Blacks and Voter ID

Discussion in 'Political Action Forum' started by KENNEDY63, May 10, 2013.

  1. KENNEDY63

    KENNEDY63 Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    7,362
    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2005
    Location:
    MINNESOTA
    May 9, 2013, 2:53 p.m. ET

    Blacks, Voter ID and the Census

    By JASON L. RILEY

    Black voter turnout surpassed white turnout for the first time on record in 2012, according to a new federal report.

    "About two in three eligible blacks (66.2 percent) voted in the 2012 presidential election, higher than the 64.1 percent of non-Hispanic whites who did so," says the Census Bureau in a press release. "Blacks were the only race or ethnic group to show a significant increase between the 2008 and 2012 elections in the likelihood of voting (from 64.7 percent to 66.2 percent)."

    Obviously, Barack Obama has something to do with this, but it's worth noting that the trend predates the Obama presidency. "The 2012 increase in voting among blacks continues what has been a long-term trend: since 1996, turnout rates have risen 13 percentage points to the highest levels of any recent presidential election."

    It's also worth noting that black voter turnout has been increasing even while states have been implementing supposedly racist voter ID laws. Everyone from Attorney General Eric Holder to the Congressional Black Caucus to civil rights groups and the left-wing yakkers on MSNBC have been claiming for years that voter ID laws harm black turnout and amount to Jim Crow-era poll taxes and literacy tests. But that's not what the Census data show.

    The black voting trend is most pronounced in states like Kentucky, Alabama, Mississippi and Tennessee. Black turnout also surpassed white turnout by statistically significant margins in Florida, Georgia, Virginia, the Carolina's and Indiana. The voter ID laws in Tennessee, Georgia and Indiana rank among the strictest in the country, yet the black voter rate in those states was higher than the white rate. If voter ID laws keep blacks from voting, where is the evidence?

    The Supreme Court may soon decide the constitutionality of Section 5 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which requires that (mostly Southern) states with a history of denying blacks the franchise have any changes in voting procedures cleared by a federal court or the Justice Department.

    We already knew that states covered by Section 5 tend to have higher black voter registration rates than the states not covered. Now the Census reveals that blacks in those covered states are also voting at higher rates than whites. How much more proof do we need that Section 5, which Congress intended to be a temporary measure, has been a success and is no longer necessary?

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...87967750.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_BelowLEFTSecond
     
  2. Lowtide

    Lowtide Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    9,623
    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2003
    Fixed it.


    Kidding aside, does anyone think these results will silence the above claims? I have my doubts.
     
  3. okie drake

    okie drake Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    26,961
    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2001
    Location:
    Indian Territory
    I applaud any demographic for increases in voting.

    As for the questions raised by the article, here's the problem with the attempted logic--

    The claim is that opposition to voter ID laws based on the notion that they harm blacks is bogus. The proof is said to be increased voting amongst blacks.

    Well, say the claim is that your son isn't playing enough because the coach is racist. Is a legitimate response 'he's playing more than he did last year so therefore you have no argument'?

    The entire methodology behind either angle on the topic is inherently troublesome.

    Bob says voter ID laws hurt the black vote. Even if he points to downward trends, Jim can easily say that such does not itself point to harm rightly attributed to the voter ID laws.

    It's a difficult topic. I see the reasoning behind claiming some of the voter ID efforts are motivated by racist and/or discriminatory (or political) views/goals.

    I see the reasoning behind calling for increased voter ID requirements.

    I've read the bogus studies routinely cited as proof that the requirements are discriminatory.

    I've read articles like the above that erroneously claim if numbers are up, voter ID laws by default are not discriminatory.
     
  4. field-n-feathers

    field-n-feathers Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    1,357
    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2009
    Location:
    Surprise, AZ
    I'm sure in most cases it's not actually racist or discriminatory. The problem lies in the perception of such. Rehashing voter ID laws now, or in the future, is one way to charge up that portion of the voter base.....Once again alienating, real or perceived, a large portion of the electorate.
     
  5. API

    API Political Action Forum Moderator Flyway Manager

    Messages:
    21,468
    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2008
    Location:
    SoCal
    Erroneously? Since the issue of voter ID laws is a point of debate... in the interest of "fair and balanced"... Is there a credible link to articles disputing the thesis that claims "if numbers are up, voter ID laws by default are not discriminatory"?
     
  6. API

    API Political Action Forum Moderator Flyway Manager

    Messages:
    21,468
    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2008
    Location:
    SoCal
    Ya think maybe that there are populations not considered to be "protected classes" that are also somewhat alienated.
     
  7. okie drake

    okie drake Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    26,961
    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2001
    Location:
    Indian Territory
    No, I don't have a link (or see how one could be required) that contests the logic that says if output is up due to any number of potential reasons, then x is not inhibiting it.

    I suppose if turnout decreased after implementation of ID laws then they would by default be the cause, as opposed to a variety of alternatives?
     
  8. API

    API Political Action Forum Moderator Flyway Manager

    Messages:
    21,468
    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2008
    Location:
    SoCal
    Weeeeell, Considering that Mr. Carney and his boss blows off contrary notions without breaking a sweat; I suppose that anyone can wave off a nationally published article too. Not saying the WSJ is correct, just sayin' they supported a thesis with a logical procession.
     
  9. okie drake

    okie drake Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    26,961
    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2001
    Location:
    Indian Territory
    Well, I'm just saying they didn't and offering reasoning as to why.

    X happened, so Y is by default not discriminatory.

    Obama is president, so racism doesn't exist.

    Bobby is playing two minutes this year and played one last year so the coach cannot be racist.

    :doh:doh

    Great example on the news today.

    Nearly word for word headline: 'The latest: Fish oil doesn't decrease heart attacks'. A look at the actual study indicates that in folks that had numerous risk factors, the addition of fish oil supplementation did not decrease MI incidence rate.

    Is the finding relevant/important? I would argue yes, definitely. Does the headline accurately reflect the actual finding? Not hardly. Obese, heart disease patients who are on multiple meds for multiple conditions and are positive for family history of cardiovascular disease/events were put on fish oil capsules and had similar rates of heart attack than those in the same group who were not put on fish oil.

    So, fish oil doesn't decrease heart attacks, right?:cool:

    It may, it may not. But the study referenced dang sure doesn't say either way.
     
  10. API

    API Political Action Forum Moderator Flyway Manager

    Messages:
    21,468
    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2008
    Location:
    SoCal
    Understandable. Its kinda like the notion on risk that indicates ya don't really need to get a PSA test unless ya get test results that are beyond of normal limits. :l
     

Share This Page