Props to Michigan Senate Republicans for refusing to take up an unnecessarily restrictive voter ID law.

Senate Majority Leader Arlan Meekhof (R-West Olive) resisted the lock-step effort by House Republicans last week. In a lame-duck session, Republicans in the House voted to eliminate the right of registered voters who lacked an acceptable photo ID to instead vote a regular ballot after signing an affidavit attesting to their identify. House Bill 6066 would have done away with affidavit ballots–some 18,000 of which were cast (and counted) in the 2016 General Election.

Although Republican support for strict voter ID laws is a necessary condition–only a single Democratic-controlled legislature (Rhode Island) has passed a restrictive law, as my colleagues and I argue in our 2015 Political Research Quarterly article, it’s not a sufficient condition. Not all Republican-controlled legislatures have pushed for, nor adopted more restrictive voter ID laws. Instead, our findings show it is a combination of partisan control and the broader electoral context in a state that drives enactment of such measures.

We extend this analysis in our 2016 State Politics and Policy Quarterly article, in which we examine individual legislators’ votes on all of the restrictive voter identification (ID) bills that received a floor vote across the states from 2005 to 2013. Again, going beyond the base partisan polarization that characterizes the the votes of most state lawmakers on voting related issues, we find a notable relationship between the racial composition of a member’s district and electoral competition shapes the likelihood that a state lawmaker supports a restrictive voter ID bill. Most notably, we find that Democratic lawmakers representing substantial black district populations are more opposed to restrictive voter ID laws, whereas Republican legislators with substantial black district populations are more supportive of the laws.  Finally, we find that in those state legislatures where electoral competition is not intense, polarization over voter ID laws is less stark, which likely reflects the expectation that adopting restrictive voter ID laws will have little bearing on the outcome of state legislative contests.

MI Republicans adopt strict Voter ID bills in lame-duck session. Wonder if electoral competition is tight…

William D. Hicks, Seth C. McKee, and Daniel A. Smith, “The Determinants of State Legislator Support for Restrictive Voter ID Laws,” State Politics and Policy Quarterly 16:4 (December): 411-31.

 

Abstract

We examine state legislator behavior on restrictive voter identification (ID) bills from 2005 to 2013. Partisan polarization of state lawmakers on voter ID laws is well known, but we know very little with respect to other determinants driving this political division. A major shortcoming of extant research evaluating the passage of voter ID bills stems from using the state legislature as the unit of analysis. We depart from existing scholarship by using the state legislator as our unit of analysis, and we cover the entirety of the period when restrictive voter ID laws became a frequent agenda item in state legislatures. Beyond the obviously significant effect of party affiliation, we find a notable relationship between the racial composition of a member’s district, region, and electoral competition and the likelihood that a state lawmaker supports a voter ID bill. Democratic lawmakers representing substantial black district populations are more opposed to restrictive voter ID laws, whereas Republican legislators with substantial black district populations are more supportive. We also find Southern lawmakers (particularly Democrats) are more opposed to restrictive voter ID legislation. In particular, we find black legislators in the South are the least supportive of restrictive voter ID bills, which is likely tied to the historical context associated with state laws restricting electoral participation. Finally, in those state legislatures where electoral competition is not intense, polarization over voter ID laws is less stark, which likely reflects the expectation that the reform will have little bearing on the outcome of state legislative contests.

 

Full article available here:

Ok, enough of this fleeting tweeting ephemera on FL primary…here are three new scholarly articles (all years in the making…)

Merivaki, Thessalia and Daniel A. Smith. “Casting and Verifying Provisional Ballots in Florida,” Social Science Quarterly. Available: February 29, 2016 (EarlyView), pp. 1-19. doi:10.1111/ssqu.12245. Available here.

 

Hicks, William D., Seth C. McKee, and Daniel A. Smith. 2016 “The Determinants of State Legislator Support for Restrictive Voter ID Laws.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly. 16:1-21. Available: February 21, 2016 (Online First): 1-21. doi:10.1177/1532440016630752. Available here.

 

Herron, Michael C. and Daniel A. Smith. “Precinct Resources and Voter Wait Times.” Electoral Studies. Available: February 27, 2016 (OnlineFirst), pp. 1-15. doi:10.1016/j.electstud.2016.02.014. Available here.

Asked for your Drivers License at the Polls? Don’t succumb! Know your rights!

Here’s the list of approved forms of photo ID in Florida. Insist on it!

Whether during early voting or on Election Day, you will be asked to provide at the polls a valid photo ID with signature. Any one of the following photo IDs will be accepted:

  • Florida driver’s license
  • Florida identification card issued by the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles
  • United States passport
  • Debit or credit card
  • Military identification
  • Student identification
  • Retirement center identification
  • Neighborhood association identification
  • Public assistance identification.

http://dos.myflorida.com/elections/for-voters/voting/election-day-voting/

Now in Print: “A Principle or a Strategy? Voter Identification Laws and Partisan Competition in the American States”

You can download it from Political Research Quarterly here.

William D. Hicks, Seth C. McKee, Mitchell D. Sellers, and Daniel A. Smith, “A Principle or a Strategy? Voter Identification Laws and Partisan Competition in the American States,” Political Research Quarterly2015: 1833.

Abstract

We undertake a comprehensive examination of restrictive voter ID legislation in the American states from 2001 through 2012. With a dataset containing approximately one thousand introduced and nearly one hundred adopted voter ID laws, we evaluate the likelihood that a state legislature introduces a restrictive voter ID bill, as well as the likelihood that a state government adopts such a law. Voter ID laws have evolved from a valence issue into a partisan battle, where Republicans defend them as a safeguard against fraud while Democrats indict them as a mechanism of voter suppression. However, voter ID legislation is not uniform across the states; not all Republican-controlled legislatures have pushed for more restrictive voter ID laws. Instead, our findings show it is a combination of partisan control and the electoral context that drives enactment of such measures. While the prevalence of Republican lawmakers strongly and positively influences the adoption of voter ID laws in electorally competitive states, its effect is significantly weaker in electorally uncompetitive states. Republicans preside over an electoral coalition that is declining in size; where elections are competitive, the furtherance of restrictive voter ID laws is a means of maintaining Republican support while curtailing Democratic electoral gains.

Full Text (PDF)

References

Replication Data