States with higher black turnout are more likely to restrict voting

[tina tron]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2013/12/17/states-with-higher-black-turnout-are-more-likely-to-restrict-voting/?tid=sm_fb



In most elections, the intricacies of voting procedures rarely warrant headlines or interest most Americans. But in 2012, voter identification laws took center stage. In fact, in the five years preceding the 2012 election, almost half of states enacted some form of legislation restricting voter access — such as requiring photo identification or proof of citizenship to vote, more stringently regulating voter registration drives, shortening early voting periods, repealing same-day voter registration, or further restricting voting by felons.

These are the legislative realities. But the real intent of this legislation remains highly contested. On the left, voter identification laws are viewed as thinly veiled attempts by Republicans to depress turnout among Democratic-leaning constituencies, such as minorities, new immigrants, the elderly, disabled, and young. On the right, these laws are viewed as a bulwark against electoral fraud and a means of preserving electoral legitimacy. In a new article, we examined the dominant explanations (and accusations) advanced by both the right and left, as well as the factors political scientists know are important for understanding state legislative activity. We began with no assumptions about the veracity of any claim. What we found was that restrictions on voting derived from both race and class. The more that minorities and lower-income individuals in a state voted, the more likely such restrictions were to be proposed. Where minorities turned out at the polls at higher rates the legislation was more likely enacted.

More specifically, restrictive proposals were more likely to be introduced in states with larger African-American and non-citizen populations and with higher minority turnout in the previous presidential election. These proposals were also more likely to be introduced in states where both minority and low-income turnout had increased in recent elections. A similar picture emerged for the actual passage of these proposals. States in which minority turnout had increased since the previous presidential election were more likely to pass restrictive legislation.

[Deep13]

1. I read about this in Duh! magazine.

[Thinkingabout]

2. This is an observation in the last election, there was a larger than I expected of young black

women and men voting, had a couple of comments of how important voting is. It is a trend which just might the way of turning states back blue from the ugly red. In Texas there was laws passed but it did not halt anyone who presented themselves at out location from voting, I don't know how many may have stayed home because of improper ID. In the past elections I have worked in I did not observe any attempts to double vote, or commit voter fraud. This is a lot of hype by RW who continues to lose elections not because of voter fraud but because of their platform. I would be interested in see if what their next move will be in order to cheat Democrats from being elected.

[Scurrilous]

3. K & R

[otohara]

4. Blantant - They Don't Even Try To Hide It

did they ever?

I didn't know until Florida 2000 this went on, but then I don't live in the South