Republicans have introduced a huge raft of bills in red states that would restrict voting in federal elections. And make no mistake: these bills are partisan cruise missiles aimed solely at reducing the Democratic vote. They are loathsome.
But they are also pretty conventional. For the most part, they include all the old-school Republican favorites like restrictions on Sunday voting, photo ID laws, and so forth. These are all things Republicans have been promoting for years, and none of them have turned out to be all that effective. In some cases this is because they simply don't affect very many votes, while in others it's because they spur a backlash that prompts Democratic-leaning voters to turn out in higher numbers.
The big new addition to this arsenal is an attack on mail voting. Republicans are apparently convinced that this cost them the 2020 election, but it turns out these bills are just more of the same old ineffectual rubbish. Ian Millhiser describes a natural study of Texas voters:
Texas is one of a handful of states that discriminate on the basis of age when determining who may vote absentee: Voters over the age of 65 are allowed to request an absentee ballot, but most voters under that age are required to vote in person. The researchers at Stanford’s Democracy and Polarization Lab compared turnout rates among 65-year-olds in Texas’s 2020 elections — that is, among voters who were eligible to vote absentee — to the turnout rates among 64-year-olds who mostly could not vote by mail.
They found that “65-year-olds in Texas turned out in 2020 at almost exactly the same rate as 64-year-olds, even though roughly 18% of 65-year-olds voted absentee while only 3% of 64-year-olds voted absentee.”
The end result was that 65-year-olds were more Democratic than 64-year-olds by 0.2 percentage points, a difference too small to even be meaningful.
Other studies have shown the same thing: All of these anti-mail measures have only a very tiny effect. It may make Republicans feel good to demonstrate a whirlwind of activity that Fox News is happy to spin as "protecting against fraudulent votes," but in the end it doesn't really buy them much.
On a moral plane, this does nothing to excuse what they're doing. But on a practical plane, it means they're mostly wasting their time.
... they spur a backlash that prompts Democratic-leaning voters to turn out ...
I would suggest that this effect is on the rise, Exhibit A being Georgia 2020/21. The more publicity these kinds of efforts get, the more powerful an argument Dem organizers have to register voters and get them out to vote.
Here's what they did in Iowa,
https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/2021/03/08/iowa-governor-kim-reynolds-signs-law-shortening-early-voting-closing-polls-earlier-election-day/6869317002/
It seems obvious to me that the impact of most, if not all of these provisions will be negligible. Few states allow voting past 7 PM for example. And the rules about absentee ballots are unlikely to hit Democratic voters harder than Republican voters. Don't get me wrong. It's all stupid and full of evil intent. But the impact will be minor at worst.
In this case it seems mostly to be able to claim they're doing something while Democrats are not.
I look forward to them enforcing the "only you can put your ballot in the mailbox" provision.
Looking at the Iowa bill, I had to wonder what they thought they were going to achieve beyond just annoying voters. Close the polls one hour earlier? Shorten early voting? Will that really lower participation that much?
They seem convinced that longer lines will discourage Democrats, but it's more likely it'll just piss everyone off.
The interesting thing is that the early voting restriction is just not much of a restriction. I was recently reading another story that said the "gold standard" whatever that means, is at least 16 days of early voting. Iowa has just reduced the early voting period from 29 days to 20, so it's still pretty generous.
Kevin underestimates that the goal is the suppression of all votes, not just Dem ones. The people that are getting registered and are not traditional voters tend to be more economically liberal.
They haven't succeeded yet, so we should just not worry about it?
No, they'll keep clamping down on voting rights until they succeed. These people don't give up. They have to be resisted every inch of the way.
"All of these anti-mail measures have only a very tiny effect. It may make Republicans feel good to demonstrate a whirlwind of activity that Fox News is happy to spin as "protecting against fraudulent votes," but in the end it doesn't really buy them much."
It doesn't perhaps buy Republicans much in keeping away non-White voters, although it could be enough to tilt closely contested elections. But it does reinforce their noxious subliminal message that non-Whites are second class citizens.
Its not just the voting restrictions that we need to look at; just as important, if not more so, is the effort to provide state legislatures with the ability to override majority votes and electors in certain states.
Yup.
Big Florida 200--... 1876 energy.
Sooo only a 0.2% difference huh?
In 2000, Florida, and hence the presidency, was decided by 437 votes - a 0.09% margin. These cheats add up.
Roger Stone & Marco Rubio thank you for remembering them.
Kitty Harris & JEB!, as well.
I'm in favor of a Democratic measure that would fail but make a point: anyone who has railed against voting by mail for any reason should be banned from voting by mail-in ballot for that person's lifetime.
Josh Hawley cannot abide this Democrat Neoliberal stealing his first amendment rights.
Gerrymandering. To me the biggest problem the election bills are trying to deal with is gerrymandering.
"It may make Republicans feel good to demonstrate a whirlwind of activity"
I think this is exactly it. Team Woke constantly demonstrates how it prioritizes ideology over science, common sense, or good advice ("if it feels true, it's true and that's all that matters to me"). Why would you imagine their red counterparts are any more grounded in reality?
Ideology is a non-partisan poison.
The use of the term "Team Woke" immediately marks you as an unserious person.
What would you prefer I call them?
Generation I (for Intolerant)?
The New Crusaders, absolutely certain they and they alone know the mind of God?
There is a reason that this phenomenon of our times is referred to as the Great Awokening, but to understand that you need to
(a) know some history
(b) know some social psychology
(c) have a sense of humor
(d) live outside a bubble
Zealots generally miss on all four of these axes. Thus it has always been.