Posted on 11/27/2007 4:02:06 PM PST by neverdem
Voter turnout among Democrats improved slightly last year in Indiana, despite a new law requiring voters to show photo identification at the polls, according to a new report that comes months before the Supreme Court hears a case challenging the law.
Jeffrey D. Milyo, a professor at the University of Missouri, compared the 2006 midterm elections — the first since Indiana's law was enacted — to the 2002 elections and said voter turnout increased about two percentage points. He said the increase was consistent across counties with the highest percentage of Democrats.
"A lot of the claims out there about a new disenfranchisement are really just overblown rhetoric and fear-mongering," Mr. Milyo said.
He said the conventional wisdom is that voter-identification laws, particularly those that require a photo, keep voters away from the polls. But he said his findings suggest that isn't true, at least not in Indiana.
"Those fears, they're not supported by everything we know in theory and previous evidence, and this latest study also does not support that," he said.
But Michael P. McDonald, an assistant professor at George Mason University, said one election isn't enough to draw any conclusions about Indiana's law, and said Indiana's performance doesn't say anything about laws popping up in other states.
"We need more data to know this for sure, because 2006 was a good year for Democrats and 2002 was arguably a good year for Republicans, so saying that Democrats were turning out more in 2006 than in 2002 doesn't really tell us much," he said.
In particular, Indiana had several hotly contested U.S. House races which Democrats won.
Voter-identification laws have become a bitter battlefield, with Republican state legislatures moving to crack down on what they see as voter fraud and Democrats tarring the laws as a modern-day disenfranchisement...
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Nope, I showed up voted and left.
The real problem is that such laws prevent non-citizens and illegal aliens from voting in elections. Therefore disenfranchising a significant segment of democratic support.
Is there ANYTHING truthful coming out of the endless propaganda from the evil democrat national committee?
I’m 37 and still have to show a Wawa clerk my ID to get a carton of smokes (as if they’d know a passport from a library card).
No reason to not have to show ID to vote unless, of course, you don’t have one...in which case you won’t get to vote [Dummycrat].
Yeah, and if turnout was lower do you think there would be such a qualification? Ab-so-freakin-lutely not. It would be wall to wall I-told-you-so's (not necessarily from prof. McDonald, but they'd find an expert to raise the clarion call).
I sure hope there are no FReepers around here surprised by this.
Absolutely nothing wrong with having to show a pic ID to vote. This should be the minimum needed.
Don’t forget that Liberals always utilize their “dead” supporters for voting!
Bookmarked. Ammunition for the inevitable Democrat caterwauling every time a Photo ID law comes up for a vote.
< /sarcasm>
I would like to know if there is a correlation between “red” states and states that require ID at the polls.
I suspect the Dems and libs do a lot of fraud. If most “red” states are also “ID required” states, that would bear my theory some credence.
bump
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1931449/posts
More than 49,000 ineligible voters on Texas rolls
Houston Chronicle ^ | R.G. RATCLIFFE
Posted on 11/27/2007 4:55:29 PM PST by Dubya
AUSTIN — More than 49,000 people on the Texas voter registration rolls in May may not have been eligible to vote, state auditors reported today.
The ineligible voters included 23,114 possible felons, 23,576 people who were deceased and 2,359 voters with duplicate records. The auditors said the ineligible voters represented 0.4 percent of the state’s 12.3 million registered voters.
How about this: The first 10 questions on the ballot are randomly drawn from the naturalization test. Your vote is weighted by the percent correct.
Thanks for the link & text.
That’s a really cool test. Thanks for the link!
Great news! This takes away the phony rat argument that photo id lowers turn out. Now they have to think up another lie to get their illegals into the voting booth.
Be glad I’m not running things. You would have to show a tax receipt to vote.
The logic is...if you don’t need it to vote...then you don’t need it to buy a six-pack of beer, or to get a drivers license, or even to travel overseas. Either there is a reason to have a photo ID period...or there is NO reason to have a photo ID period. You can’t have a mixed bag here.
I personally think that this election next year and the upcoming census...will trigger a massive national ID agenda...which will be finished by 2012. I’m guessing that everyone will get a $8 credit on their tax refund...to pay for the 4-year ID that you will get. Those who don’t want to play the game...fine...no national voting...no license...and no purchase of booze at any store. If you want to walk around without a national ID...feel free. The wave created...will cause banks to develop their own policy to have a national ID or not be able to cash checks or conduct business.
This argument on the national ID...is getting to be rather silly. EVERY single European country does it. Theft of your identity in Europe...is virtually unheard of. Once people grasp this...and the ability to halt illegal aliens voting in US elections...we will all sign up readily.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.