FLASHBACK: Ilya Shapiro: The Voter Suppression Lie.
The voting wars have flared up again, though they’ve never really been far from the national political debate since Donald Trump was elected in 2016, or the Supreme Court decided Shelby County v. Holder in 2013 — or really Bush v. Gore in 2000. This time, a massive new Georgia law, the Election Integrity Act of 2021, also known as Senate Bill 202 (or SB 202), has triggered national apoplexy, with Democrats, including President Joe Biden, declaring it the new Jim Crow. Such comparisons are insulting to those who fought for civil rights in the 1960s, incendiary to a public discourse already hampered by low institutional confidence, and at base disingenuous.
Minority voters support voter ID, etc. by huge margins. The “racism” charges are just an attempt to intimidate people who are afraid of being called racist by crooks. Which, sadly, is a lot of Republican officials.
Regardless of one’s political affiliation, it’s not difficult to find voters in Georgia who were discouraged by the messiness of the 2020 election process.
In evaluating federal, state, and local voting safeguards, these and other serious complications — glitches, missing votes, even water pipe breakages at polling locations or ballot drop boxes — raised legitimate concerns and weakened voter confidence in Georgia’s election integrity.
Such concerns ultimately weaken voter confidence and decrease participation in elections regardless of political persuasion and prompted Georgia lawmakers to modernize voting laws to make it easier to vote and harder to interfere with Georgia’s elections.
As expected, a few partisan individuals and groups rushed to label Georgia’s new election reform law, the Georgia Election Integrity Act of 2021, (SB202) as an act of voter suppression. However, their claims are simply not true: reforms introduced in this legislation expand voting access for all Georgia voters while enhancing the security of the process.
Let’s begin by debunking one of the often repeated and misunderstood points of contention regarding Georgia’s election reform law: the restrictions that third-party groups now face when offering voters food and drink. Instead of allowing third-party groups to solicit or harass voters while they wait in line, Georgia’s new election reforms call for a 25-foot space established around voter lines.
Much of the heated rhetoric around this policy has been inaccurate. Voters waiting in line will still have access to water which can easily be arranged by poll workers. It simply establishes a boundary to prevent solicitation of voters while they wait in line.
OH, THEY’VE BEEN WINNING BY FRAUD FOR AT LEAST 12 YEARS, PROBABLY MORE: Election Fraud is an Issue that Will Not Go Away . But this time? This time it was so blatant, they’re fools to think they can hide the stinking corpse under the rag rug.
My house has a ghost, a former resident that moved out in 2009 but still receives mail from unions, political campaigns and the government. On a sneaking suspicion, I contacted my state representative about my ghost. Voting records are not freely shared in Illinois, but sure enough, my ghost has been voting. My state representative won by 34 votes in 2018, now by 35 votes. Spurred on growing numbers of confirmed reports, he will present a bill to the Illinois General Assembly to clean up the voter rolls, but would such a cleanup be enough?
Are 1%, 10% or 50% of registered voters actually stale registrations? Most anyone telling you a number based on data analysis is certainly wrong, probably on the low end. Every year about 10% of people move, and about 16% of those move to another state, so playing the averages, about 3.2% of last elections’ voters will have moved to another state and are likely still registered, and it accumulates.
I usually door knock for the Republican Party, for the purpose of getting out the base. My walk sheets contained people who voted in three or four of the last four Republican primaries. On rare occasion, the voter I was to contact had moved out, but I never encountered stale voters because they didn’t vote Republican primaries and so had been filtered off the list.
This changed in 2014, when I knocked doors for Bruce Rauner. His data analysis team incorporated other resources to identify Democratic and routine and infrequent non-partisan voters (general elections only) who might be sympathetic to his message. The stale registrations were numerous, and so were the stale voters. I visited one home that had three different family names listed on the walk sheet, all with recent voting records. From the ages and sexes, it was clear that these were different middle-aged couples. The current residents had lived there for a year and had not yet registered to vote, but one of their ghosts voted in the Democratic primary that Spring. At one strong Republican house, which I had knocked many times before, their daughter appeared on the sheet as a strong and routine Democratic voter. She moved out-of-state 10 years prior.
From the number of similar experiences at other houses, I estimated that 2.0% of the voters in my precincts were stale, with 7/8 of it going Democratic, meaning that Democrats received +1.5% from stale voters in my 75% Republican precincts. Many races are won and lost by less. If these statistics hold, that 0.33% of Republican votes and 7% of Democratic votes are from stale voters, then stale voters make up about 3.67% of the total vote in swing states, giving Democrats a 3.33% margin of fraud. In most “blue” states, Democrats would gain a 4.5% margin of fraud from stale voters.
Source: American Thinker
Zero Hedge: Eight ‘Screaming Red Flags’ From The 2020 Election That Deserved Criminal Inquiry
For that reason, the widespread claims of election irregularities and fraud should have been taken more seriously by government officials and law enforcement, and promptly and aggressively investigated.
I noticed yesterday that I was having lots of strangers show up to scream at me whenever I posted any information about election fraud, but they were all low information types just barfing up “fact checks” which was basically whatever the news had just told them, but none of them had the basic knowledge of how fraud works to even sorta discuss any of the actual data.
Former Vice President Joe Biden called Trump’s assertion that millions of people voted illegally in the 2016 election a “flat lie.” But Biden did not stop there. The Republican support for voter ID, he said, was all about suppressing minority votes: “It’s what these guys are all about, man. Republicans don’t want working-class people voting. They don’t want black folks voting.” Last year, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., denounced “racist voter ID laws and voter suppression tactics (that) sprout like weeds all across the country.” In a press conference in July, CNN’s April Ryan asked White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders: “So, Sarah, since you keep saying that the President is very concerned about the election process … you did not mention voter suppression in that. Voter suppression has been an issue for decades and particularly in these last few elections.”
Despite these alleged racist roadblocks to the ballot box, in 2008 blacks voted at a higher percentage than whites. That same year, liberal Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens wrote one of the majority opinions in a 6-3 case that upheld Indiana’s voter ID law, which required voters to show a photo ID — such as a driver’s license or passport — before casting their votes. Stevens recognized “flagrant examples of (voter) fraud” throughout America’s history and wrote that “not only is the risk of voter fraud real” but “it could affect the outcome of a close election.” The additional burden on voters, Stevens argued, is more than offset by “the state’s interest in counting only the votes of eligible voters.”
Blacks also support voter ID. A 2016 Gallup poll found that 77 percent of non-whites support voter ID, nearly as high as the 81 percent of whites who support it.
The fact that voter ID is legal and popular does not, of course, affect the view that it “suppresses” the minority vote. The George Soros-supported website ThinkProgress ran a story last year with this menacing headline: “New Study Confirms that Voter ID Laws Are Very Racist.”
Citing research by three professors from U.C. San Diego, Michigan State and Bucknell University, the article says: “turnout among Hispanic voters is ‘7.1 percentage points lower in general elections and 5.3 points lower in primaries’ in states with strict voter ID laws. The laws also reduce turnout among African-American and Asian-American voters. White turnout, according to their study, is ‘largely unaffected.'”
Case closed? Not exactly.
A follow-up study by researchers from Yale, Stanford and the University of Pennsylvania found no evidence that voter ID laws have a statistically significant impact on voter turnout. This study examined the methodology and conclusions of the previous study. Its researchers wrote: “Widespread concern that voter identification laws suppress turnout among racial and ethnic minorities has made empirical evaluations of these laws crucial. But problems with administrative records and survey data impede such evaluations. … We show that the results of the paper are a product of data inaccuracies (and) the presented evidence does not support the stated conclusion … When errors are corrected, one can recover positive, negative or null estimates of the effect of voter ID laws on turnout, precluding firm conclusions.”
In other words, the data do not support the notion that the “brown-brown” are too dumb, too lazy or otherwise incapable of obtaining the necessary identification to vote.
- First use of representative sample to measure non-citizen voting in USA.
- Some non-citizens cast votes in U.S. elections despite legal bans.
- Non-citizens favor Democratic candidates over Republican candidates.
- Non-citizen voting likely changed 2008 outcomes including Electoral College votes and the composition of Congress.
- Voter photo-identification rules have limited effect on non-citizen participation.
Four design characteristics make this survey uniquely valuable for our purposes. 1. It has an enormous sample size, which makes feasible sub-population analyses (n = 32,800 in 2008 and n = 55,400 in 2010). 2. It included a question about citizenship status. 3. Many non-citizens were asked if they voted, unlike other large surveys which filter out non-citizens before asking about voting. 4. Participation and registration were verified for at least some residents in nearly every state for the 2008 survey (Virginia state law barred voting verification).
Inclusion of a validated voting measure is particularly valuable in this context because of important and contradictory social and legal incentives for reporting non-citizen electoral participation. Although variation in the social desirability of voting may skew estimates (Ansolabehere and Hersh, 2012) as for other populations, legal concerns may lead some non-citizens to deny that they are registered and/or have voted when in fact they have done both. Validation of registration and voting was performed by the CCES research team in collaboration with the firm Catalyst. Of 339 non-citizens identified in the 2008 survey, Catalyst matched 140 to a commercial (e.g. credit card) and/or voter database. The vote validation procedures are described in detail by Ansolabehere and Hersh (2012). The verification effort means that for a bit more than 40 percent of the 2008 sample, we are able to verify whether non-citizens voted when they said they did, or didn’t vote when they said they didn’t. For the remaining non-citizens, we have only the respondent’s word to go on concerning electoral participation, although we do attempt to make inferences about their true participation rate based upon the verified portion of the sample.
Non-citizen voter registration is a violation of election law in almost all U.S. jurisdictions, the lone exceptions are for residents of a few localities in Maryland. Most non-citizens did not cross the initial threshold of voter registration, but some did. In 2008, 67 non-citizens (19.8%) either claimed they were registered, had their registration status verified, or both. Among the 337 immigrant non-citizens who responded to the CCES, 50 (14.8%) indicated in the survey that they were registered. An additional 17 non-citizens had their voter registration status verified through record matches even though they claimed not to be registered. Perhaps the legal risks of non-citizen registration led some of these individuals to claim not to be registered. In 2010 76 (15.6%) of non-citizens indicated that they were registered to vote in either the pre-election or post-election survey waves.
In 2008, the proportion of non-citizens who were in fact registered to vote was somewhere between 19.8% (all who reported or had verified registration, or both) and 3.3% (11 non-citizen respondents were almost certainly registered to vote because they both stated that they were registered and had their registration status verified). Even the low-end estimate suggests a fairly substantial population of registered-to-vote non-citizens nationwide. Out of roughly 19.4 million adult non-citizens in the United States, this would represent a population of roughly 620,000 registered non-citizens4. By way of comparison, there are roughly 725,000 individuals in the average Congressional district.
The “adjusted estimate” row presents our best guess at the true percentage of non-citizens registered. It uses the 94 (weighted) non-citizens from 2008 for whom Catalyst obtained a match to commercial and/or voter databases to estimate the portion of non-citizens who either claim to be registered when they are not (35%) or claim not to be registered when they are (18%). We then use these numbers to extrapolate for the entire sample of non-citizens in 2008 and 2010. Because most non-citizens who said they were registered were in fact registered, and quite a few who said they were not were actually registered, the adjusted estimate is the highest of the three estimates, indicating that roughly one quarter of non-citizens were likely registered to vote (Table 1).
How many non-citizen votes were likely cast in 2008? Taking the most conservative estimate – those who both said they voted and cast a verified vote – yields a confidence interval based on sampling error between 0.2% and 2.8% for the portion of non-citizens participating in elections. Taking the least conservative measure – at least one indicator showed that the respondent voted – yields an estimate that between 7.9% and 14.7% percent of non-citizens voted in 2008. Since the adult non-citizen population of the United States was roughly 19.4 million (CPS, 2011), the number of non-citizen voters (including both uncertainty based on normally distributed sampling error, and the various combinations of verified and reported voting) could range from just over 38,000 at the very minimum to nearly 2.8 million at the maximum.