SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
This week marks the 50th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act. This week also marks a watershed ruling by a federal appeals court striking down the controversial Texas voter ID law as violating that landmark civil rights act.
A new study conducted by the University of Houston Hobby Center for Public Policy and Rice University's Baker Institute for Public Policy examines the impact of the contested Texas law in U.S. Congressional District 23 (CD-23).
The study suggests that the most significant impact of the Texas voter photo ID law on voter participation in one particular district was to discourage turnout among registered voters who mistakenly believed they did not possess the correct photo identification.
"One of the most striking findings of this study is that potential voters who did not vote actually did possess one of the valid forms of photo ID," said Jim Granato, professor and director of the Hobby Center for Public Policy. "An important issue to be explored is not just the voter photo ID law itself, but the actual education and outreach efforts to ensure all eligible voters understand what form of photo ID may be used to vote."
Spanning a large geographic area in west and south Texas, CD-23 is a Latino majority district with Hispanics accounting for 65.8 percent of the district's voting-age population and 58.5 percent of its registered voters. It is also widely considered to be the only one of the state's 36 U.S. House districts that is competitive for both Democratic and Republican Party candidates. A telephone survey of 400 registered voters who did not vote in CD-23's November 2014 election was conducted in English and Spanish by the Hobby Center for Public Policy's Survey Research Institute.
The 5.8 percent of the CD-23 non-voters stated the principle reason they did not vote was because they did not possess any of the seven forms of photo identification required by the state. More than twice that many (12.8 percent) agreed their lack of any one of the seven photo IDs was a reason they did not vote. However, when further queried about the different forms of photo identification in their possession, the survey revealed that a much lower proportion (2.7 percent), in fact, lacked one of the seven needed to vote in person.
The study also found Latino non-voters were significantly more likely than Anglo non-voters to strongly agree or agree that a lack of photo ID was a reason they did not cast a ballot in the Nov. 4 contest.
The findings suggest that the presence of the law and its potential impact on the outcome of that election kept far more supporters of Pete Gallego, D-Alpine, the then-freshman incumbent representative, away from the polls than those who supported the district's ultimate winner of the election, Will Hurd, R-San Antonio.
"Our expectation is to build on this initial case study by analyzing additional Texas congressional districts and investigating other states' voter ID laws," Granato said. "Broadening the study to examine the extent to which voter fraud exists is another interesting avenue to explore."
(Score: 2) by tathra on Sunday August 09 2015, @09:26PM
not even close to the same thing. the marked fingers are not a form of voter ID program - nobody has to identify themselves to vote - its simply a way to ensure nobody votes twice. i was there in the 2004 elections, i assure you that nobody identified themselves prior to voting. this kind of program would be fine in the US - show up with nothing, vote, get your finger marked so you can't vote again - sounds great! "prove you're a citizen by having jumped through lots of hoops and having enough money to purchase an ID to prevent a problem that doesn't exist (whose real purpose is just to exclude anyone who is likely to vote for anybody thats not on the right [thenation.com])" is nothing but a scam to rig elections, which the study at the core of this story proves
(Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Sunday August 09 2015, @09:49PM
Perhaps that was true in 2004, but it is not the case today. The hard-leftist Guardian noted of the 2014 Afghan elections: [theguardian.com]
So even with the many acknowledged flaws, they are working to improve their system. This is war-torn, Taliban insurrection Afghanistan we're talking about here, and they take more electoral precautions that we in America do.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by tathra on Sunday August 09 2015, @10:03PM
if they're using identifications then the purple finger marks would no longer be needed, thus they're irrelevant to the discussion. also your whole reason for bringing it up was that it was an example of them making a voter Id system work, but it sounds like its not working out very well and has even more fraud and abuses than the previous system of simply marking people who have voted so they can't vote again.
afghanistan's democracy isn't really comparable to the US's anyway - they've only just become one, so they have plenty of time to work out kinks and use everyone else's experiences and data to implement a good system and amend their constitution; here in the US, we've had the system we've had for centuries, and despite the constitution ensures that everyone gets a vote we have a very long history of excluding the "wrong" people (coloreds, women, poor people via poll taxes) from voting, and that kind of exclusion is the sole reason that voter ID laws are being implemented here.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by GungnirSniper on Sunday August 09 2015, @11:48PM
They're quite relevant. Have you ever been to a music festival that required both printed tickets and a hand stamp? It's the same principle, just as I hope you'd use layered security in your networks.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by tathra on Sunday August 09 2015, @11:57PM
sorry, i gave the wrong reason for dismissing it; it does serve a purpose but it has nothing to do with a voter ID program. what does getting your finger marked after voting have to do with needing to identify yourself before voting? the point of marking after voting is to keep people from voting twice, but the point of voter ID programs is to exclude people before they vote. the finger markings are irrelevant to the issue at hand.