Trial on Virginia voter ID law wraps up

[lostinblue 1,989]

Social scientists testified for the defense Wednesday in the last day of a trial over the state’s voter identification law, attesting that they could not definitively say that the law was intended to blunt the influence of minority voters.

A lawsuit filed by the Democratic Party of Virginia and two voters contends that the law that went into effect in 2013 was enacted by the Republican-controlled state legislature to suppress votes from minorities and youth who are more likely than other voters to support Democrats and tend to be less likely to have a valid photo ID.

Email addressNow I remember!

After the last witness in the more than weeklong trial in Richmond finished testifying Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson directed lawyers for the plaintiffs and the defendants — the Virginia State Board of Elections, the Virginia Department of Elections and officials from those offices — to file memorandums in lieu of making closing arguments. The memos are due March 25 and the rebuttals a week after.

During her testimony, Karen L. Owen, an assistant professor of public administration at Reinhardt University in Georgia, offered alternative reasons for why General Assembly members may have voted for the law.

She said legislators may have considered broad public support for a voter identification law, citing polls from the Pew Research Center and Quinnipiac University; were responding to constituents’ concerns about voter fraud; hoped to ensure public confidence in ballots that were cast; sought to enact a best practice; or wanted to prevent voting fraud.

Acknowledging that prosecutions and indictments for voter fraud are rare, she said the “perception is real” to the public.

“Symbolism matters in politics,” she said.

Owen’s testimony followed that of several state and local officials who a day earlier said they were unaware of any eligible voter in Virginia who was turned away from casting a ballot because of the voter ID requirement.

Daniel J. Palazzolo, a professor of political science at the University of Richmond, similarly testified that there was not enough evidence to conclude that the law was passed to suppress minority votes.

He theorized that a problem or perceived problem, differences in political values between Democrats and Republicans, and the influence of activist groups may have motivated legislators to enact the voter ID requirements.

Palazzolo said he couldn’t “rule in or out” whether prejudice motivated the law but called it sensible to consider alternatives.

He also cited the election of L. Douglas Wilder, who served as the country’s first elected black governor between 1990 and 1994, as a counterexample to continued voter suppression after Jim Crow laws were lifted or the years immediately after.

On cross-examination, Palazzolo acknowledged that Wilder is the only African-American to ever hold statewide office and that he won by a margin so small it prompted a recount.

Advocates of the law say it is race-neutral and intended to deter election fraud.

The law requires voters to have a Virginia driver’s license, a U.S. passport, any other state or federal photo ID, a student ID from an institution of higher learning in Virginia, an employee identification card or another form of photo ID.

http://www.richmond.com/news/local/central-virginia/article_cfe61d0a-783d-5216-b05c-16907dcf3687.html

[TBoneTX 46,379]

The law requires voters to have a Virginia driver’s license, a U.S. passport, any other state or federal photo ID, a student ID from an institution of higher learning in Virginia, an employee identification card or another form of photo ID.

That looks pretty generous.

Edited March 8, 2016 by TBoneTX

[Rob L 3,811]

That looks pretty generous.

At least more realistic than Texas. But with voter fraud practically non-existent and no documented elections altered by voter identification failure, what is the State solving for? I used to show up with my just Voter ID card and it never had a picture