A quite remarkable admission coming from the liberal vox.com website. Do you think voter ID laws hurt minority voting? Will this have any effect on the Left? http://www.vox.com/identities/2017/3/15/14909764/study-voter-id-racism A major study finding that voter ID laws hurt minorities isn’t standing up well under scrutiny A follow-up study suggests voter ID laws may not have a big effect on elections. Updated by German Lopez@germanrlopezgerman.lopez@vox.com Mar 15, 2017, 8:30am EDT Scott Olson/Getty Images It was supposed to be the study that proved voter ID laws are not just discriminatory but can also have a big impact on elections. And it was picked up widely, with outlets including ThinkProgress and the Washington Post reporting that the study found voter ID laws hurt Hispanic voters in particular and skewed elections to the right. But a follow-up study suggests the findings in the original were bunk. According to researchers at Stanford, Yale, and the University of Pennsylvania, the original study was based on surveys of voters that are extremely unreliable — skewing the results. On top of that, several calculation errors led to even more problems. When the errors are corrected, the follow-up researchers found, there’s no evidence in the analyzed data that voter ID laws have a statistically significant impact on voter turnout. In other words, it’s possible that voter ID laws still have an impact on elections, but the original study just doesn’t have the data to prove it. The findings aren’t too surprising. Looking at the broader research, the empirical evidence has tended to find that voter ID laws have a small impact on elections. While they still may be racially discriminatory or unnecessary, ultimately voter ID laws may not have a strong enough effect on voter turnout, based on the available research so far, to swing anything but the closest election. And the newest study backs that up. The new study suggests voter ID laws have little to no impact on minority voter turnout The previous study, published in January by a trio of researchers at UC San Diego, Michigan State University, and Bucknell University, used 2006–2014 data from the Cooperative Congressional Election Studies (CCES) to study the effect of voter ID laws. They concluded, “The analysis shows that strict identification laws have a differentially negative impact on the turnout of racial and ethnic minorities in primaries and general elections. We also find that voter ID laws skew democracy toward those on the political right.” Specifically, the researchers found that Hispanic voters are hit hardest by voter ID. They wrote in the Post, “Hispanics are affected the most: Turnout is 7.1 percentage points lower in general elections and 5.3 points lower in primaries in strict ID states than it is in other states. Strict ID laws mean lower African American, Asian American and multiracial American turnout as well. White turnout is largely unaffected.” Given that minority groups are likelier to vote for Democrats, that may skew elections in a conservative direction. The follow-up study, published this month, took a close look at the data and models the original researchers used to reach these conclusions. It found big problems: The CCES data that the researchers relied on is notoriously unreliable for a voter ID study in a way that could skew the results. “In the 2006 CCES, the estimated turnout rate was 10 points below actual turnout in 15 states, most of which showed practically zero turnout according to the CCES. Virginia had almost no validated voters in 2008, as well. Given the error in the 2006 study, that year is not suitable for use in the analysis, nor are Virginia’s records from 2008. But [the researchers] include these data in their analysis,” the new study stated. The study’s main model didn’t control for variables that could have influenced the results. If the model had successfully controlled for all other variables besides voter ID, it would have been able to find, for example, that all states without voter ID laws have roughly the same voter turnout. “This is not the case,” according to the follow-up. The follow-up replication “suggest that turnout is about 6 percentage points lower in places that will adopt a strict ID law” — meaning that the model picked up an effect on voter turnout before a state actually passed a voter ID law, suggesting that it’s picking up something else that is correlated with but not caused by voter ID laws. The original study had other errors, including miscalculations and misinterpretations of the data. Taken together, these errors indicate that the original study was deeply flawed. Indeed, when the follow-up researchers fixed the errors and reran the model (with a focus on white and Hispanic voters for simplicity), they produced different findings. They concluded, “The effect for whites is positive, but only statistically significant in primaries. The effect for Latinos is sometimes positive, sometimes negative, and generally not significant.” So after a voter ID law is passed, white turnout remains relatively flat in general elections and goes slightly up in primaries, while Hispanic turnout generally remains about the same. That could still lead to an overall racial skew, particularly in primaries — perhaps because white voters have an easier time obtaining photo ID. But it’s too small of a result to reach any sweeping conclusions. The follow-up study is careful to note that “trict voter ID laws may reduce turnout, particularly among minorities, but the evidence presented in [the original study] does not constitute reliable information documenting such a relationship.” Zoltan Hajnal, one of the researchers in the original study, offered no on-the-record response to the criticisms. He said a fuller response is in the works as he analyzes the new study’s data more closely. The findings present an ongoing academic debate, so it’s hard to say where it will ultimately land. Just like the original study was not the final say on voter ID laws’ effect on turnout, the new follow-up study will not be the final say on this research area either. There may be problems in the follow-up study that will be exposed by another follow-up study, especially given that it was not yet peer-reviewed. But this is how science works: It’s part of a continual process in which errors are called out and fixed over time, and human understanding creeps closer and closer to clarity and, hopefully in the future, perfection.
Well this comes as no surprise. Voter ID laws are pretty much the standard now. Even in New York where we don't have full voter id laws I had to present a photo ID to vote for the first time.
Perhaps now the irrationality and insanity can be cut through, and proper policies put in place to secure elections in the united states against being tampered with by those who are in the country illegally.
Requirements that those who are voting in elections demonstrate they are residents of the location in which the election is taking place, and that they are citizens of the united states.
I suspected as much. The same as in most western nations. Why on earth would anyone ever object to this?
In the below link,is a comprehensive coverage for EACH states current ID laws,with a link for it often to the states website for the background info. In my reading over the last few year,I see that for most states,it is very easy to present common ID's, to vote. Here is a comprehensive coverage from Ballopedia website. Example, Voter ID laws in the United States Alabama, "Beginning with the June 2014 primaries, each voter in Alabama was required to present a valid photo ID. A 2011 voter photo ID law went into effect after the Supreme Court of the United States overturned Section 5 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act on June 25, 2013. A voter can obtain a free photo ID from the Alabama Secretary of State, a county registrar's office or a mobile location, which changes daily. The mobile location schedule can be accessed here" LINK
It's not happening in my state. When I voted last, I asked, "don't you want to see my ID?" They said it wasn't necessary. They compare signatures from last time. Or not. Guess it depends on who is sitting at the table. Funny stuff going on with the paper ballot/early voting too.
In the Greatest State of California, any registered voter, may vote by mail. And no need to renew the vote by mail registration. Seems to work well. No scandals I know of like Hillaryites stuffing similar boxes with absentee ballots. And vote by mail promotes paper ballots. Any electronic voting should required paper back up for obvious reasons. The computer spits our a paper copy of votes, the voter reads & signs and drops in the "back up" box. Moi
I am not going to refute the research undertaken but this whole voter ID issue comes from the idea that there is widespread voter fraud; this claim has been debunked numerous times so they aren't required. Furthermore, there are several videos and articles online of Republicans talking about how Voter ID laws and restrictions on early voting have been passed simply to make it harder for Democrats to win. So, while the evidence may be saying there is little to no effect; the intent behind the policies is still to make it harder for Democrats to win. It's a shame to see the party that ratified the 15th amendment stoop so low.
The whole issue of voter ID laws to prevent voter fraud is a joke. Here in Florida I get my ballot in the mail and haven't shown an ID or even a proof of anything whatsoever for the last three elections. Here is the florida law: Voters in Florida are required to present photo and signature identification on Election Day. If a voter's photo ID does not display his or her signature, he or she will need to supply a second form of identification that does. A total joke since about forty plus percent of voters in Florida vote by mail.
Voter ID laws carry no detrimental effects based on age, race, color or class of citizen. The objections are purely political. The big fish know if one has to prove themselves at the ballot box things like illegal immigrants, stuffing ballot boxes, voting in multiple states and zombie votes becomes a relic of the old system which made cheating easy.
Voter ID laws can stop mail voting fraud. Make it mandatory to have a voter ID number, drivers license number or state ID number, and signature on each mailed vote. A state database will be able to match and count the number of votes made by each person.
California has the " Motor Voter " Law....a great way to " Include " more illegal votes into an already corrupt voting system. Republicans do not even get to run for Senate, Governor, House Etc....due to there " New " Law that takes the two highest candidates, in other words it's now Dem vs Dem because of illegal voting and corrupt Democratic California Politicians... Now the Democrats have Senate Bill # 54 that basically tells Law Enforcement at ALL levels to piss off because President Trump re-enacted and enforced the Immigration Laws on the books.... Read the bill, you will be shocked at what the California Democratic Party has pushed thru....Thank God Hillary lost or they would've tried to push this crap through in all 50 States.... ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Amended IN Senate March 06, 2017 Amended IN Senate March 01, 2017 Amended IN Senate January 24, 2017 CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE— 2017–2018 REGULAR SESSION Senate Bill No. 54 Introduced by Senator De León (Principal coauthors: Senators Atkins, Pan, and Wiener) (Principal coauthors: Assembly Members Bonta, Chiu, Cooper, Gomez, Levine, and Reyes) December 05, 2016 An act to add Chapter 17.25 (commencing with Section 7284) to Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code, to repeal Section 11369 of the Health and Safety Code, and to add Sections 3058.10 and 3058.11 to the Penal Code, relating to law enforcement, and declaring the urgency thereof, to take effect immediately. LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST SB 54, as amended, De León. Law enforcement: sharing data. Existing law provides that when there is reason to believe that a person arrested for a violation of specified controlled substance provisions may not be a citizen of the United States, the arresting agency shall notify the appropriate agency of the United States having charge of deportation matters. This bill would repeal those provisions. Existing law provides that whenever an individual who is a victim of or witness to a hate crime, or who otherwise can give evidence in a hate crime investigation, is not charged with or convicted of committing any crime under state law, a peace officer may not detain the individual exclusively for any actual or suspected immigration violation or report or turn the individual over to federal immigration authorities. This bill would, among other things, prohibit state and local law enforcement agencies and agencies, including school police and security departments departments, from using resources to investigate, interrogate, detain, detect, or arrest persons for immigration enforcement purposes, as specified. The bill would require, within 3 months after the effective date of the bill, the Attorney General, in consultation with the appropriate stakeholders, to publish model policies limiting assistance with immigration enforcement to the fullest extent possible for use by those entities for those purposes. The bill would require all public schools, health facilities operated by the state or a political subdivision of the state, courthouses, and shelters and courthouses to implement the model policy, or an equivalent policy. The bill would state that all other organizations and entities that provide services related to physical or mental health and wellness, education, or access to justice, including the University of California, are encouraged to adopt the model policy. The bill would require a law enforcement agency that chooses to participate in a joint law enforcement task force, as defined, to submit a report every 6 months to the Department of Justice. Justice, as specified. The bill would require the Attorney General, within 14 months after the effective date of the bill, and twice a year thereafter, to report on the types and frequency of joint law enforcement task forces, and other information, as specified, and to post those reports on the Attorney General’s Internet Web site. The bill would require the Board of Parole Hearings or the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, as applicable, to notify the Federal Bureau of Investigation of the scheduled release on parole or postrelease community supervision, or rerelease following a period of confinement pursuant to a parole revocation without a new commitment, of all persons confined to state prison serving a term for the conviction of a violent felony, and would authorize the sheriff to notify the Federal Bureau of Investigation of the scheduled release of a person confined to county jail for a misdemeanor offense who has a prior conviction for a violent felony, as specified. The This bill would state findings and declarations of the Legislature relating to these provisions. By imposing additional duties on public schools, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute. Digest Key Vote: 2/3 Appropriation: NO Fiscal Committee: YES Local Program: YES Bill Text The people of the State of California do enact as follows: SECTION 1. Chapter 17.25 (commencing with Section 7284) is added to Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code, to read: CHAPTER 17.25. Cooperation with Federal Immigration Authorities 7284. This chapter shall be known, and may be cited, as the California Values Act. 7284.2. The Legislature finds and declares the following: (a) Immigrants are valuable and essential members of the California community. Almost one in three Californians is foreign born and one in two children in California has at least one immigrant parent. (b) A relationship of trust between California’s immigrant community and state and local agencies is central to the public safety of the people of California. (c) This trust is threatened when state and local agencies are entangled with federal immigration enforcement, with the result that immigrant community members fear approaching police when they are victims of, and witnesses to, crimes, seeking basic health services, or attending school, to the detriment of public safety and the well-being of all Californians. (d) Entangling state and local agencies with federal immigration enforcement programs diverts already limited resources and blurs the lines of accountability between local, state, and federal governments. (e) State and local participation in federal immigration enforcement programs also raises constitutional concerns, including the prospect that California residents could be detained in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, targeted on the basis of race or ethnicity in violation of the Equal Protection Clause, or denied access to education based on immigration status. (f) This act seeks to ensure effective policing, to protect the safety, well-being, and constitutional rights of the people of California, and to direct the state’s limited resources to matters of greatest concern to state and local governments.
7284.4. For purposes of this chapter, the following terms have the following meanings: (a) “California law enforcement agency” means a state or local law enforcement agency, including school police or security departments. (b) “Civil immigration warrant” means any warrant for a violation of federal civil immigration law, and includes civil immigration warrants entered in the National Crime Information Center database. (c) “Federal immigration authority” means any officer, employee, or person otherwise paid by or acting as an agent of United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement or United States Customs and Border Protection, or any division thereof, or any other officer, employee, or person otherwise paid by or acting as an agent of the United States Department of Homeland Security who is charged with immigration enforcement. (d) “Health facility” includes health facilities as defined in Section 1250 of the Health and Safety Code, clinics as defined in Sections 1200 and 1200.1 of the Health and Safety Code, and substance abuse treatment facilities. (e) “Hold request,” “notification request,” “transfer request,” and “local law enforcement agency” have the same meaning as provided in Section 7283. Hold, notification, and transfer requests include requests issued by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement or United States Customs and Border Protection as well as any other federal immigration authorities. (f) “Immigration enforcement” includes any and all efforts to investigate, enforce, or assist in the investigation or enforcement of any federal civil immigration law, and also includes any and all efforts to investigate, enforce, or assist in the investigation or enforcement of any federal criminal immigration law that penalizes a person’s presence in, entry, or reentry to, or employment in, the United States, including, but not limited to, violations of Section 1253, 1324c, 1325, or 1326 of Title 8 of the United States Code. (g) “Joint law enforcement task force” means a California law enforcement agency collaborating, engaging, or partnering with a federal law enforcement agency in investigating, interrogating, detaining, detecting, or arresting persons for violations of federal or state crimes. (h) “Judicial warrant” means a warrant based on probable cause and issued by a federal judge or a federal magistrate judge that authorizes federal immigration authorities to take into custody the person who is the subject of the warrant. (i) “Public schools” means all public elementary and secondary schools under the jurisdiction of local governing boards or a charter school board, the California State University, and the California Community Colleges. (j) “School police and security departments” includes police and security departments of the California State University, the California Community Colleges, charter schools, county offices of education, schools, and school districts. 7284.6. (a) California law enforcement agencies shall not do any of the following: (1) Use agency or department moneys, facilities, property, equipment, or personnel to investigate, interrogate, detain, detect, or arrest persons for immigration enforcement purposes, including, but not limited to, any of the following: (A) Inquiring into or collecting information about an individual’s immigration status, except as required to comply with Section 922(d)(5) of Title 18 of the United States Code. (B) Detaining an individual on the basis of a hold request. (C) Responding to requests for notification or transfer requests. (D) Providing or responding to requests for nonpublicly available personal information about an individual, including, but not limited to, information about the person’s release date, home address, or work address for immigration enforcement purposes. (E) Making arrests based on civil immigration warrants. (F) Giving federal immigration authorities access to interview individuals in agency or department custody for immigration enforcement purposes. (G) Assisting federal immigration authorities in the activities described in Section 1357(a)(3) of Title 8 of the United States Code. (H) Performing the functions of an immigration officer, whether pursuant to Section 1357(g) of Title 8 of the United States Code or any other law, regulation, or policy, whether formal or informal. (2) Make agency or department databases, including databases maintained for the agency or department by private vendors, or the information therein other than information regarding an individual’s citizenship or immigration status, available to anyone or any entity for the purpose of immigration enforcement. Any agreements in existence on the date that this chapter becomes operative that conflict with the terms of this paragraph are terminated on that date. A person or entity provided access to agency or department databases shall certify in writing that the database will not be used for the purposes prohibited by this section. (3) Place peace officers under the supervision of federal agencies or employ peace officers deputized as special federal officers or special federal deputies except to the extent those peace officers remain subject to California law governing conduct of peace officers and the policies of the employing agency. (4) Use federal immigration authorities as interpreters for law enforcement matters relating to individuals in agency or department custody. (b) Nothing in this section shall prevent any California law enforcement agency from doing any of the following: (1) Responding to a request from federal immigration authorities for information about a specific person’s criminal history, including previous criminal arrests, convictions, and similar criminal history information accessed through the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System (CLETS), where otherwise permitted by state law. (2) Participating in a joint law enforcement task force, so long as the purpose of the joint law enforcement task force is not immigration enforcement, as defined in subdivision (f) of Section
7284.4. (c) If a California law enforcement agency chooses to participate in a joint law enforcement task force, it shall submit a report every six months to the Department of Justice, as specified by the Attorney General. Sensitive information, as determined by the Attorney General, The reporting agency or the Attorney General may determine a report, in whole or in part, is not a public record for purposes of the California Public Records Act pursuant to subdivision (f) of Section 6254 to of the Government Code. prevent the disclosure of sensitive information, including, but not limited to, an ongoing operation or a confidential informant. (d) The Attorney General, within 14 months after the effective date of the act that added this section, and twice a year thereafter, shall report on the types and frequency of joint law enforcement task forces. The report shall include, for the reporting period, assessments on compliance with paragraph (2) of subdivision (b), a list of all California law enforcement agencies that participate in joint law enforcement task forces, a list of joint law enforcement task forces operating in the state and their purposes, the number of arrests made associated with joint law enforcement task forces for the violation of federal or state crimes, and the number of arrests made associated with joint law enforcement task forces for the purpose of immigration enforcement by all task force participants, including federal law enforcement agencies. The Attorney General shall post the reports required by this subdivision on the Attorney General’s Internet Web site. (e) Notwithstanding any other law, in no event shall a California law enforcement agency transfer an individual to federal immigration authorities for purposes of immigration enforcement or detain an individual at the request of federal immigration authorities for purposes of immigration enforcement absent a judicial warrant. This subdivision does not limit the scope of subdivision (a). (f) This section does not prohibit or restrict any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, federal immigration authorities, information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of an individual pursuant to Sections 1373 and 1644 of Title 8 of the United States Code. 7284.8. The Attorney General, within three months after the effective date of the act that added this section, in consultation with the appropriate stakeholders, shall publish model policies limiting assistance with immigration enforcement to the fullest extent possible consistent with federal and state law at public schools, health facilities operated by the state or a political subdivision of the state, courthouses, Division of Labor Standards Enforcement facilities, and shelters, and ensuring that they remain safe and accessible to all California residents, regardless of immigration status. All public schools, health facilities operated by the state or a political subdivision of the state, and courthouses shall implement the model policy, or an equivalent policy. All other organizations and entities that provide services related to physical or mental health and wellness, education, or access to justice, including the University of California, are encouraged to adopt the model policy. 7284.10. The provisions of this act are severable. If any provision of this act or its application is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application. SEC. 2. Section 11369 of the Health and Safety Code is repealed. SEC. 3. Section 3058.10 is added to the Penal Code, to read: 3058.10. (a) The Board of Parole Hearings, with respect to inmates sentenced pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 1168, or the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, with respect to inmates sentenced pursuant to Section 1170, shall notify the Federal Bureau of Investigation of the scheduled release on parole or postrelease community supervision, or rerelease following a period of confinement pursuant to a parole revocation without a new commitment, of all persons confined to state prison serving a term for the conviction of a violent felony listed in subdivision (c) of Section 667.5. (b) The notification shall be made at least 60 days prior to the scheduled release date or as soon as practicable if notification cannot be provided at least 60 days prior to release. The only nonpublicly available personal information that the notification may include is the name of the person who is scheduled to be released and the scheduled date of release. SEC. 4. Section 3058.11 is added to the Penal Code, to read: 3058.11. (a) Whenever any person confined to county jail is serving a term for the conviction of a misdemeanor offense and has a prior conviction for a violent felony listed in subdivision (c) of Section 667.5 or has a prior felony conviction in another jurisdiction for an offense that has all the elements of a violent felony described in subdivision (c) of Section 667.5, the sheriff may notify the Federal Bureau of Investigation of the scheduled release of that person, provided that no local law or policy prohibits the sharing of that information with either the Federal Bureau of Investigation or federal immigration authorities. (b) The notification may be made up to 60 days prior to the scheduled release date. The only nonpublicly available personal information that the notification may include is the name of the person who is scheduled to be released and the scheduled date of release. SEC. 5. If the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code. SEC. 6. This act is an urgency statute necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety within the meaning of Article IV of the California Constitution and shall go into immediate effect. The facts constituting the necessity are: Because changes in federal immigration enforcement policies require a statewide standard that clarifies the appropriate level of cooperation between federal immigration enforcement agents and state and local governments as soon as possible, it is necessary for this measure to take effect immediately.
Would not the above be grounds for the federal government withholding any and all federal funds from the state of California?
I agree. The liberal theory goes that black people can't access and keep track of their birth certificates as well as other people, hence they will be more adversely affected by voter ID laws. The real reason is that votes are easier to steal and ballot boxes are easier to stuff without voter ID.
Of course it doesn't "hurt" them. They need identification like anyone else for mundane every day things. A person who isn't responsible enough to have an identification probably isn't responsible enough to vote anyways.
