Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Sunday August 09 2015, @08:05AM   Printer-friendly
from the confusion-or-apathy? dept.

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."


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by Yog-Yogguth on Monday August 10 2015, @03:00AM

    by Yog-Yogguth (1862) Subscriber Badge on Monday August 10 2015, @03:00AM (#220525) Journal

    But are you saying you don't need a proper form of identification to vote in the UK? I vote elsewhere in Europe and a valid form of identification which includes a picture is a requirement there and always has been.

    I don't understand how anyone can be opposed to having to show/prove you have the right to vote; there are both age and location restrictions that apply as well as every person only having one vote each and each vote being both personal and non-transferable thus every vote must be identified (the content of the vote remains secret, separate, and anonymous). Your vote (not the content, which they never see anyway since it goes into a sealed box) is recorded and the lists of voters are crosschecked to avoid multiple votes from the same person in different locations (which by the way would land you in jail as it should).

    Not having to prove you have the right to vote completely ruins the whole idea of voting since it becomes trivial to abuse it. In my opinon voting should be made a lot more secure against manipulation and fraud, not less (for example there have been incidents in several European countries of people stealing voting booth ballots to cause a shortage and prevent people from selecting their choice, or replacing ballots with fake invalid ballots that will later be discardeed during the counting of votes).

    How can anyone put any credibility in an election without safeguards?

    --
    Bite harder Ouroboros, bite! tails.boum.org/ linux USB CD secure desktop IRC *crypt tor (not endorsements (XKeyScore))
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Monday August 10 2015, @07:07AM

    by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Monday August 10 2015, @07:07AM (#220572) Journal

    I don't understand how anyone can be opposed to having to show....

    I'm not opposed to it - I said that I've rarely had to produce any documentation to prove my identity. In fact, personally, I've never been asked to provide papers or documentation at any other time than when I expected to, which I detailed in my earlier post. Perhaps I'm simply a law-abiding subject :) You may well be right on the voting requirement - but for most people it happens every 5 years so isn't a frequent requirement.

    My career was spent in the armed forces so having to carry an ID around became the norm. An ID was required for access to certain establishments and for specific military roles. Because I no long live in the UK I do carry my passport at all times, but I have never been asked to prove who I am.

    • (Score: 2) by Yog-Yogguth on Tuesday August 11 2015, @12:30AM

      by Yog-Yogguth (1862) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday August 11 2015, @12:30AM (#221002) Journal

      Oh, my mistake.

      Rambling warning:
      Although I have to point out that some of us just happen to look like criminals :) I didn't understand that myself except much later on but it's what I was told by friends and I've had to show identification (not that I mind) in every single country I've lived in (not that many) even for a short amount of time or on extended holidays XD Any present police cars slow down for a closer look even if I nip out for groceries or while waiting for the bus. I'm probably erring a tad on the side of “too inconspicious” on the David Mitchell (comedian, not politician) scale :) Not that I wear a grey tie with a grey suit but my fashion sense strongly prefers cheap plain dull clothes, no tattoos or anything like that (and no I don't think the local cops read my Soylent rants, nothing of that sort, or if they do and disagree they can do a background look-up and maybe get a few things to mull over).

      Wish I was joking about my looks (if I'm wearing a suit it only makes it far worse) although overall I guess it has some marginal benefits :) +5 much less likely to be mugged -2 more likely to attract people looking for a fight -1 inviting police pat downs abroad -1 being asked for drugs or directions to the nearest pusher :P

      There are/were a few exceptions that are kind of funny; while I'll have to show identification sooner or later anyway I always got waved or shooed through the entry to and exit from the UK (nowhere else though). Once (long ago) when arriving at the port in Newcastle I looked like a sterotypical football hooligan with a bomber jacket and carrying a small sports bag with a change of clothes. on that occasion I guess it wasn't so much the look (I guess the customs officers reasoned I was too “he obviously will be caught immediately anyway if criminal” to be interesting) or the reversible orange-green bomber jacket as it was “jacket = over-dressed = tourist” according to local customs ;) I harbour suspicions about that trip though, I (a petty officer then) only made it out of England and back to base in time (I was on approved foreign leave) because of a lot of luck and a very helpful Royal Marine and that's just way too suspicious when looking back at it don't you think? Life is weird, no way to tell, maybe I was used for practice, can't say I mind; just very happy I didn't end up AWOL :)

      Sorry for the torrent of nostalgia :3

      TL;DR: Yog-Yogguth looks like an ugly dog/gorilla XD

      P.s. carrying a passport is a pain, if you're an expatriate don't they (whoever they are) have something more practical for you to carry like a bank card sized residency permit or proof of stay? That's what I used to always have to carry (and show).

      --
      Bite harder Ouroboros, bite! tails.boum.org/ linux USB CD secure desktop IRC *crypt tor (not endorsements (XKeyScore))