The following is my rough draft for my Critical Analysis of Research Class. It is not the whole paper, just the Annotated Bibliography
Research Question: What is the Relationship Between Ease of
Voter Registration and Election Day Turnout, and what Factors Contribute to Turnout?
School
One: Voter Identification Laws, much like Poll Taxes, Suppress Poor and Minority
Voting
Brendan Friedman. "The
Forgotten Amendment and Voter Identification: How the New Wave of Voter Identification Laws Violate
the Twenty-Fourth Amendment." Hostra
Law Review vol 42,
Issue 1, 2013, p343-382. Accessed February 17, 2015
“While there is no consensus
within the social science community, studies have shown that voter
identification laws do impact turnout” (Friedman). This article
written by Brendan Friedman asserts that voter identification laws, operating
in the same way as poll taxes (which have been found to be a violation of the
twenty-fourth amendment, and thus), suppress voter turnout. In Friedman’s
article he admits that historically, “Most challenges to voter identification
requirements have been unsuccessful. (Friedman)” Yet Friedman
asserts that, “Nevertheless, various prior decisions of the Supreme Court and
lower courts support the notion that the new wave of voter identification laws
may violate the Twenty-Fourth Amendment.” Friedman continues, “Courts might be
willing to consider the poll tax argument more seriously if these studies can
demonstrate real burdens. (Friedman)”
Friedman’s article, while
arguing that voter identification laws currently violate the Twenty-Fourth
Amendment, goes into sufficient detail in laying out the history of case law
and Supreme Court decisions (Harman v. Forsseniusm; Breedlove v. Suttles; Butler
v. Thompson) that have affected the history and implementation of America’s
elections and the interpretation of the Twenty-Fourth Amendment of the United
States Constitution. Friedman goes on to elaborate how the courts have stated
that there be a distinction between a poll tax and how “the imposition of
tangential burdens does not transform a regulation into a poll tax. (Friedman)” While Friedman
argues that contemporary voter identifications laws are a violation of the
Twenty-Fourth Amendment, based on the poll tax argument, understanding the
rationale of his points is important to understanding the flaws in his
argument.
“Courts have generally not been persuaded by
arguments that incidental costs associated with obtaining sufficient
identification to participate in an election constitute a poll tax. (Friedman)” In this Friedman
goes on to assert that, “It is worth revisiting the distinction between the
incidental costs of voting and burdens reaching the level of a poll tax. (Friedman)” The relationship
between ease of registration and voter turnout cannot be seen without also
looking at what many deem “incidental costs.” While Friedman asserts that the
costs of getting identification should be included in the totality of the “cost
to vote,” many of the required articles to obtain such registration were not
intended to be a supposed “voter identification article.” Such things being a
Social Security card, Birth Certificate, Driver’s License, etc. These documents
all have other primary functions outside the realm of elections and voter
registration, thus the costs included in Friedman’s assertion are secondary and
thus not in the realm of a poll tax.
Robert Ellis Smith, and Richard Sobel. "Demands
for Voter Identification Require a Constitutional Standard of Reasonable
Suspicion of Illegal Activity." American
Political Science Association, vol 42, No 1, 2009, 103-105.
“Because voting is so fundamental and empowering a right,
the Supreme Court must ensure that a predictable, proportional,
constitutionally sound standard regulates when, and to what degree, the
government may require that a citizen self-identify as a pre-requisite to
exercising the fundamental right to vote. The Court must also indicate when
that standard is triggered by suspicious evidence before depriving a person of
the opportunity to vote. (Smith and
Sobel)”
Whereas Friedman went into detail concerning the use and
structure of Poll Taxes, Sobel and Smith lay out the case for a “Constitutional
Standard” to be adopted in regards to voter identification laws and their
implementation. According to their study, the use of having to identify oneself
(with requisite photo identification) for the purpose of voting is liken to
having to provide law enforcement with identification and thus includes the
subsequent protection of the fourth amendment in such cases. They assert that,
“The requirement that in-person voters present photo identification in order to
vote infringes upon the fundamental electoral right by failing to comply with
any proportional, constitutionally justifiable standard. (Smith and Sobel)” Their reasoning is
that by placing such a substantial burden upon the voter so as to likely
suppress the probability of the individual going to place their vote is
something from which there must be a constitutionally equal standard that
governs when government can ask for a photo identification.
They state, “Absent probable cause, the government cannot
infringe upon the fourth amendment by requiring citizens to identify themselves
to any degree more intrusive than stating their names. (Smith and Sobel)”
Such a view is important to consider when looking at voting
in the United States. While this research project is more focused on the
relationship between ease of voting and its effects on voter turnout, it cannot
be understated that many of the positions taken by those who both advocate
photo identification, and those that oppose photo identification, will have an
effect on the notion of the individual vote “counting.” Such notions will
likely either provoke or dismiss a would-be voter from turning out to vote if
they believe that their vote is not important or will not be counted. Most
troubling however, is that Smith and Sobel seem to advocate for the Supreme
Court to adopt such a standard by stating, “In sum, the U.S. Supreme Court
should adopt a predictable, constitutionally sound standard to regulate when,
and to what degree, the government can require a citizen to identify themselves
to exercise the right to vote. (Smith and
Sobel)”
Never mind the fact that such a ‘law’ would have to at least originate in the
United States Congress, the main fallacy which Smith and Sobel seem to fall
prey to, is that as an American, a citizen has the “right” to vote. This in and
by itself is critical to understand when the subject of voting in America comes
up. This will likely be the next evolution of the “voter identification laws”
battleground and will be no less important.
School
Two: Voter Identification Laws are Common in International Elections and Thus Do
Not Suppress Voter Turnout by Minorities and the Poor
Tova
Wang. Voter Identification
Requirements and Public International Law: An Examination of Africa and Latin America . Policy
Research Center, Atlanta: The Carter Center. 2010
The Carter Center published this report that goes into great
detail with regards to how voter identification laws are handled on the
international stage. The report focuses on both African and Central American
nations and probe multiple issues, and states that, “Requirements for proving
identity to register to vote and to vote at the polls vary a great deal
depending on numerous factors, including the political situation, capacity of
the government, environment, culture, history of conflict, and poverty levels. (Wang)” While in America
voter identification laws are met with stringent opposition with claims of
being racially suppressive, it is interesting to note that in many developing nations
the requirement to prove one’s identity both to register to vote, and to cast a
vote at the ballot box are often times much more significant. Take for instance
Nigeria, where the report details, “In law, potential registrants must prove
their identity using a birth or baptismal certificate, national passport,
identity card, driver’s license, or any other document that will prove the
identity, age, and nationality of the applicant. (Wang)” And then must use
the issued voter card given at registration in order to cast a vote at the
ballot box. Such stringent practices should be viewed in a comparative study of
American elections, especially when one side of the political spectrum seeks to
label voter identification laws as racially suppressive. Once the stigma that
often is associated with voter identification laws is stripped away, a clearer
understanding might take place when looking at why American election cycles has
been in a consistent decline.
School
Three: Removing Even The Most Minor Of Obstacles In Voter Registration Can
Cause Election Day Turnout To Decrease.
Raymond Wolfinger, and Jonathan Hoffman.
"Registering and Voting with Motor Voter." Political Science and Politics vol 34, No 1, 2001, 85-92.
Wolfinger and Hoffman published a study that examines the
effects that registering eligible voters with the motor vehicle agencies (known
as the National Voter Registration Act (1993), hereafter known as “Motor
Voter”) around the country have had on voter turnout when compared to the
desire to make such registrations more accessible with fewer potential
obstacles. As the study indicated, “The National Voter Registration Act was
premised on a belief that easier registration would lead to higher turnout. (Wolfinger and
Hoffman)”
The study went on to conclude that, “Although we cannot exclude the possibility
that motor voter affected turnout in 1996, our findings are consistent with the
proposition that costless registration is associated with an increase in
nonvoting registrants. (Wolfinger and
Hoffman)”
This premise cannot be excluded in current studies that seek
to explain how voter identification laws suppress voter turnout. While other
sources (Indiana Secretary of State, Texas Secretary of State) show a
consistent decline in voter turnout over the last seventy years, the above
referenced findings of Wolfinger and Hoffman shed light on at least one
possible indicator for the falling voter turnout figures. This study is
critical in laying the ground work for the premise that 1) Voter Turnout has
been decreasing well before the controversy of identification laws, and 2) the
possible correlation between the ease with which voting takes place and the
premise that voting (in such a user friendly environment) is treated as a
mundane thing and thus not an important civic duty.
Mary Fitzgerald. "Greater Convenience But Not Greater
Turnout." American Politics
Research vol 33, No 6, 2005, 842-867.
“The
idea that easier voting methods stimulate higher turnout in elections makes
sense in theory; however, the question is whether these reforms increase turnout
in reality (Fitzgerald)”
In this study, Mrs. Fitzgerald researches the notion that in
light of declining voter turnout in contemporary American culture, most law
makers tend to first look at registration rates as the answer to increasing
future turnout. The argument here, is that by increasing registration numbers
you will increase election-day numbers. This study examines not just the relationship
between turnout and registration numbers, but also the effect that
socio-economic classes have on voter turnout. “Significantly, the findings show
that most voting reforms do not stimulate turnout, thereby revealing the
relative weakness of the structural-legal theory with regard to explaining
participation in U.S. elections. (Fitzgerald)” The study goes on
to suggest that “Participation in recent U.S. elections has revealed a
politically engaged class that is not only growing smaller but also less representative
of the American polity. Specifically, participation in elections is most concentrated
among individuals with a high socioeconomic status, who are most likely to be
interested in and have the resources important for political participation. (Fitzgerald)” This is an
important distinction as it shifts the cost burden of voter turnout (structural-legal
theory) and places more emphasis on the socio-economic levels of interest in
the individual person. The study concludes with the statement that, “Based on
the evidence, compared to the costs of registration and getting to the ballot box,
the more significant costs surrounding electoral participation are those
related to political knowledge, interest, and engagement. (Fitzgerald)” This statement is
crucial to this research project as it places more emphasis on a person’s
interest level in the political spectrum rather than on the cost-burden of the
voting process itself. This notion, compiled with other sources (Wolfinger,
Texas secretary of State) that show that ease of registration and ease at the
ballot box do not increase voter turnout show a substantive relationship
between “costless voting.” While the above studies show that attempts at making
voting as costless as possible are actually decreasing election-day turnout, no
studies have been done that seek to show that making voting more difficult
would conversely increase election-day turnout. It suggests that there is an
optimal level whereby turnout is increased, though not when “excessive” burdens
are placed on the individual voter.
School
Four: Election Day Turnout is/was decreasing well before the implementation of
Voter Identification Laws.
"Voter Registration and Turnout
Statistics." Indiana Secretary
of State. Accessed Feb 28, 2015 http://www.in.gov/sos/elections/2983.htm
Indiana’s voter identification laws have been on the books
since 2005. This allows for five election cycles (ten years of data on voter
turnout and statistics.) What is most interesting about Indiana’s statistics is
the slight increase in voter turnout from 2004 into the 2006-08 election
seasons. While data has been gathered from both general and primary election
cycles, we can see a substantial increase in voter turnout in the 2008 cycle,
and while there does seem to be a very recent decrease in voter turnout from
2012 to 2014 not enough data has been gathered to signify that this is due to
the voter identification laws and not a pattern of decreasing election turnouts
in the United States as a whole over the last one hundred and seventy years.
Since Indiana stands as both a viable option (concerning those that advocate
voter identification laws) for other states to emulate, and as a target which
those that oppose voter identification laws focus their opposition, it stands
to reason that Indiana’s “Voter ID” laws should be a focal point of any
research into the affects that voter identification laws have on
turnout/suppression. While this research paper is looking at the broader
relationship in the overall decrease in voter turnout over the last seventy
years, the inclusion of apparent increases in voter turnout due to the recent
identification law changes is noteworthy and important when looking at a
consistent downward trend in voter turnout history.
"Turnout and Voter Registration Figures
(1970-current)." Texas Secretary
of State. Accessed Feb 28, 2015.
http://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/historical/70-92.shtml
When talking about voter identification laws in contemporary
political United States culture, two states will undoubtedly come to the
forefront of the discussion. Indiana (whose identification laws have been on
the books since 2005,) and Texas. While the photo identification laws have not
been in place (in Texas) long enough to warrant empirical data extraction, the
state (and its historical voter turnout) are a vital piece of information when
looking at the relationship between ease of registration and voter turnout on
election day. The following chart is data collected from forty-four years of
elections in the State of Texas. For the purposes of simplicity information listed
is only from general elections held in Texas every two years (both
Gubernatorial and Presidential.) One very important event that corresponds to
the chart is the “National Voter Registration Act of 1993” which took effect in
1996 (and thus shows up in following election cycles). Interestingly while
voter registration rose to their highest points following the NVRA (up more
than 20 percentage points) voter turnout did not increase. This fact is crucial
in seeking to first identify that higher registration does not necessarily lead
to higher turnout, rather the opposite seems to be true. Voter turnout (though
on a consistent decline since the 1970’s fell disproportionately following the
implementation of NVRA.
School
Five: Factors Other Than Voter Identification Laws Affect Election Day Turnout.
Benjamin Highton. "Voter Registration and
Turnout in the United States." Perspectives
on Politics Vol 2, No 3, 2004, 507-515
One issue that cannot be overlooked when it comes to voter
turnout trends amid laws that deal with ease of registration is the issue of
voter cost vs benefit, specifically cost vs benefit for the individual voter.
The study explains (of the issue of cost), “The individual costs of
registration are now lower than they have been at any time since the widespread
adoption of state registration requirements. And, given that all states are now
required to have motor voter programs or election-day registration,
registration costs cannot go much lower. (Highton)” If we take the
study as an accurate representation of the costs associated with registering to
vote, then it stands to reason that a major variable that affects voter turnout
rates is the benefit that the individual perceives they gain from the process of
voting at the ballot box. While the study does not explore the indeterminate
ways upon which an individual might find a benefit to voting, it does conclude
that, “continued nonvoting by substantial numbers of citizens suggests that for
many people, voting remains an activity from which there is virtually no
gratification; instrumental, expressive, or otherwise. Consequently, for those
whose goal is a democracy where most people engage in the fundamental act of
political participation, a pessimistic conclusion cannot be avoided. (Highton)” What is important
to note from this study, and what this research project wishes to draw from, is
that while there is a disproportionate number of claims that suggest that voter
identification laws somehow suppress voting from minorities, an often ignored
fact is the role of the perception of benefit that the individual voter brings
with them. While other sources focus on declining turnout trends over the last
numerous decades, very few have studied the reasons why people decide not to
vote, away from the illusionary controversy of costs, poll taxes, and voter
suppression. It stands to reason that if registration and voting costs cannot
go much lower, and turnout rates have been in decline well before the
controversy surrounding voter identification requirements were passed, then a
major focal point should be the apparent absence of a sense of benefit from
which the individual voter decides whether or not to vote.
Jamelle Bouie. "Making Voting
Constitutional." American
Prospect. 30 2013. Accessed February 23, 2015.
http://prospect.org/article/making-voting-constitutional.
In regards to the research subject that this paper is
looking at, it would be negligent not to include an often overlooked and little
known caveat that is gaining momentum within sections of United States society.
Within any discussion concerning voting turnout or voter suppression the United
States Constitution is often cited when bringing giving minorities the right to
vote, women the right to vote, and eighteen year olds the right to vote.
Jamelle Bouie in an article for American
Prospect “Making Voting Constitutional” states that, “These amendments were
passed in different circumstances, but they share one thing in common… they’re
statements of negative liberty, establishing whom the government can’t restrict
when it comes to voting. Beyond these guidelines, states have wide leeway in
how they construct voting systems. (Bouie)” The article was in
response to former Attorney General Eric Holder’s speech where he stated of
voting, “This is not a privilege. The right to vote is something that is
fundamental to who we are as Americans. (Bouie)” Bouie continues the
article calling for a Constitutional Amendment that gives not just the
“negative liberty” protections of not being denied the ability to vote, but
also an affirmative “right-to-vote” where “Proponents say that an affirmative
constitutional right would, at the very least, force state lawmakers and
election administrators to think twice about measures and election procedures
that harm voters. (Bouie)” This article,
though not truly a ‘primary source’ document serves to provide a cultural
backdrop which will be used to later navigate what a Constitutional Right to
Vote might look like, identify what purpose it would serve, and in which the
language would be crucial in dealing with partisanship on both sides of the
political spectrum. This source will be used in conjunction with another that
goes into a Constitutional Amendment of the Right to Vote in much more detail.
Keith
Jakee and Guang-Zhen Sun. "Is Compulsory Voting More Democratic." Public Choice, Vol 129, No 1/2, 2006 61-75.
Of the many subjects that have been brought up when the
typical discussion of elections and voter turnout arises, one that is gaining
more traction (though it was an idea put forth over a hundred years ago in the
United States) is that of making voting in elections mandatory. The term used
is “compulsory voting.” One such journal study that takes a look at the issues
surrounding compulsory voting is the article “Is Compulsory Voting more
Democratic.” The paper takes a look at the divide between voting as a ‘civic
duty’ to that of voting as a ‘right,’ and states that “the normative debate
over compulsory voting typically asks whether voting should be viewed as a
civic duty, like paying taxes and following traffic laws, or as a right that
can be disposed of in a manner decided upon by the individual citizen. Those
who view it as a duty, judge the uniformity in turnout and the ability to
overcome the under representation of lower socio-economic groups at the polls
to be worth the restrictions on freedoms.” While other studies/sources (within
this research project) have found that there is a greater number of non-voters
that would tend to lean more democratic in their views than lean conservative,
the above article takes a closer look at the issues and possible consequences
of making the goal 100% voter turnout based on compulsory laws. “Advocating the
maximization of voter turnout - by any means, including coercion - is fraught
with more complications than the commonly accepted one of infringing upon the citizen's
right to choose not to participate in the electoral process: we showed that as
more random voters are forced to cast ballots, the more likely the electoral
outcome will approximate a coin toss,” the study concludes. What this means is
that if the desire is for full voter turnout based on compulsory laws, then the
result will likely be the diminishing ability for the integrity of the voting
system as a whole to be held with any sense of national pride or authority.
While this paper’s focus is on the relationship between ease
of registration and decreasing voter turnout, it is noteworthy to take a
serious look at possible solutions to diminishing numbers of voters who
actually cast a ballot at election time. While compulsory voting is not a new
idea, it is one that has been gaining momentum recently in the United States,
and it should be looked at to see what it offers, both positively and
negatively.
Notes
1) Benjamin Highton. "Voter Registration and Turnout
in the United States." Perspectives on Politics Vol 2 No 3 2004
507-515.
2) Brendan Friedman. "The Forgotten Amendment and
Voter Identification." Hostra Law Review. vol 42. Issue 1(2013) p
343-382. Accessed February 17, 2015.
3) Jamelle Bouie. "Making Voting
Constitutional." American Prospect. 30 2013. Accessed February 23,
2015. http://prospect.org/article/making-voting-constitutional.
4) Keith Jakee,
and Guang-Zhen Sun. "Is Compulsory Voting More Democratic." Public
Choice, Vol 129, No 1/2 2006 61-75.
5) Mary
Fitzgerald. "Greater Convenience But Not Greater Turnout." American
Politics Research vol 33 No 6 2005. 842-867.
6) Raymond E
Wolfinger, and Jonathan Hoffman. "Registering and Voting with Motor
Voter." Political Science and Politics 2001 85-92.
7) Robert Ellis
Smith, and Richard Sobel. "Demands for Voter Identification Require a
Constitutional Standard of Reasonable Suspicion of Illegal Activity." American
Political Science Association vol 42 No 1 2009 103-105.
8) "Turnout
and Voter Registration Figures (1970-current)." Texas Secretary of
State. Accessed Feb 28, 2015.
http://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/historical/70-92.shtml.
9) Tova Wang. Voter
Identification Requirements and Public International Law: An Examination of
Africa and Latin America . Policy Research Center, Atlanta: The Carter
Center. 2010
10) "Voter Registration and Turnout
Statistics." Indiana Secretary of State. Accessed Feb 28, 2015.
