Tuesday, October 4, 2011

Catch of the Day

I haven't written much about what Ari Berman calls the "GOP War on Voting", but you should all read his article, and know that this is in fact a significant focus of Republican policy over the last few years. The question of the effects, on the other hand, is more difficult. There probably won't be significant effects on actual voter fraud, because by all accounts there isn't much fraud to begin with. But what of the effects on otherwise eligible voters?

While I am by no means an expert on turnout, I tend to agree with what John Sides concluded the other day: that    there's evidence that it could have a significant effect, but some skepticism is appropriate, too.

But then again there's Heritage. Or, and finally getting to the Catch, David Brockington's epic takedown of Heritage's "study" claiming that, gosh, all those rich, educated, community-involved folks who resist voting now will run to the polls once all that horrible voter fraud is gone. Or something like that; Brockington throws quite a lot of evidence at what was apparently an evidence-free report.

As I said, I'm not convinced yet that the actual effects of all this are as dramatic as some liberals fear (and, presumably, Republican operatives hope). But it's still, at least in my opinion, awful stuff. At any rate, nice catch!


  1. I doubt strict voter ID laws does much -- from a negative or postive standpoint.

    The bost in turnout you get by saying democrats and ACORN are stealing electons -- now that helps.

    This is up there with sharia laws, ground zero mosques, and birthers. Deranged republicans trying to scare middle aged white people so they vote.

  2. I tend to agree. I don't see much evidence of significant voter fraud out there (even in Chicago), and I find it difficult to believe that a requirement for ID is going to stop many from voting. The Dems have an edge on this one on principle (...if just one is disenfranchised...), but on the other side - we really should consider some sort of universal national ID. It would help with a number of problems - most notably enforcement of immigration laws - and I really don't see much in the way of legitimate objection (although the black-helicopter crowd will surely object, as will those who really don't want immigration laws enforced).


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.

Who links to my website?