it to cast an extra vote for Dear Leader. And the risk is real. I might already have voted so you would be caught. You don’t know me. I might be nearby waiting in line and you would be caught. The volunteer poll workers checking off names might know me personally and you would be caught. Or they might remember seeing you vote before and you would be caught.

            As I said earlier, and the many studies confirm, in-person voter fraud of the type these new IDs are supposed to stop simply does not happen.

            Liked by 1 person

    2. RE: “The fact that these efforts by the GOP to cut down voter turn-out made many people angry and backfired on them does not make them ‘harmless.'”

      According to the study the efforts were “harmless” in the sense that voter turn-out was not affected.

      Like

      1. Yes, I understand that people voted in spite of the pointless obstacles put their way. In fact, with people angry at these attempts at voter suppression even more turned out that might have otherwise. That may be what happened in Georgia and it resulted in the Senate being turned over to the Democrats.

        I was, however, reacting to your use of the word “harmless” because, in fact, people having to jump through extra hoops for no good reason does them harm. These procedural hoops may not have harmed turnout but they are not “harmless.”

        Liked by 1 person

      2. RE: “Yes, I understand that people voted in spite of the pointless obstacles put their way.”

        The so-called “obstacles” are not pointless. They are a necessary consequence of requiring persons to be registered to vote. But that’s changing the subject.

        The significance of the study is that is shows that strict voter ID laws do not in themselves cause harm. If you want to argue that they impose costs on the voter, you might as well complain that voting itself imposes costs upon the voter. But it is hard to see what the observation might be relevant to.

        Like

        1. “They are a necessary consequence of requiring persons to be registered to vote”

          Not in question. Paul even addressed it in an earlier post on this thread.

          HOWEVER, it is about the changing of valid ID’s that can be used to CAST a BALLOT, not register. You don’t want to admit that it is the bigger issue. Just like the study.

          Like

        2. “But it is hard to see what the observation might be relevant to.”

          Uh, it is not hard at all for people with a little common and some empathy. Maybe if you had to give up a day’s pay and spend that day in the DMV to get one of these IDs only because some Republicans don’t want you to vote maybe you would be able to see the point.

          And try to be a little logical. Sure, voting itself imposes costs. We are talking about EXTRA costs that people like you and me do not have to deal with.

          Liked by 1 person

    1. Another example of why there are so few successful conservative “comedians” or humorists. I get what they were going for but (a) not funny and (b) totally misses the point. It is not that people CANNOT get the particular IDs, it is that they should not have to. In this satire piece I would say that the subject had a better use for his day than making a special trip to the DOT to get an ID to stop something that does not happen.

      I also see the racist jujitsu behind this joke. Republicans are not trying to block people of color from voting. Oh no, it is those racist Democrats who think black people are unable to cope.

      Nice try, I suppose, but – again – sad, not funny.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Actually it is funny, and very much on point.

        The real racists in this country are those on the left who presume Blacks cannot bear the same burdens of citizenship as anyone else.

        There are hundreds of reasons to have a verifiable ID other than voting, from health care to renting a car or flying commercial.

        If liberals really were interested in helping people instead of using them, they would encourage and assist them in getting ID

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Well, as you are a diehard follower of the racist Birther-in-chief, I find your attempt to identify the “real racists” to be laughable. And, obviously, self-serving.

          Democrats think BOTH that the “burdens of citizenship” should not be increased for arbitrary reasons designed to inconvenience selected segments of the populace AND that helping people meet them – no matter how malicious – is what must be done. And that is exactly what Democrats have done and will continue to do. Which is why the Democrats now control the Presidency, the House and the Senate. And that is why a return to the days of unquestioned old white male hegemony is not possible no matter how desperately a moribund GOP throws up roadblocks to democracy wherever it can.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. Word salad notwithstanding, your side remains the true racists.

            Adult human beings are not meant to be treated as children, absolved from responsibility and presumed incompetent to make it without your enlightened guidance.

            Low expectations are the worst form of racism.

            Like

          2. “Low expectations are the worst form of racism.”

            Are you simply pretending to not understand?
            If not, try real hard. That is not difficult.

            Opposing voter suppression has NOTHING to do with expectations. NOBODY regardless of race, religion, gender or ability should be forced to jump through bureaucratic hoops that accomplish nothing of public value. There is ZERO significant in-person voter fraud and never has been. Extra requirements to address a non-problem accomplishes nothing of public value.

            And once again, being identified as “the true racists” from a diehard supporter of the race-baiting Donald Trump and a “European civilization chauvinist” like you is both laughable and pathetic. Instead of slinging silly slanders, maybe you should try to do more to expunge the overt racism of the party you support?

            Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s