"Like only 12 other states,
Alabama does not permit early voting, which is disproportionately used by minorities and the poor. Its restrictions on voting by people with felony records were recently relaxed, but remain among the nation’s toughest and likely curb black turnout. The state’s voter ID law, which was
challenged in federal court, threatened to disenfranchise at least 100,000 registered voters, many of them black or Hispanic, according to
the N.A.A.C.P. Legal Defense Fund. And
a panel of federal judges ruled this year that 12 state legislative districts had been gerrymandered to dilute African-American voting power. The congressional map is also gerrymandered."
"
One recent academic study concluded that the historic turnout gap between white and minority voters increased sharply — as much as fivefold — in states with the strictest voter ID laws, producing a “clear partisan distortion” favoring Republicans."
"
The pattern in both primary and general elections is clear. There are substantial drops in minority turnout in strict voter ID states and no real changes in white turnout. Hispanic turnout is 7.1 percentage points lower in strict voter ID states than it is in other states in general elections and 5.3 points lower in primary elections. For blacks, the gap is negligible in general elections but a full 4.6 percentage points in primaries. For Asian Americans, the difference is 5.4 points and 6.2 points. And for multiracial Americans, turnout is 5.3 percentage points lower in strict voter ID states in general elections and 6.7 points lower in primary contests. White turnout is relatively flat, and, if anything, it increases slightly in strict identification states. The increase for white turnout in strict ID states is 0.2 percentage points in general elections and 0.4 points in primary elections.
The end result is, in most cases, a substantial increase in the gap between white and nonwhite turnout in strict voter ID states"
"The results, which are presented in the first two columns of table 1, suggest that
minorities are being disproportionately and negatively affected. The effects are perhaps most consistent for Latinos, but across the different types of contests, there are strong signs that strict identification laws decrease turnout for Latinos, blacks, and Asian Americans, and some indications that they also do so for multiracial Americans. In general elections, Latinos are significantly more burdened by these laws than are whites and members of other groups. For blacks and Asian Americans, the interaction coefficient is negative but beyond the .05 significance level. In primary elections, Latinos, blacks, and Asian Americans are all significantly more affected and multiracial Americans are almost significantly more affected. In all cases, the significant effects are politically meaningful. The models reveal substantial drops in turnout for minorities under strict voter ID laws. In the general elections, the model predicts that Latinos are 10% less likely to turn out in states with strict ID laws than in states without strict ID regulations, all else equal. These effects are almost as large in primary elections. Here, a strict ID law could be expected to depress Latino turnout by 9.3 percentage points, black turnout by 8.6 points, and Asian American turnout by 12.5 points. Given the already low turnout of most of these groups across the country, these declines are all the more noteworthy.
Importantly, as illustrated by figure 2, these laws serve not only to diminish minority participation but also to increase the gap in the participation rate between whites and nonwhites."
The amount of juelzing that's gone on here by ONE poster to
for racist laws is downright ridiculous.
Keep claiming that an out-of-context graph or the raw results of a single election contradict the authors' own damn conclusions from their own study.
[/QUOTE]
