PA Voter ID Law May Disenfranchise 9% Of Registered Voters. Massive Racial Impact?

The Philadelphia Inquirer's headline understates the concerns here:

Voter ID law may hit more in Pa. than originally estimated

It appears that 9.2% of registered voters in Pennsylvania do not currently have a PA driver's license or state-issued identification card.  A few may have passports, student ID's with expiration dates, military ID's or government issued employee identification cards.  But as the story points out, most voters don't have these approved alternatives. 

Supporters of the law will argue that some of these people are dead and some moved out of state.  I'm sure that's true.  But my guess is that a similar perecentage of new registrants will also lack these ID cards - so there will be freshly registered (and disenfranchised) voters created every day between now and the final date for November registration.

But it gets worse - particularly for a Democratic president.  18% of registered voters in Philadelphia don't have a Pennsylvania issued identification card.  Not a huge surprise: many people in a big city, with comprehensive public transit, don't drive. 

Of course, big cities have different demographics than the rest of the state.  And nobody is going to be surprised if this law has a wildly disparate racial impact, disenfranchising Blacks at astronomically higher rates.  Roughly half of Philadelphia's population is African-American.  And almost half of all African-Americans in Pennsylvania live in Phillly.  So although this new report doesn't tell us much about the demographics of that disenfranchised 9.2 percent, we can all make a rough guess.

Nobody is suprised by this result, I 'm sure, least of all the Republicans who pushed the legislation through Harrisburg.  One 2006 one study estimated that 19% of African-Americans lived in homes with no car...compared to 4.6% of whites.  So if you're trying to clear the decks for a Republican candidate, voter ID laws are an excellent strategy.

 

Comments

[anon]

"18% of registered voters in Philadelphia don't have a Pennsylvania issued identification card."
Hmmmm. OK, a "Penn issued id card." But, an id?
Is it possible that nearly 1 in 5 "registered voters" in Philly don't cash checks (including assistance checks), don't ride in airplanes, don't have bank accounts, don't have apartments, cars, or cell phones, etc.
Really? Does this seem like a credible claim? When one reads teh article, one realizes that this "fact" is probably wrong.
But, let's not let that stand in the way of dividing us into teams and demonizing the "other side." Let's instead not forget to accuse and divide ourselves based on this claimed "fact" which is likely bogus.
Evil evil evil people who are racists know about this "fact" and they conspire to prevent minorities from voting. After all, you say, those without id in Philly are black and we therefore know that they will vote as a block for the President!
Evil, evil people just have no legitimate reasons to ask them to show id to vote.
Again, of course, the story really doesn't say that either. The story goes on to tell us that "the state intends to send letters this summer to all voters without PennDot ID telling them of the new law, the types of ID that will be necessary to vote in November, and how to obtain suitable ID if they need it." Why not mention that?
Georgia and Indiana enacted voter ID laws, and both of those laws have been in place more than five years. The Washington Post recently quoted an expert without contradiction as follows: “Turnout of Hispanics and blacks went up dramatically after voter ID laws went into place.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/justice-department-bars-texas-voter-id-law/2012/03/12/gIQAUzgW7R_story.html
Rather than questioning those who want to establish reasonble means to require voter id, but who are also willing to accomodate those who need such id, why not question the motives of those who seem so bound and determined to make sure that a person need not show any id to vote?
Isn't there a middle ground that accomodates all legitimate interests, including vindicating the right to vote and the integrity of the process, without all the demonizing?
"So if you're trying to clear the decks for a Republican candidate, voter ID laws are an excellent strategy.
This country can't move forward if it is always "us" and "them"!

[Dan Filler]

Wow, anon. This really touched a nerve. But here is the issue: voter ID laws solve a non-problem. So we have to ask why they exist. The data that I present here is one highly plausible explanation. Why is it that African-Americans have been so opposed to these laws? If my suggestiion is wrong, the alternative explanation to mine is that these communities have been involved in extensive fraud that they recognize will be stopped. And I don't buy that at all.

And the quote from the Heritage Foundation expert touting hikes in minority voter participation after adoption of ID laws does not seem to account for the fact that, in that time, Barack Obama ran for President.

It is very nice to try to find a world without "us and them", but voter ID laws are highly potent strategies clearly designed to exclude legal voters - while giving popular cover under the claim that they will eliminate fraud. The only problem: there is only trace evidence of the fraud they'll solve. They are an "us and them" weapon.

[anon]

If a law addresses a real crime – impersonation fraud – then there should be good grounds to oppose it. The grounds you appear to assert are that these laws are intended by Republicans to suppress turnout of likely Democratic voters and that there is no impersonation fraud.
As to point one, you appear to concede that the fact that massive numbers, increased numbers, of minority voters were able to vote when the President ran in 2008, even in states with updated voter id laws. Opposition to voter id laws on the basis of your first point in a non-problem. Voter id laws in fact do not stymie legitimate voters.
See, e.g, http://www.brennancenter.org/page/-/Democracy/VRE/Mycoff%20et%20al.pdf
Incidentally, before rushing to discredit this report, please note that the Brennan Center does not have a bias in favor of voter id laws. In fact, the Brennan Center opposes such laws on your second ground: the Brennan Center has filed briefs, arguing that the threat of impersonation fraud, which these laws purport to combat, is extremely rare and does not justify an ID requirement.
See, http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/policy_brief_on_the_truth_about_voter_fraud/.
Is there evidence of impersonation fraud that would justify voter id laws? That may be like asking if there is a need for laws against murder in a community where no murders have been prosecuted. The rate of prosecution is often the sole criterion used by those who claim there is no problem. That is, of course, faulty logic.
Despite the common-place hysterical cries to the contrary, rationale and credible voices favor voter id laws:
"The electoral system cannot inspire public confidence if no safeguards exist to deter or detect fraud or to confirm the identity of voters." That was the conclusion of the bipartisan Commission on Federal Election Reform, headed by former president Jimmy Carter and former secretary of State James Baker. The commission recommended stronger photo-identification requirements at the polls. Its logic was straightforward and convincing: Americans must show photo identification for all kinds of day-to-day activities, such as cashing checks or entering government buildings. The many photo ID requirements we encounter in our daily lives are legitimate, effective security measures. Securing the ballot box is just as important.”
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/story/2012-03-19/voter-ID-Texas-fraud/53658158/1
The Carter-Baker Commission recommended “[T]o make sure that a person arriving at a polling site is the same one who is named on the list, we propose a uniform system of voter identification based on the 'REAL ID card' or an equivalent for people without a driver’s license. “
Why do I favor a less divisive dialogue about voter id laws (i.e., a move away from casting the issue as the evil racist Republicans against the poor, the old, and minorities)? Because there is no real evidence of the claim that these laws, if properly drafted and administered, suppress legitimate voting, and the proscription of voter fraud is legitimate. There therefore should be a middle ground.

[Matt]

There's some helpful discussion on this issue by Kevin Drum, here:

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/07/no-taxation-without-representation-field-guide-voter-suppression

Drum has a long article on the issue, liked above, but I haven't read it.

In Pennsylvania, it's worth nothing that at least one Republican state representative was explicit about the law being designed to help PA go for Romney.

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/06/quote-day-voter-why-republicans-voter-id-laws

This is from the House Majority Leader in PA. The reasoning behind this stuff really isn't a mystery.

[anon]

Matt: You are correct.
"In Pennsylvania, it's worth nothing that at least one Republican state representative was explicit about the law being designed to help PA go for Romney."
Nothing, indeed. A quote pulled out of context that sounds idiotic has no bearing one or the other on the merits.
The evidence is that voter id laws do not have the effect claimed (see, evidence cited above).
It never ceases to amaze me that folks actually take the position that hapless “minorities” can't figure out how to get an id. Some blithely claim, for example, that “young” blacks don't have id. Really?
From the Mother Jones piece: “Photo ID laws like Pennsylvania's are mainly about politics, and everyone knows it. They suppress turnout primarily among minorities, the poor, and the young, and those are well-known Democratic-leaning constituencies.”
Does this assertion, based on faulty stats and logic (see above), reflect reality or instead a prejudiced and distorted view about the ability of "minorities" to navigate in a society that requires id for so many financial transactions and so many other routine day-to-day activities?
If a person contends (wrongly, it seems from the actual evidence) that “minorities” can’t figure out how to get an id or that “minorities” can’t get it together enough to get an id to vote (and for other purposes), or that “minorities” don’t have id (when in fact, they do), then how should we characterize that attitude?
I'll concede that the issue may be different for people here in the country without permission. In those cases, getting an id that qualifies for voting may be precluded by law, and there may therefore be a valid reason to avoid attempting to obtain such id.
Any objection to disqualifying those persons based on failure to have a valid id?

[Matt]

Anon,
First, thanks for noting my (amusing) type. There was another, too- "liked" instead of "linked". And I don't even use facebook, so I don't know what was up with the second one.

What context for the quote above do you think would make it not the case that it indicated that the purpose of the PA voter ID law was to help Republicans? I'd be interested to see it. (There's no evidence of significant impersonation voter fraud, and none of significant voting by non-citizens, either, so _those_ can't be factors that would make this law likely to help Romney win.)

I don't see that either Dan nor I say or suggest that minorities, students, etc. "can't figure out" how to get an ID. (Though it can be fairly difficult to get one if you don't have one already.) What we'd said was that it's in fact the case that 1) minorities, students, and the like are less likely to have IDs, and that 2) these groups are more likely to vote for Democrats. I don't see that anything you've said throws any doubt on those claims. Do you have evidence that either one is wrong? Or is your idea that only those who take the steps to get an ID should be allowed to vote, even though there's no evidence that vote fraud is a significant problem? If so, what's the theory behind that?

[anon]

Matt:
In response to the original post, and the somewhat typical rhetoric in the comments, I've cited plenty of the evidence above. Voter id laws in fact have little or no effect on motivated and legitimate "minority" voting. See, e.g., the Brennan Center report.
Such voting increased in states with voter id laws when President Obama ran in 2008. Voter id laws were not the huge impediment that some claim them to be.
Former president Jimmy Carter and former secretary of state James Baker headed a commission that recommended stronger photo-identification requirements at the polls. See, the link above. I would recommend a quick read of that report. It makes more sense than unsupported claims about the percentage of the population that lacks id.
Carter isn't a racist, and he isn't a Republican. The report is based on common sense. It concedes potential problems with voter id laws, and recommends common sense solutions to avoid those problems. But, the Carter-Baker report adequately explains the legitimate reason for voter id laws.
(As I said above, a random quote from a state senator in Penn is worthless in terms of an argument on the merits of this issue. Perhaps that person was basing that statement on claims about the effect of voter id laws that aren't based on facts. Some Republicans may share the faulty belief that voter id laws stifle "minority" and "youth" voting, and thus make Republican victories more likely. Any such belief doesn't make that claim true.)
The original post linked to a story that reported the results of a comparison of the number of registered voters in Philly with the number of those without "DOT" ID. The story pointed out the flaws in this method, and noted that the actual number of "minorities" and "young people" without id was likely inflated using that method of calculation.
"Minorities" and "young" people (in particular, students) already have or can easily obtain id.
Do students you know lack id? Can we use some common sense? Students have a student id, and have likely used an id to get a cell phone, a student loan, a place to live, to get on a plane, to cash a check, to open a bank account, and in any number of other routine transactions.
And I have even more faith in "minorities" ... they aren't hapless and they are not as unable to obtain id as some claim them to be. In fact, such claims are sort of, well, prejudiced. Some people make “minorities” sound like incompetents, who can’t obtain id.
What is the evidence that "minorities" can't obtain id? Should we speak of "minorities" in such disparaging and generalized ways? I think not.
But, you say, why should they? For those who still don't have an ID, is obtaining one an undue burden on the right to vote? No. Not according to the 6-3 vote of the Supreme Court in Crawford v. Marion. No, according to Carter-Baker. No, according to most, I would say.
You haven’t apparently reviewed the article from USA Today, by the Texas Attorney General, I cited above. In that article, he related that he had obtained dozens of convictions for voter fraud. These included “a woman who voted in place of her dead mother, a political operative who cast ballots for two people, and a city councilmember who registered foreign nationals to vote in an election decided by 19 votes. “
Because voter fraud in seldom prosecuted, it is often concluded it doesn’t exist. But the truth may be that given lax laws and lazy enforcement, it isn’t detected.
Here is the real crux of it: you have not answered whether a person who cannot legally obtain id should be able to vote.
This is really not a question that calls for speculation about whether this circumstance may ever occur.
It is really just a baseline reality check. If your answer is “yes” because otherwise too many “minorities” would be inconvenienced by the need to obtain id then we simply disagree, for all of the reasons stated above.

[Bill Turnier]

As I was reading the above comments I thought about the debate over gun control where conservatives often argue that we should be reluctant to impose limits on gun ownership and should deal with abuses after a gun related crime has been committed by putting the malefactor in jail. However, when it comes to exercising the right to vote, many gun right advocates suddenly think that punishing malefactors after they have committed a voting fraud offense is totally inadequate. I note that liberals also display a similar inconsistency on voting and gun ownership, deeming punishment of illegal use of guns to be inadequate whereas the right thing to do in voting situations is to deal with it after the fraud has been committed or at least attempted. Could it really come down to whose ox is being gored?

[Anon]

Aww yeah, "Phillly" with three L's.

[Ron Levy]

To answer Bill Turnier; in a corrupt area it is impossible to prosecute voter fraud without voter ID because no one gathers any evidence of voter fraud. No evidence, no case. With voter ID laws a poll watcher can collect evidence of fraud.

We require ID and proof of state residency and a criminal instant check (at least) when purchasing firearms from a dealer - that is the equivalent of checking ID at the polls.

[Bill Turnier]

Ron, you conveniently leave out the non-dealer exception which is what allows so many gun shows to thrive. It is as if we had tough voter ID laws at official polling stations but let anybody vote at the local saloon (where many polling stations used to be in the 19th century before reform legislation stopped the practice). I will concede strong voter ID laws to you if you can get Congress (with the permission of the NRA) to remove the non-dealer exception.

[Matt]

Anon,
I'm sorry to be slow to reply- I had internet troubles yesterday. I see your points, but here's why I'm not fully satisfied with them:

"a random quote from a state senator in Penn is worthless in terms of an argument on the merits of this issue."

The man in question is the Speaker of the House of Pennsylvania, and when we're looking at a law just pasted by the Republican majority in Pennsylvania, what he says to a friendly audience is, I'd think, highly relevant for understanding the motivation behind the bill. Now, maybe the bill won't succeed in doing what he hopes. (I think that's less clear than you do, but let's leave that aside.) Voting is a fundamental right, and therefore ought to be infringed for only the very best reasons. Political advantage is a very bad reason to infringe fundamental rights. Even if it infringes on the rights of a small number, that's still an injustice, and it's an even worse injustice if done for bad reasons. The fact that those who are properly "motivated" could overcome this road-block doesn't mean that it's okay. A $5 poll-tax could be overcome by any motivated voter, too, but still would be an unacceptable infringement.

You're right that the supreme court has said that it's not an unacceptable infringement, but I think they're wrong. It's also not as if justices are clearly non-political in many of their decisions.

As for the Carter/Baker commission, they don't identify a problem that would justify needing to "ensure confidence" by voter ID. Many people believe there's a serious problem, but there's not much evidence for this. (More in a minute.) This is supported by the Brennen Center study you cite- that there's no evidence of significant fraud. So again, this seems like a solution in search of a problem. Also, the solution the Carter/Baker commission recommended, "a uniform system of voter identification based on the 'REAL ID card' or an equivalent for people without a driver’s license." is not what we have, and the "REAL ID" has been opposed by many of the same states that have put voter ID requirements in place. I would probably be less skeptical of a plan to having something like the Carter/Baker plan (and I think a national ID would be a good idea) but this isn't what we have nor what we're talking about in this post. The steps that would be needed to make the Carter/Baker plan work (a national ID) have been opposed by many of the same groups supporting voter ID, so this is largely irrelevant to the issue at hand.

As to the US News article, I'd submit that about "50 convictions in recent years" (how many? It's not said, but that's relevant) in a state as large as Texas is evidence of no significant problem, not evidence of a significant problem. Additionally, that number is clearly misleading, given that it includes, by the author's own statement, cases of _registration fraud_ (or registering people who shouldn't be- it's not clear from what's said that it was necessarily fraudulent, though perhaps it was.) This is a different issue, and one that has nothing to do with voter ID laws, since, of course, "foreign nationals" can have the ID needed to vote. (My wife is a non-citizen, but has a normal PA driver's license, a university issued, ID, etc.) Slight-of-hand between cases of vote fraud (people voting under someone else's name) and _registration fraud_ (which voter ID won't help) is a normal tactic here, but should lead us to look on those making the switch with skepticism. I don't accuse you of doing that, but I think this, among other things, throws considerable doubt on the evidentiary value of the article.

Finally, it's likely true that many (though not all) people could over-come these burdens if they had the motivation. But given that there's no good evidence that this is a serious problem, and that this is a burden on a fundamental right, why have it? Why risk infringing on people's fundamental rights? The quote from the PA Speaker of the House provides some evidence as to why such laws are passed, and ought to make us skeptical of them.

[anon]

Matt:
Thanks for your thoughtful post. I don't want to speculate, but, can we conclude that your answer is yes?
[Here is the real crux of it: you have not answered whether a person who cannot legally obtain id should be able to vote.
This is really not a question that calls for speculation about whether this circumstance may ever occur.
It is really just a baseline reality check. If your answer is “yes” because otherwise too many “minorities” would be inconvenienced by the need to obtain id then we simply disagree, for all of the reasons stated above.]

[Brett]

Yes, a large chunk of Americans do not cash checks. They don't use banks, They use credit unions. They use money orders. They don't drive. They take the bus, walk or bum rides off others. Sometimes the IDs they do have to meet W9 employment needs is fake and they know the employer will look the other way, but they won't show it to a 'government official' like an election judge. Not because they are illegal, but because they are poor. The working poor. I am afraid that Americans can't see this for what it is. This new century poll tax will disenfranchise voters. Yes, more of them may vote Democratic and that is why the Republicans are leading this charge, but some of them would have voted the other way, too. My 86 year old grandmother who has voted every election and knows all the election volunteers by name but doesn't have an ID, or even a birth certificate won't have an easy time of complying with a law designed to limit her ability to vote. My brother-in-law who had a DUI in the 90s and hasn't had any government issued ID since, rides his bike to all his part-time all-cash jobs to earn a less than poverty level annual wage and has walked to his local polls for every elextion for close to 30 years. How will he vote in the next election without a heavy investment of time or money. Is it right to make someone travel to a government office, pay money for an ID card, and then have to show it to vote? When there are basically NO instances of voter identity fraud? And if you don't think getting to a government office during your work day when you don't drive when you are on the brink of losing your job everyday isn't an undue burden, you are lucky, but lack compassion and a basic understanding of the democratic principles this country was founded on. Rise up fellow citizens! Let your legislators know YOU will vote and you will remember they tried to take away another of our rights. That is really our only control. Our voice, our vote, our actions.

[anon]

Wow. Sounds very impassioned.
"They don't use banks, They use credit unions."
Really? So, in a "credit union" id is not required? I have used a credit union. ID required. No doubt.
"My 86 year old grandmother who has voted every election and knows all the election volunteers by name but doesn't have an ID, or even a birth certificate won't have an easy time of complying with a law designed to limit her ability to vote."
No social security? I wasn't aware these benefits are allowed without proof of identity to establish entitlement. Moreover, cashing social security checks (no bank account for direct deposit, right?) doesn't require any form of identification? Really?
"Sometimes the IDs they do have to meet W9 employment needs is fake and they know the employer will look the other way, but they won't show it to a 'government official' like an election judge."
So, in other words, folks using phony id to commit the various fraud offenses associated with working under a phony id are to be not only excused for these offenses, but favored, in that they won't be required to do what all others must do to vote? Here, you seem to be saying undocumented persons in this country illegally should be able to vote.
"My brother-in-law who had a DUI in the 90s and hasn't had any government issued ID since ..."
Really? A DUI has caused your brother in law to forego the myriad of endeavors in America that require id for 30 years? That's a stiff penalty for a traffic offense that, on a first offense thirty years ago with no injury likely would have resulted in a plea down to a "wet reckless" with a reaonable fine and only a slap on the wrist (no license suspension).
"[T]here are basically NO instances of voter identity fraud?"
That's just not true. See, e.g., the thread above, the Carter-Baker report, the Supreme Court's opinion.
"And if you don't think getting to a government office during your work day when you don't drive when you are on the brink of losing your job everyday isn't an undue burden, you are lucky, but lack compassion and a basic understanding of the democratic principles this country was founded on."
The principles on which this country was founded? Really?
I think some might dispute this last conclusion.

[nike shox running shoes]

eluctant to impose limits on gun ownership and should deal with abuses after a gun related crime has been committed by putting the malefactor in jail. However, when it comes to exercising the right to vote, many gun right advocates suddenly think that punishing malefactors after they have committed a voting fraud offense is totally inadequate. I note that liberals also display a similar inconsistency on voting and gun ownership, deeming punishment of illegal use of guns to be inadequate whereas the right thing to do in voting situations is to deal with it after the fraud has been committed or at least attempted. Could it really come down to whose ox is being gored?