impact's african american voter access report

#VoteReady: african american Voter access and Reduced opportunity for Political Involvement 2012

Presented By:

Marcus J. Coleman, Ph.D.

ExECutivE SuMMary introDuCtion BaCkgrounD Help america vote act (Hava) Photo identification research growth rate reduced opportunity voter (rov) young votersMEtHoD growth rate Distance from nearest DMv: rov Possession of photo iDrESultS State-level data County-level data virginia Pennsylvania FloridaFinDingSliMitationSrEFErEnCES

aPPEnDiCES

taBlES table 1: voting-age Citizens without vehicle accesstable 2: african americans who live more than 5 miles away from their DMvtable 3: actual voter growth rates for african american and White voters in

Presidential elections 2000-2004 and 2004-2008table 4: voter registration growth rates for african american and White voters in

Presidential elections 2000-2004 and 2004-2008table 5: actual voter growth rate (D) and (r), Percentage of aa with no vehicle 3,4,5+

away from DMv, and the number of aa with no iD in virginiatable 6: actual voter growth rate (D) and (r), Percentage of aa with no vehicle 3,4,5+

away from DMv, and the number of aa with no iD in Pennsylvaniatable 7: actual voter growth rate (D) and (r), Percentage of aa with no vehicle 3,4,5+

away from DMv, and the number of aa with no iD in Florida

Table of Contents

060808

14

16

262728

30

31

Special thanks to Ajay Krishnan Subrimaniam, of New Light Technologies, for providing the Geographical Information Systems analysis for this project and his subsequent work with crafting the methodology.

3

About IMPACT

iMPaCt is a 501(c)(3), nonprofit organization, founded by a group of young professionals to foster civic engagement, to increase knowledge in the political and legislative processes, and to enhance economic empowerment opportunities for other young professionals ages 21 to 40.

iMPaCt’s three core principles:

CIVIC ENGAGEMENT • POLITICAL INVOLVEMENT • ECONOMIC EMPOWERMENT

iMPaCt is governed in all its activities by three core principles: civic engagement, political involvement and economic empowerment. Focusing on Economic Empowerment provides unique opportunities for iMPaCt leaders to accumulate and preserve wealth while imparting the skills and experiences needed to enable others to do the same. Civic Engagement activities identify and enable iMPaCt leaders to utilize resources to ensure the preservation and advance-ment of our communities. through Political involvement, iMPaCt facilitates and supports the engagement of our peers in politics, policy development and advocacy. By connecting young leaders to one another and to resources that can assist them in creating positive change in the communities from which they come, we collectively strengthen the iMPaCt that our genera-tion makes on the world today, tomorrow, and in the future.

iMPaCt’s target demographic consists of corporate executives, legislative and policy profes-sionals, non-profit and community leaders, and elected officials. iMPaCt partners with busi-nesses, organizations, and leaders to host candidate forums, round table discussions, lecture series, workshops, and strategic networking events to support and empower emerging leaders and young professionals of color.

4

African American Voter Access: Reduced Opportunity For Political Inclusion 2012

Why #VoteReady?

Since the beginning of 2011, 176 restrictive bills regarding voting laws have been proposed in 41 states total, and to date, 14 states have already passed restrictive voting laws. of these, at least 34 states have introduced laws that would require voters to show photo identification in order to vote, and 7 states have already passed and signed into law legislation requiring some form of voter identification legislation.

Before the 2006 elections, no state had voter identification laws, either to register to vote or to vote at the polls on Election Day. the Help america vote act (Hava) set standards that were accepted by most states. at least 12 states have introduced laws that would require proof of citizenship, such as a birth certificate, to register to vote or to cast a ballot.

additionally, at least 13 states have introduced bills to end Election Day and same-day voter registration, limit voter registration mobilization efforts, and reduce other registration opportunities.

one of the primary contentions surrounding voting rights is the issue of photo iD laws, which require that those registering to vote or attempting to cast a ballot, present some form of government-issued iD. Photo iD laws, like the ones that have been proposed in at least 34 states,are effective only in preventing individuals from impersonating other voters at the polls. However, the case of voter fraud is extremely rare.

Election officials usually do a very good job of protectiing against voter disenfranchisement through outdated vot-ing systems, system error, and improper management databases is a far greater problem than traditional forms of election fraud. voter iD laws are further restrictive because most types of government-issued iDs cost money and time to obtain. For people on a fixed income or those who work multiple jobs, this can raise an undue barrier to obtaining identification, and can thus restrict their right to vote.

laws that require government-issued identification to vote, not only come at an expense to voters, but they also come at an expense to the state. in many states that require photo iD, the state government incurs the cost of pro-viding the identification to the voters. While 11% of all american citizens lack photo iD, a whopping 25% of african americans lack photo iD. Moreover, 15% of those earning less than $35,000, 18% of citizens over 65, and 20% of vot-ers ages 18-29 do not have photo iD.

#VoteReady Objectives:

• to register, re-register, and unpdate the registration of eligible voters 40 and under;

• to encourage those who are able to vote early (where applicable);

• to encourage those who are unable to physically go to the polls, to register to vote absentee;

• to inform voters about voter iD laws (where applicable); and

• to utilize social media and other avenues to build awareness and educate voters.

5


6


Executive Summaryin order to answer the question, “What is the potential impact of location on african american voting age citizens’ ac-cess to political inclusion?” this report analyzes the findings from extant research on photo iD legislation, population growth, and the influence of geography on political participation. research on voter identification (iD) requirements is not clear regarding the potentially depressing impact of photo iD on voter turnout among Blacks, Hispanics, and the elderly. accordingly, research findings on voter iD use both individual level, i.e. county-level, and aggregate level, i.e. state-level data. aggregate level data provides an overall picture of a sample population, which usually displays no significant difference in the number of those with state-issued photo iD and those without it. on the other hand, individual level data focuses on individual demographic comparisons; these comparisons usually indicate a significant difference between those who have state-issued photo iD and those who does not. thus, we utilize both individual and aggregate level data in order to obtain a nuanced view of the impact of access to photo iD on african-american political participation.

the objects of analysis will be counties within battleground states with a sizeable african american population. FivethirtyEight (august, 2012) reports that there are twelve (12) 2012 Presidential Election battleground states where President obama and gov. romney are polling within the margin of error, i.e. +/- .5%: ohio, Florida, virginia, iowa, north Carolina, Colorado, nevada, Missouri, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and new Hampshire.1 From the pool of battleground states listed, there is one state with a sizeable african-american population that currently has a strict2 photo iD law in place, Pennsylvania.3 in addition to Pennsylvania, this report will also focus on virginia and Florida.4 to be clear, Pennsylvania, Florida, and virginia fit the national Council of State legislature’s categories of strict-photo, photo, and strict non-photo iD law, respectively. in an effort to promote civic engagement, this report is intended to help political organizers and policy makers target politically vulnerable african americans who face practical obstacles to civic engagement due to geography, i.e. reduced opportunity voters (rovs), and the lack of photo iD in states that employ various voter iD laws. in order to discuss the findings of this report, we examine aca-demic articles, non-governmental organization reports, newspaper sources, and geographical information systems (giS) analysis.

Major findings from this study are listed below:

• approximately 367,000 african american voting age citizens will have their opportunity to vote reduced based on Florida’s requirement that voters show photo identification or some other form of iD that displays a signature.

• if Pennsylvania’s voter iD law is enacted for future elections, 115,000 african american voting age citizens will have their opportunity to vote reduced based on the state’s voter iD law.

• overall, in Pennsylvania and Florida, there are 482,000 african american voting age citizens will have their opportunity to vote reduced.

• in Florida, african american voter growth rates rose at almost twice the rate of their White counterparts between the 2000 and the 2004 Presidential election, i.e. 34% to 19%, compared to 2004 to 2008, which was twenty times that of their White counterparts, i.e. 21% to 1%, respectively.

• Most importantly, there is no clear method to determine the large potential impact on states’ introduction and enactment of voter iD laws. therefore, iMPaCt recommends that states continue to make voting easy, fair, and accessible.

1 retrieved on august 23, 2012 from: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2 it is also important to define the meaning of strict versus non-strict photo iD law. in a state with a strict voter iD, a voter can only cast a ballot if they first present a valid iD. in the case that a voter cannot present a valid iD, they are allowed to vote using a provisional ballot. after cast-ing a provisional ballot, they are given a specified number of days to present valid iD to the election official and their provisional ballot will be counted, but if they do not subsequently present a valid iD, their provisional ballot will not be counted. national Council of State legislatures (2012). retrieved on September 20, 2012 from: http://www.ncsl.org/legislatures-elections/elections/voter-id-2012-legislation.aspx3 the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court issued a temporarily injunction, i.e. blocked the law, so it will not be in effect during the 2012 Presi-dential election. retrieved from: http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/02/politics/pennsylvania-voter-id/index.html4 only Florida has a photo iD law in effect for the 2012 Presidential election, but Florida’s law is not a strict photo iD law. virginia has a strict non-photo iD law that is in effect for the 2012 Presidential election.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com

http://www.ncsl.org/legislatures-elections/elections/voter-id-2012-legislation.aspx

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/02/politics/pennsylvania-voter-id/index.html

7


8

IntroductionSince 1968, american politics has been dramatized as a persistent effort to maintain a fractured american electorate by appeal-ing to long-held cultural cleavages. those political, social and economic cleavages have been used as wedges between voting populations. Since the enactment of the vot-ing rights act of 1965, minorities have been active participants in the voting process and sometimes prove pivotal to the outcome of local, state, and federal elections. Even so, there continue to be challenges to enfran-chisement for african americans, presently in the form of voter identification legislation.

in summary, this report investigates the po-tential impact of distance from the nearest DMv office for african americans who do not possess a vehicle in: Pa, Fl, and va as a measure of access to political inclusion. in addition to focusing on african american political access in 2012 Presidential election battleground states, this report also contains information regarding african american vot-er growth rates for 13 states that have pro-posed or enacted strict photo iD legislation: al, Fl, ga, in, kS, MS, nH, Pa, SC, tn, tx, va and Wi.

according to the national Conference of

State legislatures, 34 states considered photo voter iD legislation in 2011 alone.5 of the states that considered photo voter iD legislation, a republican-controlled House of representatives represents 24 of them. However one may see the onslaught of photo voter iD legislation, i.e. as partisan or as voter fraud deterrent, it is most important to consider the impact that such legislation may have on the 2012 Presidential election, but also the impact of photo voter iD laws on future local, state, and federal elections. in reviewing the literature, we offer: a brief foreground for voter iD laws; an appraisal of empirical research on photo voter iD laws; an overview of population growth rate; a justifi-cation for our focus on access; and a discus-sion of young voters. ultimately, this report represents the initial stages of an index that informs political organizers and policy mak-ers of the preference that citizens have for voting.

Backgroundthe national Conference of State legisla-tures reports that indiana and georgia be-gan their initial attempts to pass photo voter iD legislation in 2005.6 the ability for the aforementioned states to enact such legisla-tion was possible due to the united States Supreme Court’s Bush v. Gore decision and

13states that have proposed or

enacted strict photo Id legisla-tion: aL, FL, Ga, IN, KS, MS,

NH, Pa, SC, tN, tX, Va and WI.

5 ibid.6 national Council of State legislatures (2012). retrieved on September 20, 2012 from: http://www.ncsl.org/legisla-tures-elections/elections/voter-id-2012-legislation.aspx



9

provisions within the Help america vote act (Hava). in kathleen Hale and ramona Mcneal’s 2010 article on voter identification requirements and Hava, the re-searchers assert that local and state voter suppression efforts during the 2000 Presidential Election led to the creation of Hava. it was passed in order to create mini-mum requirements for verifying registered voters and each state was to be in compliance with Hava by 2004.

Help America Vote Act (HAVA)

Hale and Mcneal (2011) assess the nationwide imple-mentation of Hava standards for elections in all fifty states through the prism of stringency and deviation. the researchers’ analysis focused on state legislatures in all fifty states for national elections in 2002, 2004, and 2006. in conducting their study, they described the minimum requirements for verifying registered voters established by Hava:

“…Hava mandates that all states verify the identity of first-time voters who register by mail and do not provide verification with their registration applica-tion (section 303). Hava requires that individuals who register by mail provide an acceptable form of identification (broadly defined under Hava) either with the registration application or at the time that they first vote in the state, whether in person or by absentee ballot” (p. 281).

the researchers wanted to know how stringent respec-tive state legislatures would be in creating state laws that adhered to Hava, while also assessing how far re-spective state legislatures deviated, i.e. apply standards that are more demanding, from the minimum stand-ards set forth in the law.

Hale and Mcneal (2011) also report that states under republican Party control attempt far more stringency in voter identification requirements versus those states with shared party control and states with Democratic Party control. in comparison, Democratically con-trolled state governments are the least stringent. the same trend is illustrated in republican Party-controlled states regarding the effort to deviate from the federal minimum.

as mentioned above, Hava mandates all states to ver-ify the identity of first-time voters who register by mail and do not provide verification with their registration application (Coleman & Fischer, 2011). Moreover, Hava requires individuals who register by mail to provide an acceptable form of identification with the registration form or before their first time voting, regardless of the voter casting a ballot in person or via absentee ballot. resultantly, Hava created a platform for opportunistic state legislatures to introduce legislation proposing varying levels of stringency.

Since the enactment of the Voting Rights act of 1965, minorities have been active participants in the voting process and sometimes prove pivotal to the outcome of local, state, and federal elections.

7 alvarez et al. (2008) create a table to assess the stringency of a state’s voter identification requirements. Scores were coded from 0 to 7; the higher the code given to a law, the higher the level of stringency. Classification of voter iD stringency: 0. voters must state his/her name; 1. voter must sign his/her name in a poll-book; 2. voter must sign his/her name in a poll-book and it must match a signature on file; 3. voter is requested to present proof of identification or voter registration card; 4. voter must present proof of identification or voter registration card; 5. voter must present proof of identification and his/her signature must match the signature on the identification provided; 6. voter is requested to present photo identification; 7. voter is required to present photo identification

10


Photo Voter Identification Research

voter identification research has generally reported inconsistent findings regarding the effect of voter identification on minority voters. overall, aggregate data from voter identification research has largely shown no significant effect of requiring photo iD on voting turnout, while individual-level data usually finds that minority voters are less likely to have government issued identifica-tion (see for full review, alvarez, r.M., Bailey, D. & katz, J. n., 2008). 8

Barreto, nuno, and Sanchez (2007a) used exit poll data from the 2006 general Elec-tions to ask voters in new Mexico, California, and Washington, states that had signature requirements, if they would be able to pro-vide other forms of iD, i.e. a birth certificate or a recent bank statement. the researchers found that african americans and Hispanic voters were just as likely as Whites to have a bank statement or a utility bill, respectively, but neither was significantly less likely to possess a driver’s license.

Similarly, using 2004 Election Day data from the Current Population Survey (CPS), vercel-lotti and anderson (2006) found evidence that voter identification led to decreased voter turnout for Blacks and Hispanics. Dur-ing the 2004 Presidential election, african american voters were more likely to vote in states with a non-photo iD requirement or with a name match requirement than in

states with the maximum standard.

adding to voter iD research, Mycoff, Wagner, and Wilson (2007) examine 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2006 national elections. overall, Mycoff et al. (2007) found that there is not a signifi-cant difference between the average num-ber of people who vote and those who have an iD. additionally, they also report that be-ing black was not a statistically significant predictor of voting turnout.

Divergent from each of the aforemen-tioned articles, Pastor, Santos, Prevost, and gueorguieva (2007) addressed whether voter identification laws disenfranchise voters who are the mostly likely to not have identification via survey methodol-ogy. Pastor et al. (2008) measured the pro-portion of registered voters who lacked a valid iD in indiana, Mississippi, and Mary-land. the researchers conducted their study primarily via telephone interviews, but also through mailed hard-copy sur-veys. they sampled approximately 2,000 participants as an aggregate (n=2,000), 667 participants from each respective state. the authors reported that of the three states, only about 100,000 registered voters lacked valid identification, i.e. 1.2 percent, of 9.4 million registered voters.10 in line with previous research, analysis of the aggregate data collected by Pastor et al. (2007) did not reveal any new conclu-sions about the impact of voter identifica-

8 using aggregate data, alvarez et al., (2008) found that requiring photo identification had a non-significant effect on voting, but the use of individual-level Current Population Survey (CPS) data shows that the most stringent voter iD laws indeed have a negative impact on the participation of registered voters relative to the weakest require-ments.9 the researchers found that african-americans were less likely to vote in 2000 (.7); more likely in 2002 (.10); less likely to vote in 2004 (.29); and not reported in 2006. none of the probabilities reported above were significant.

11


tion laws, i.e. voter identification laws do not signifi-cantly impact voter turnout.

Further, Hood and Bullock (2009) analyze georgia’s voter identification law, which was implemented in 2007, after being ruled unconstitutional in 2005. the researchers obtained georgia’s Department of Motor vehicle list of licensed drivers and they were able to cross-reference it with a list of georgia’s registered vot-ers; thus, the researchers focused on individual-level data. their multivariate analysis demonstrated that before the implementation of the 2007 photo iD law, Blacks and Hispanics were less likely to have a driver’s license than other registrants.11 additionally, Blacks and Hispanics were less likely to vote in 2004 and 2006 gen-eral Election than other registrants.

Growth Rate

the Center for american Progress’ ruy texiera and John Halpin (2011) released a reported entitled, The Path to 270: Demographics versus economics in the 2012 Presi-dential Election. in their report they examine the role of demographic change in the united States and its impact on the Electoral College. the authors do an ex-tensive demographic examination of 2012 Presidential Election battleground states. Particularly, texiera and Halpin (2011) assert that the united States’ minority population has increased by 30 % over the last decade, but the white population has only increased by 1 per-cent. also, the authors aver that there will be a 2-per-centage point increase in overall minority share of vot-

ers from 2008, i.e. from 26 to 28. lastly, but important to note, the authors report that the real rate of growth among minority voters is faster than overall population growth (texiera & Halpin, 2011).

in July of 2012, the national urban league released a report entitled, The Hidden Swing Voters: Impact of Af-rican-Americans in 2012 by Madura Wijewardena and valerie Wilson, Ph.D. analogous to texiera and Halpin’s (2011) report, Wijewardena and Wilson (2012) report that there were 2.4 million more african american voters in 2008 than there were in 2004, a growth rate of 16.4%. the use of growth rates by the researchers was instructive to provide a standardized measure of the actual number of african american registered vot-ers who participated in the 2008 Presidential election compared to those who voted in the 2004 Presidential election. additionally, Wijewardena and Wilson (2012) point out that voter turnout in 2008 for african ameri-cans was 64.7%, the highest ever recorded for african americans in a Presidential election, and the narrow-est gap with Whites (non-Hispanic) ever, -1.4%. the researchers conclude that the turnout rate, 1.4% below White (non-Hispanic) registration rates, was due to an increase in registration rates in 2008, i.e. 69.7%. thus, in order to increase african american voter turnout, political organizers should increase african american voter registration rates.

United States Minority Population Increaseover the last decade 30%

United States White Population Increaseover the last decade 1%

United States Population Growth

10 in Mississippi and indiana, respectively, 10.3% and 3% of registered african american voters did not have any form of photo identification in comparison to 1.6% and .5% for White registered voters, respectively. 11 Hood and Bullock (2009) reported that the probability of african americans and Hispanic americans of having no driver’s license during the 2004 and 2006 elections were .30 and .37, respectively.

The real rate of growth among minority voters is faster than overall population growth.

13


12 it is common for voter iD legislation to include a provision to allow all eligible citizens to obtain a photo iD from the DMv, only after show-ing “appropriate” documentation (See photo iD law in MS, in, ga, tn, and Pa).13 texiera (2011) posits that the President obama should attempt to increase or at least maintain voter turnout rates for the Millennial genera-tion because he has less standing within the “Silent generation” (65+).

Reduced Opportunity Voter (ROV)

to this point, there had not been a standardized meas-ure of accessibility articulated. the Brennan Center’s keesha gaskins and Sundeep iyer (2012) released a re-port that outlines the cost of obtaining a photo iD in states that have restrictive photo identification require-ments for voting. the methods used by the gaskins and iyer (2012) target counties in states with strict photo iD requirements that have sizeable Black and Hispanic populations. using geographical information Systems (giS) methodology, the researchers were able to pin-point Department of Motor vehicle (DMv)12 locations in 10 states that had enacted or proposed photo voter iD legislation. the authors report that approximately 1.7 million people of color, of voting age, live more than 10 minutes away from an office that issues state iDs; of that 1.7 million, approximately 500,000 do not have ac-cess to a vehicle (gaskins & iyer, 2012) (See table 1).

the derived variable, accessibility, provides the degree of practical inconvenience experienced by a person who must consider a plan to cast a vote. From this variable we coin the title, reduced opportunity voters (rovs). it is relevant to consider the plans of individuals regarding voting because political participation is an activity that is time specific and time-consuming, e.g. registration, the cost and time of corralling the proper paperwork, the cost and time of obtaining proper iD, taking time from work, travel cost and time to the poll-ing station, and wait time in order to vote. to be clear, cost, i.e. the cost of a birth certificate or a marriage li-cense in order to obtain a photo iD from the DMv, is not considered in this report (gaskins & iyer, 2012). this conception of access allows for an objective measure of those who do not have a vehicle, i.e. no driver’s license, and due to recent voter restrictions may be overly bur-dened to participate politically.

Young Voters

young voters have been a focal point during the 2012 Presidential election, as they were during the 2008 Presidential Election. Wijewardena and Wilson (2012) report that during the 2008 Presidential election there was an increase in turnout rate for african-american voters and by 6 points and 1.9 points, respectively by those between the ages of 18 and 24 and those be-tween the ages of 25 and 44, in comparison to their White counterparts.

to emphasize the impact of voter iD laws on those between the ages of 18 and 29 Cohen and rogowski (2012) used u.S. Census data that chronicled turnout rates for the 2004 and 2008 Presidential elections. the authors use the Brennan Center’s national survey es-timates, which found that there are significant differ-ences, by race, regarding the possession of a photo iD. to highlight the Brennan Center’s findings, only 9% of whites do not possess a photo iD, while comparatively 25% of african americans and 16% of latinos do not possess photo iD. Cohen and rogowski (2012) also highlight that respondents below the age of 25, from the Brennan Center study, were less likely to have pos-sess an identification card that listed the requisite in-formation to be accepted as a valid iD. ultimately, Co-hen and rogowski (2012) found that between 538,000 and 696,000 minorities between 18 and 29, who texi-era (2011) calls the Millennial generation, would po-tentially be affected by voter iD laws. Particularly, the researchers also highlight Florida and Pennsylvania.13

in Florida, the researchers estimate that more than 100,000 minority youth will be affected by voter iD laws; while in Pennsylvania, the researchers estimate that between 37,000 and 44,000 minority youth could be demobilized to vote in the upcoming Presidential election.

From the research reviewed in this section, we will fo-cus on four elements of that objectify the considera-tions taken by voters: average growth rate (agr), ac-cessibility to political participation, and the possession of a photo iD. Below i will discuss each of these com-ponents separately.

14


Method

Growth Rate

Similar to Wijewardena and Wilson (2012), we analyzed the rate of growth in african american voters in Presidential elections between 2000 and 2004 and also between 2004 and 2008 as a function of voter turnout using the following formula:14

P1-P2 * 100= aGR% P1

in this report, the rate of growth refers to the rate of growth in african americans, over the age of 18, who actually voted in 2000 and 2004, respectively, relative to the number of african americans who actually voted in 2004 and 2008, respectively. 15

after calculating the average growth rate (agr) for african american and White voters in 2000, 2004, and 2008, we used the Bren-nan Center’s measure of the percentage of voting age citizens who do not have access to a vehicle and live more than 10 miles away from a state-iD issuing office as a template to create a standard measure of access for af-rican americans without a vehicle five miles away from their nearest DMv in Pa, Fl, and va. the researchers assert that those who are most likely to be a part of this category are less likely to have a photo iD (gaskins & iyer, 2012) (See table 1). in nine of the thirteen states that have proposed a strict photo iD law a birth certificate or marriage license is required to obtain a voter iD (gaskins & iyer, 2012)16.

Distance from nearest DMV: ROV

in order to answer the initial question posed, “What is the potential impact of location on african american voting age citizens’ access to political inclusion?” we must first know where the DMv locations are within the united States. the addresses of roughly 7000 DMv locations were geocoded into arcgiS. We then created multiple buffer rings (3, 4 and 5 miles) around each DMv locations.

the total number of voting age african americans (expressed as a percentage) with no access to vehicles were mapped by join-ing the u.S. Census data from the american Community Survey to the 2010 tigEr line shape files obtained from the uS Census Bu-reau website.

We then performed 3 separate queries to pick up all the census tracts that lay entirely outside the 3, 4 and 5 mile DMv buffers. this gave us the total number of voting age af-rican american Citizens and total number without access to vehicles who lived beyond the queried distances from the nearest DMv. it must be said that the DMv buffers for this project underestimate the number of indi-viduals outside any specified distance be-cause we only consider straight-line distanc-es, similar to (gaskins & iyer, 2012).

Data for the project was obtained from the “2006-2010”, american Community Survey, 5 year estimate tables. the methodology closely followed the one adopted by the Brennan Center for Justice in their report on “the Challenges of obtaining voter identi-fication” (gaskins & iyer, 2012). Data was re-trieved at the Census tract level for the states of Florida, Pennsylvania, and virginia.

14 When i refer to african americans, it means “Black alone or in combination” as defined by the u.S. Census Bureau 2004 and 2008 and “Black alone” as defined by the u.S. Census Bureau 2000; “Black alone or in combination” was not available as a category in the Current Population Survey: voting Supplement from 2000. When i refer to White, it means “White (non-Hispanic)” as defined by the u.S. Census Bureau 2000 through 2008. 15 author’s analysis of the data from the u.S. Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey: voting Supplement from november 2000 through november 2008.16 Pennsylvania’s Department of State, Secretary of Commonwealth Announces Simplified Method to Obtain Photo ID for Pennsylvania-Born Voters.

15

Citizenship Status

in table B05003, titled “Sex by age by Citizenship Sta-tus”, the 2006-2010 aCS, 5 year estimates give us the total number of residents by 2010 Census tracts. We filter the data to obtain the total number of citizens per Census tract.

African American Citizens

in table B05003B, titled “Sex by age by Citizenship Sta-tus (Black or african american alone)”, the 2006-2010 aCS, 5-year estimate data gives us the number of afri-can americans by 2010 Census tracts. the total number of african americans per census tract includes citizens (native, foreign born, naturalized) and non- citizens. the data has been further classified into african americans under 18 years and above 18 years. Since, the current scope of the project looks into voter iD issues, we are only concerned with african american citizens above the age of 18.

Average Household Size

in table B25010, titled “average Household Size of oc-cupied Housing units by tenure”, the 2006-2010 aCS, 5 year estimate data gives us the average household size for owner occupied housing units and renter occupied housing units.

Vehicle Usage Statistics

in table B25044, titled “Tenure by Vehicles Available”, the 2006-2010 aCS, 5 year estimate data gives us the number of owner occupied and renter occupied hous-ing units with 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 and more vehicles available by 2010 Census tracts. We then multiply the number of owner occupied housing units by no vehicles with average household size of owner occupied housing units. We also multiply the number of renter occupied housing units with no vehicles by average household size of renter occupied housing units and sum the two products together. this gives us the total number of residents in the census tract with no access to vehicles. From tables B05003B, B05003i and B05003 we then ex-press the total number of voting age african american and Hispanic citizens as a fraction of the entire number of citizens per Census tract (See table 2).

We multiply this fraction in both cases by the total number of people per Census tract with access to no vehicles to yield an estimate of the ‘total number of voting age african american Citizens with no access to vehicles’. in the end, the aforementioned calculations comprise the measure of rovs.

16


Possession of photo ID

regarding the percentage of african americans without a photo iD, empirical research has offered little informa-tion on the percentage of african americans in respective states who do not have a photo iD. as testament to the necessity of this work, the Brennan Center for Justice informs us that nationally 16 % of latino voters do not have a photo iD, 25% of african american voting age citizens do not have photo iD, and 9% of White voting age citizens do not have a photo iD. 17 With that said, there are publications that detail the percentage of african americans who do not have a photo iD. For example, Pastor et al., (2007) report that 10.3% of african american registered voters in Mississippi do not have a photo iD. Similarly, Hood and Bullock (2009) report that 30% of african ameri-cans do not have a photo iD in georgia; while Barretto, nuno, and Sanchez (2007b) report that 21.8% of african americans do not have a photo iD in indiana

to account for the lack of data available regarding the possession of photo iD by african americans, we used the numbers reported by Bouie (2012) for Pennsylvania, i.e. the national average, 25%. For the other four states, we referenced by the Brennan Center’s estimate of 25%. as is common in most states, a photo iD is not necessary to register, but in the states that we consider, specifically Pennsylvania and Florida, a photo iD is needed in order for a citizen to have their vote counted. Below, we utilize giS to analyze both state-level and county-level data that helps depict rovs.

Results

State-Level Data

u.S Census Current Population Survey: voting Supplement data for Presidential elections in 2004 and 2008 data provides us with information to calculate the average registration and voter growth rates for african americans. as such, we are able to calculate the actual rate of change from a previous event to a subsequent event. as a result, we calculated the rate of the growth in registration and voting for both african american and White voters in the states who have proposed or enacted photo voter iD legislation (See Figures 1 and 2).

17 Citizens Without Proof, retrieved on october 28, 2012 from: http://www.brennancenter.org/page/-/d/download_file_39242.pdf18 Barretto, nuno, and Sanchez (2007). the disproportionate impact of indiana voter iD requirements on the electorate.

http://www.brennancenter.org/page/-/d/download_file_39242.pdf

17

African American Voter Access: Reduced Opportunity For Political Inclusion 2012African American Voter Access: Reduced Opportunity For Political Inclusion 2012

11 percent of eligible voters do not have a photo Id and that

25% of african americans, voting age, do not have photo Id

Based on analysis of the Census data, there is a general trend that shows a significant increase in the number of af-rican americans in both registration and voting for the 2008 Presidential election compared to the rate of growth of african american registration and voting for the 2004 Presidential election. african american voter agr from 2000 to 2004 was two times greater than White voter agr (See table 3). Consistent with Figure 1, african american voter agr from 2004 to 2008 increased to five times greater than White voter agr. Similarly in states that have proposed or enacted a photo iD law, the average growth rate of registration for african americans, in comparison to their White counterparts, mirrors the trend of agr in those same states (See table 4).

Figure 1 Registration Growth Rates 2004-2008

african american registration growth rate

White registration growth rate

19


County Level Data

this paper includes a geographical analysis (giS) of Pa, va, and Fl, each at various levels of stringency re-garding their voter iD requirements. Pa is a state that requires a photo iD; election officials in Fl request a photo iD and name match; and in va a voter must pre-sent proof of identification and his/her signature must match the signature on the identification provided. in order to identify the density of african americans, in one of the aforementioned states, who do not have a vehicle and live more than 3, 4, or 5 miles away from their nearest DMv (See table 2). in addition to infor-mation on african americans without cars who live 3, 4, or 5 miles away from their local DMv locations, the respective state tables include information that in-forms us about county-level growth rates for african american Democrats and republicans; the tables also include a column that shows the estimated number of african americans who do not have a photo iD, based on the 25% national average for african americans.

Virginia (VA)

as an example of a 2012 Presidential election swing state that sought to strengthen its voter iD law in 2011, virginia proposed a strict photo voter iD law, which was struck down. 18 instead, the state implemented a voter iD law that allows the poll worker to “ask the voter to present any one of the specified forms of identification”: virginia voter registration card, social security card, valid virginia driver’s license, any kind of government-issued iD, employee photo identification

card, any va educational institution-issued iD, and a concealed handgun permit. if the voter does not pos-ses one of the forms of iD specified, the voter will be able to vote via a marked ballot that says, “iD-only”. in order to have the ballot count, the voter must submit one of the forms of iD specified by facsimile, in-person, by mail, or email by noon the third day following the election.

kennedy and Wang (2011) wrote a report on virginia’s efforts to enact a strict photo voter iD law. the authors report that over 600,000 virginians would be disenfran-chised if a strict photo voter iD law were implemented. also, kennedy and Wang (2011) assert that there is no such thing as a free iD, i.e. it is stipulated that the re-spective state governments provide citizens with voter iDs, a precedent set in states with strict photo voter iD laws: in, ga, kS, and tn.

Particularly in virginia, in order to register, there are myriad forms that are accepted:

“(1) a copy of current and valid photo identification, or (2) a copy of a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck or other government document that shows the voter’s name and ad-dress. if the application is submitted without the accompanying iD, the citizen will be added to the voter rolls, but may be required to show elections officials either (1) or (2) above the first time they vote in a federal election” 19.

Figure 2 Voter Growth Rate 2004-2008

18 national Council of State legislatures (2012). retrieved on September 20, 2012 from: http://www.ncsl.org/legislatures-elections/elections/voter-id-2012-legislation.aspx19 Fairfax County (2012). voter registration. retrieved on october 3, 2012 from: http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/elections/vregis.htm.

african american voter growth rateWhite voter growth rate

States



http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/elections/vregis.htm

20


in most cases a social security number, birth certificate, or photo iD is required to estab-lish home utilities, open a bank account, obtain work, etc. as such, no photo iD is re-ally “free” (kennedy & Wang, 2011). Even so, there is no strict photo voter iD law in effect for the 2012 Presidential election in virginia.

Geographic Politics: Virginia

to illustrate the electoral topography of virginia, texiera and Halpin (2011) provide a comprehensive look at the regional per-formance of Democrats and republican Presidential candidates in both 2004 and 2008, based on electorate demographic growth. the authors assert that northern virginia is growing in both population, i.e. 24 % since 2000, and voter turnout at a precipitous rate. in 2008, President obama received 92% of the african american vote in virginia (Cnn exit polls, 2008). From the 2004 to the 2008 Presidential election, vot-er growth for african americans outpaced their white counterparts in virginia 55.7% to 16.6% (See table 3).

For example, Fairfax county african ameri-can republican voter growth rate from 2004 to 2008 is -29.1%, while its Democratic voter growth rate is 12.5%. Similarly in loudon and Prince William counties, african american republican voter growth rates decreased by 18.5% and 22%, respectively; conversely, african american Democratic voter growth rates increased by 29.3% and 23.8%, respec-tively (see table 4). What is also important about this area of virginia is that there are a significant number of african american rovs. For example, in Prince William County, approximately 23% of the african american voting age population does not own a car and lives at least 3, 4 or 5 miles from their nearest DMv; also, based on a 25% national estimate, approximately 12,800 of african americans in Prince William County do not have a photo iD.

92%Percentage of the african american vote President obama received in Virginia (CNN exit polls, 2008).

21


regarding richmond and the eastern region of the state, there has been population growth of 13 % since 2000 (texiera & Halpin, 2011). For example, in Ches-terfield 20% of the african americans are considered rovs, and approximately 11,703 african american vot-ing age citizens do not have a photo iD. african ameri-can republican voter growth from the 2004 to the 2008 Presidential election decreased by 23.3% , but af-rican american Democratic voter growth increased by 21.6%. Similarly in Henrico County, 30% of the african americans are rovs and 15,485 of african american voting age citizens do not have a photo iD.

as such, a geographical discussion of voters in respec-tive states is necessary in order to target voters whose access is constrained by their circumstances. to il-lustrate, below we report the current state of african american men and women in Pennsylvania and Florida based on growth rate, age groupings, ownership of a car, distance from a DMv, and the possession of a photo iD.

Pennsylvania (PA)

Multiple sources report that approximately 750,000 Pennsylvanians do not have a driver’s license, i.e. 9.2% of 8.2 million voters; particularly, 21% of Whites have no photo iD statewide and 18%, i.e.186, 830, of african americans in Philadelphia have no photo iD. 20 recently, the Washington Post’s Jamelle Bouie (2012) wrote that Pennsylvania signed a stipulation that acknowledges that there have been “no investigations or prosecu-tions of in-person voter fraud in Pennsylvania; and the parties do not have direct personal knowledge of any such investigations or prosecutions in other states” (p.

1). the Pennsylvania photo voter iD law stipulates that School iDs (from outside the state) are not accepted, free iD will be provided by showing: a social security card, an official birth certificate, and two proofs of resi-dency.

as noted before, the strict photo voter iD law enacted earlier in 2012 has been blocked and will not be in ef-fect for the 2012 Presidential election. Cnn staff report (2012) mentions that Commonwealth Court Judge robert Simpson issued a temporary injunction to block the voter iD bill until after the november 6th, 2012 Presidential Election21. according to the court docu-ments, the judge felt that laws would disqualify likely voters, i.e. disenfranchisement. Even though Judge Simpson blocked the law from being in effect for the 2012 Presidential election, he did not declare the law unconstitutional, so the information presented below will be relevant for future local, state and national elec-tions.

Geographic Politics: Pennsylvania

in 2008, President obama received 95% of the african american vote (Cnn exit polls, 2008). the findings of texiera and Halpin (2011) suggest that there has been population growth in Pennsylvania: york, lancaster, and Harrisburg metro areas; and the Philadelphia met-ro area.

to take a closer look at the demographic breakdown of african american men and women voting age citi-zens in Pa, age groups of men and women between the ages of 35 and 54 make up the largest age group of rovs (See Figure 3). in addition, men and women in

20 retrieved on august 23, 2012 from : http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/pennsylvania-admits-it-no-voter-fraud-prob-lem/2012/07/24/gJQaHnvt6W_blog.html21 Cnn (2012). Judge blocks Pennsylvania voter iD law for november election. retrieved on october 3, 2012 from: http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/02/politics/pennsylvania-voter-id/index.html

Figure 3 Number of African Americans in PA who do not own a car and live 3, 4, or 5+ miles from the closest DMV

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/pennsylvania-admits-it-no-voter-fraud-problem/2012/07/24/gJQAHNVt6W_blog.html




the same age groups, 35 to 44 and 45 to 54 have the highest rates of not possessing a photo iD (See Figure 4). regard-ing younger voters, the number of male rovs, in age ranges 20 to 24 and 30 to 34, are significantly higher than their african american female counterparts (See Figure 3). Similarly, african american men age 20 to 24 have significantly higher numbers of not having a photo iD than their female counterparts, based on the national average, i.e. 25% (See Figure 4). also, there are an alarming number of african american males between the ages of 35 and 54 who are

specifically 5+miles from their nearest DMv without a vehicle. Particularly, there are almost 3 times as many african american male rovs as female rovs in Pa that are 5+ miles from their nearest DMv, 8,203 and 2,630, respectively (See Figure 5).

Figure 4 Number of African Americans in PA without a photo ID according the national average: 25%

Figure 5 Number of African Americans in PA who do not own a car and live 5+ miles from the closest DMV

23


Florida (FL)

Florida has been a hotbed for the electoral politics for years, but it was thrust into the national spotlight during the 2000 Presidential election due to voting irregularities that eventually lead to Bush v. gore and the Helping america vote act (Hava), both of which laid the foundation for voter iD measures being pursued in various states. according to the national Council for State legislatures, strict photo iD law was considered in 2012, but it was not enacted. according to Cillizza (2012) of the Washington Post, Florida has been using the Department of Home-land Security database, Systematic alien verification for Entitlements (SavE), as a method of purging voters from voter rolls. Cillizza reports that Florida’s prior effort to purge ineligible voters, using the Department of Highway Safety and Motor vehicles records, created a public relations nightmare for the state because there were a number of “false positives”, i.e. there were eligible voters who were being erroneously cited as ineligible. So, the state of Florida has been granted permission by the federal government to use SavE, which is what the Department of Homeland Security uses to determine the citizenship status of individuals.

Due to the historical importance of Florida’s electoral votes and its notorious legacy that has indelibly impacted electoral law, it is necessary to be aware of the actual landscape of african americans who are adversely impacted by cumbersome access to political participation.

in light of the electoral debacles in Florida and the efforts of political organizers to mobilize the african american vote, there is a non-strict photo voter iD law in effect for the 2012 Presidential election.

24


Geographic Politics: Florida

Exit polls from 2008 Presidential election show that 96% of african american voters cast their ballot for President obama (Cnn Exit Polls, 2008). that strong civic showing by african ameri-cans helped President obama win Florida’s 29 electoral votes by 3 points, where george W. Bush claimed Florida’s electoral votes in the 2000 and the 2004 Presidential elections.

referencing growth, texiera and Halpin (2011) assert that there has been 18% overall popu-lation growth since 2000. as part of that aforementioned growth, Bositis (2011) reports that the african american population in Florida has increased by 28% since 2000. We see a similar pattern of growth in actual african american voter growth rates in comparison to their White counterparts. african american voter growth rates rose at almost twice the rate of their white counter parts between the 2000 and the 2004 Presidential election, i.e. 34% to 19%, while the voter growth rate for african americans from 2004 to 2008 was twenty times that of their

25


white counterparts, i.e. 21% to 1%, respectively (See table 3).

With that in mind, analysis of u.S. Census data informs the giS analysis which illustrates that there are overall more african american female rovs than males, in age groups 35 to 44 and 45 to 54, are a prohibitive distance from their nearest DMv (See Figure 6).

overall, the percentage of female rovs is higher in each age group except for ages: 18 to 19, 20 to 24, and 30 to 34. alarmingly, females rovs, 35 to 44 and 45 to 54, also have the highest rates of not possessing a photo iD (See Figure 7).

this finding is not meant to insinuate that rovs are the same people who do not possess a photo iD; neither do we suggest that not having a photo iD or being a prohibitive distance from a DMv without a vehicle happen at the same rates. But, we do point out that both Pa and Fl exhibit synchronous patterns for men and women, age 35 to 44 and 45 to 54, who do not possess a photo iD and are rovs. analogous to Pennsylvania, Florida has more afri-can american male rovs 5+ miles from the nearest DMv than african american female rovs, 17, 207 and 14,747, respectively (See Figure 8).

22 McClellan (2012) reports that, “of hundreds of millions of ballots cast since 2000, there have been 633 incidents of confirmed voter fraud.”

Figure 6 Number of African Americans in FL without a photo ID according the national average: 25%

Figure 7 Number of African Americans in FL who do not own a car and live 3, 4, or 5+ miles from the closest DMV

26


Findingsin an attempt to answer the question, “What is the potential impact of location on african american voting age citizens’ access to political inclusion?” We used data from the u.S. Census Current Population Survey, academic studies, and non-governmental organization reports, and newspapers. Four primary findings from this study are listed below:

• actual voter growth for african ameri-cans has been rising at least since the 2000 Presidential election.

• Photo voter iD legislation will have a de-pressing effect on average voter growth in states that have actually passed photo voter legislation.

• in Florida, african american voter growth rates rose at almost twice the rate of their white counterparts between the 2000 and the 2004 Presidential election, i.e. 34% to 19%, while the voter growth rate for afri-cans americans from 2004 to 2008 was twenty times that of their white counter-parts, i.e. 21% to 1%, respectively.

• in Pa and Fl, there is a synchronous pat-tern between men and women, age 35 to 44 and 45 to 54, who are a prohibitive distance from a DMv without a vehicle and those of the same age ranges who lack a photo iD.

on balance, there is no clear evidence that voter

iD laws suppress voting by minorities, in general and african americans particularly. What should also be highlighted is the ability to identify the most vulnerable people within in any ethnic community (rovs) in order to enhance civic en-gagement, generally but also to increase voter turnout, particularly. to be clear, there are actual voters that are rovs and vice versa. Empirical research informs us that cost, enthusiasm, es-tablished level of civic engagement, educational attainment, marital status, and general interest in politics are necessary to consider when as-sessing the impact of distance on voter turnout (gimple & Schuknecht, 2003). For all of the fo-cus on the Millennial generation and the Silent generation, it happens that in Fl and Pa those african american men and women between the ages of 35 and 54 are the most at risk for being excluded from political participation due to re-duced voting opportunities and to the lack of photo identification.

What we will discover over time is the marginal impact of voter iD laws on voter turnout, but the assertion that voter impersonation fraud is a compelling reason to create and enact voter iD legislation is not supported by the facts.22 With that said, voter iD laws of varying levels of strin-gency will impact voter turnout overall, at vary-ing levels. thus voter iD laws are a reality that will impact future elections in states that have allowed those laws to stand. regardless of the presence of a strict or non-strict photo voter iD law, not possessing a photo iD coupled with the lack of access to a DMv office highlights how cumbersome it is for citizens to be civically en-gaged if it is required to prove one’s citizenship

Figure 8 Number of African Americans in FL who do not own a car and live 5+ miles from the closest DMV

27


with a state-issued photo iD. as such, geographical loca-tion and the possession of state-issued documentation, as determinants of political participation, are worthy of fur-ther investigation.

Limitationslimitations of this work are noted due the lack of data available for analysis. the elements of this project were not chosen haphazardly, but were carefully selected based on club goods economic theory. as a result, of this approach to inquiry about voter photo iD, it was necessary to obtain data from disparate places to fuse together a plausible col-lection of variables. as stated above, there is not much in-formation available regarding the number or percentage of african american voting age population, voting eligible population, or registered voting population in each re-spective state who do not have a photo iD. also, the figures generated to determine county level estimates of growth rate and the possession of a photo iD are calculated using ecological-level data, which creates a less reliable estimate of the african american voter turnout. on the other hand, county-level growth rates provide an indication of growth or decline in african american voting activity, from election to election.

also, the figures generated to determine county level es-timates of growth rate, referencing exit poll data, and the possession of a photo iD, referencing the Brennan Center for Justice’s national average, are calculated using ecolog-ical-level data, which creates a less reliable estimate of the african american voter turnout. Meaning that both coun-ty-level figures for growth rate and the possession of a pho-to iD provide only a general estimation. on the other hand, county-level growth rates provide a general indication of growth or decline in african american voting activity, from election to election.

it is clear that this report does not predict the impact that not having a photo iD and of living 3, 4, or 5+ miles from the nearest DMv location without a car has on african ameri-

can voter turnout. it is necessary to be able to do so with the new reality that voter iD laws are here to stay. although projection is not a part of this report, the groundwork has indeed been laid to accurately predict the impact of living a prohibitive distance from a DMv without the privilege of owning a car. as such, we are not able to make assertions of correlation between common occurrences, i.e. claiming a positive relationship between not having and iD and liv-ing a prohibitive distance from a DMv without a car for afri-can americans in Pa and Fl ages 35 to 44 and ages 45 to 54.

additionally, there have been works that assess the contin-gent valuations of voting, e.g. cost, enthusiasm, established level of civic engagement, educational attainment, marital status, and general interest in politics (gimple & Schukne-cht, 2003), but this work does not ostensibly address those issues. We do not disqualify potential voters based on the aforementioned categorizations because we believe that it is necessary to promote civic engagement, educational attainment, general interest in politics, and enthusiasm for political activity. as such, this work provides tools to aid the effort of promoting civic engagement by alerting polit-ical organizers and political officials of the location of rovs.

also, three things should be noted regarding voting turn-out: 1) as mentioned by Wijewardena & Wilson (2012), there was record turnout for african americans voting in 2008, 64.7%, which means that approximately 35% of the african americans did not vote. thus, their recommenda-tion for increasing the number of registered african ameri-can voters is considerable; 2) there is still significant growth in african american voter turnout, regardless of photo voter iD legislation, evidenced by georgia’s record african american voter turnout for the 2008 Presidential Election, 65.2%. 3) lastly, we must consider the impact of additional pernicious laws in respective states that disproportionately impact the poor and african american voters, e.g. limita-tion of voter registration places, purging voter rolls, exten-sive identification requirements, ineligibility of voting due to incarceration (Bositis, 2006).

28


References

agraharkar, v., Weiser, W., & Skaggs, a. (2011). the cost of voter iD laws: What the courts say. Brennan Center for Justice at new york university School of law, pp. 1-9.

alvarez, r. M., Bailey, D., & katz, J. (2008). the effect of voter identification laws on turnout. Presented at the annual meeting of the american Political Science association, Boston, Ma.

Barreto, M. a., nuno, S. a., & Sanchez, g. r. (2007a). the disproportionate impact of voter-iD requirements on the electorate. Prepared for presentation at: 2007 american Political Science association annual Conference.

Barretto, nuno, and Sanchez (2007). the disproportionate impact of indiana voter iD re-quirements on the electorate. retrieved on august 23, 2012 from: https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:EpJM02ngpZ0J:depts.washington.edu/uwiser/documents/indiana_voter.pdf+barretto+photo+iD+research+in+indiana&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=aDgEESgnw7olrQaDkurl08t2bDhjSgzrmlwBeHpk5ans5atZ-Zoouae7u_as9ht8ni-2iazak-2rtdubokk-qBbfo_9wqBdaaskv_1tyo-xnrvvJahimenHrtccn-suJkt5JniZiixu-d&sig=aHiEtbSqxbHyuMoZbbQuuu410WzWy82C6w

Beach, E. D. (2006). the Florida Department of Elderly affairs: Senior statistics, retrieved on october 8, 2012 from: https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:u48wii2hWkMJ:www.myfloridahouse.gov/FileStores/Web/HouseContent/approved/Minority%2520leader/resources/Sen-ior_FactSheet.pdf+&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=aDgEEShxy8waomtivlrwjEoipiv6MeQu1udn93w04WpkJSgqimBo1qtlaEs7aFoE2PE9_wj5tP1a_oBju1h81ndQFuqvgjtnk78S60phWxoPQ7n3jnblixkp_b-srjg4aDdjoBlbnBlQ&sig=aHiEtbr4Ev1Pqtirotgbt--0zSugstQ9qw

Bositis, D. (2006) impact of the ‘Core’ voting rights act on voting and officeholding. in rich-ard M. valelly, the voting rights act: Securing the Ballot, pp. 113-127.

Bouie, J. (2012). Pennsylvania admits it: no voter iD problem. retrieved on august 23, 2012 from : http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/pennsylvania-admits-it-no-voter-fraud-problem/2012/07/24/gJQaHnvt6W_blog.html

Cillizza, C. (2012). Florida voter purge fight isn’t over. retrieved on october 5, 2012 from: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/florida-voter-purge-fight-isnt-over/2012/07/17/gJQatlgarW_blog.html

Cnn exit polls (2008). Election center 2008. retrieved on october 8, 2012 from: http://www.cnn.com/ElECtion/2008/results/polls.main/

Cohen, C. & rogowski, J. C. (2012). turning back the clock on voting rights: the impact of new photo identification requirements on young people of color. retrieved from: http://research.blackyouthproject.com/files/2012/09/youth-of-Color-and-Photo-iD-laws.pdf

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:EpJM02NGpZ0J:depts.washington.edu

Indiana_voter.pdf

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:u48wIi2hWkMJ:www.myfloridahouse.gov

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:u48wIi2hWkMJ:www.myfloridahouse.gov

Senior_FactSheet.pdf

Senior_FactSheet.pdf



http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/florida-voter-purge-fight-isnt-over/2012/07/17/gJQAtLgArW_blog.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/florida-voter-purge-fight-isnt-over/2012/07/17/gJQAtLgArW_blog.html

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls.main

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls.main

http://research.blackyouthproject.com/files/2012/09/Youth-of-Color-and-Photo-ID-Laws.pdf

http://research.blackyouthproject.com/files/2012/09/Youth-of-Color-and-Photo-ID-Laws.pdf

29


Coleman, k. & Fischer, E. a. (2011). the help america vote act and elections reform: over-view and issues. Congressional research Service (rS20898).

gaskins, k. & iyer, S. (2012). the challenge of obtaining voter identification. Brennan Center for Justice at new york university School of law, pp. 1-30.

gimpel, J. g. & Schuknecht, J. E. (2003). Political participation and the accessibility of the bal-lot box. Political geography, 22, pp. 471-488.

Hale, k. & Mcneal, r. (2010). Election administration reform and state choice: voter identifi-cation requirements and Hava. the Policy Studies Journal, 38 (2), pp. 281-302.

Hood, M. v. iii & Bullock, C. S. iii (2008). Worth a thousand words? an analysis of georgia’s identification statute. american Politics research, 36 (4), 555-579.

McClellan, n. (2012). How much voter fraud is there?: a state-by-state map reveals the an-swer: almost none. retrieved on october 12, 2012 from: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/map_of_the_week/2012/09/voter_id_laws_a_state_by_state_map_reveals_how_much_voter_fraud_there_is_in_the_united_states_almost_none_.html

Mycoff, J. D., Wagner, M. W., &Wilson, D. C. (2007). the effect of voter identification laws on aggregate and individual level turnout. Prepared for presentation at the annual meet-ing of american Political Science association, pp. 1-26, Chicago, il.

national Conference of State legislatures. voter identification requirements. retrieved on august 23, 2012 from: http://www.ncsl.org/legislatures-elections/elections/voter-id.aspx

Pastor, r., Santos, r., Prevost, a., & gueorguieva, v. (2007). voter iDs are not a problem: a survey of three states. Center for Democracy and Election Management (CDEM) ameri-can university. available at: http://www.american.edu/spa/cdem/upload/voteriDFinal-report1-9-08.pdf.

texiera, r. & Halpin, J. (2011). the Path to 270: Demographics versus economics in the 2012 Presidential Election. retrieved on September 18, 2012 from: http://www.americanpro-gress.org/wp-content/uploads/issues/2011/11/pdf/path_to_270.pdf

texiera, r. (2011). Why obama’s re-election campaign will depend on the youth vote. retrieved on September 19, 2012 from: http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/98937/why-obamas-re-election-campaign-will-depend-the-youth-vote

vercellotti, t. & anderson, D. (2006). Protecting the franchise or restricting it? the effects of voter iD requirements on turnout. Presented at the annual meeting of the american Political Science association, Philadelphia, Pa.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/map_of_the_week/2012/09/voter_id_laws_a_state_by_state_map_reveals_how_much_voter_fraud_there_is_in_the_united_states_almost_none_.html



http://www.ncsl.org/legislatures-elections/elections/voter-id.aspx

http://www.ncsl.org/legislatures-elections/elections/voter-id.aspx

http://www.american.edu/spa/cdem/upload/VoterIDFinalReport1-9-08.pdf

http://www.american.edu/spa/cdem/upload/VoterIDFinalReport1-9-08.pdf

http://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/issues/2011/11/pdf/path_to_270.pdf

http://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/issues/2011/11/pdf/path_to_270.pdf

http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/98937/why

Appendices

31


Tables

table 1. voting-age Citizens without vehicle access

State voting-age Citizens Without vehicle access

% of voting-age Without vehicle access

voting-age Citizens Without vehicle More than 10 miles from state-iD issuing office

% of voting-age Without vehicle access who live more than 10 miles from state-iD issuing office

Pennsylvania 985,414 10.4% 135,544 13.8%

South Carolina 222,144 6.7% 7,251 3.3%

Mississippi 143,933 6.7% 48,329 33.6%

georgia 400,841 6.2% 66,516 16.6%

Wisconsin 256,981 6.2% 47,161 18.4%

alabama 213,386 6.1% 57,285 26.8%

indiana 268,535 5.8% 3,235 1.2%

tennessee 262,954 5.7% 40,089 15.2%

texas 831,652 5.4% 59,740 7.2%

kansas 95,973 4.8% 7,373 7.7%

total 3,681,813 6.6% 472,523 12.8%

Source: Brennan Center for Justice, The Challenge of Obtaining Voter Identification (2012). Note: it also estimates this as a percentage of the total voting-age citizen population in the state, and it provides the number and percentage of voting-age citizens without a vehicle who live more than 10 miles from their nearest iD-issuing office open more than two days a week.

32


table 2. african americans who live more than 5 miles away from their DMv

State voting-age african american Citizens More than 5 Miles from nearest State iD-issuing office

no. of voting age Citizens

% of voting age Citizens

% of voting-age Without vehicle access who live more than 5 miles from state-iD issuing office

north Carolina 103,206 7,032,968 1.47% 7.67%

Pennsylvania 27,087 9,791,063 0.28% 3.24%

Florida 80,385 14,498,530 0.55% 4.77%

virginia 77,182 6,001,677 1.29% 7.68%

ohio 8,677 8,746,158 0.10% 0.97%

33


table 3. actual voter growth rates for african american and White voters in Presidential elections 2000-2004 and 2004-2008

State actual voter growth rate

(2000-2004)

Black White

actual voter growth rate

(2004-2008)

Black White

alabama 5.3 .5 8.5 1.3

georgia - 8.4 30.2 44.2 15.3

indiana 36.5 - 2 11.4 7

kansas -14.3 .9 22.2 - .7

Mississippi 30.5 - 9 14.6 15.8

Pennsylvania 9.4 18 12.2 - 4.3

South Carolina 24.4 5.7 24 5.2

tennessee - 3 7 22.2 4.3

texas 18.9 10 31.2 1.5

Wisconsin 53.8 11.5 7.1 - 5

virginia - 10 - 10 55.7 15.6

Florida 34 19.7 21 1

new Hampshire - .89 20 1.5 4.5

average 13.55 7.88 21.21 4.73

34


table 4. voter registration growth rates for african american and White voters in Presidential elections 2000-2004 and 2004-2008

State reg. voter

growth rate

(2000-2004)

Black White

reg. voter

growth rate

(2004-2008)

Black White

alabama - 4.9 1.6 6.1 - .8

georgia - 16.2 25.6 32.4 8.4

indiana 36.3 - 2.8 1.3 4.2

kansas - 11 0 10.6 - 2

Mississippi 18 - 4.6 12.2 3.3

Pennsylvania - .2 11.6 6.4 - 2.6

South Carolina 31 6.7 9.3 4.6

tennessee - 2.6 5.8 3.4 5

texas 19 2.8 20.6 .3

Wisconsin 34 6 .7 4.9

Florida 26 14.4 10.8 .7

*new Hampshire -80 14.5 100 4.6

virginia 5.4 6.3 24 7.8

average 11.23 6.12 11.48 2.81

*Because the african american population of new Hampshire is so small, we did not include it’s registration figures in the averages. as such, any small change is therefore significant.

36

table 5. actual voter growth rate (D) and (r), Percentage of aa with no vehicle 3,4,5+ away

Counties in va va republican growth va Democratic growth

accmock -26.0 17.4

albermarle -26.1 17.2

alleghany -35.6 2.2

amelia -23.5 21.3

amherst -26.8 16.2

appomattax -27.0 15.9

arlington -26.2 17.1

augusta -28.2 13.9

Bath -32.8 6.6

Bedford -27.5 15.0

Bland -34.5 3.8

Botetourt -30.4 10.3

Brunswick -27.9 14.3

Buchanan -44.2 -11.4

Buckingham -26.5 16.6

Campbell -28.7 13.0

Caroline -17.8 30.3

Carroll -35.3 2.7

Charles City -23.2 21.9

Charlotte -28.4 13.6

Chesterfield -23.3 21.6

Clarke -28.1 14.1

Craig -37.4 -0.6

Culpeper -20.1 26.8

Cumberland -27.6 14.8

Dickenson -43.0 -9.6

Dinwiddie -24.6 19.5

Essex -21.8 24.1

Fairfax -29.1 12.5

37

from DMv, and the number of aa with no iD in virginia

Percentage of aa with no vehicle per County (Multiple of total no vehicle)

Percentage of aa with no vehicle per county (Multiple of total aa pop)

number of aa with no iD per County

34.73 28 1807

17.46 18 1806.5

33.64 30 184.5

29.95 27 556

51.84 61 1752.75

12.64 17 597.5

32.04 32 3421.25

10.35 44 702.5

5 0 40.75

15.43 16 760.5

5.94 8 49.5

2.07 2 235.5

1.83 1 2019

3.42 25 101.75

35.72 17 1482

27.58 30 1465.75

33.15 30 1578.25

1.97 6 76.5

42.54 42 720.75

34.92 63 1469.5

23.15 20 11702.5

9.14 10 150

0 0 0

46.42 38 1392.5

1.32 1 600.75

0 0 14.5

40.5 40 1720.25

67.52 63 768

20.83 19 17464.5

38



Fauquier -27.7 14.7

Floyd -29.6 11.7

Fluvanna -26.4 16.8

Franklin -27.9 14.3

Frederick -25.6 18.1

giles -34.0 4.6

gloucester -25.5 18.2

goochland -22.9 22.4

grayson -37.1 -0.2

greene -24.0 20.6

greensville -27.5 15.1

Halifax -27.2 15.5

Hanover -28.2 13.9

Henroico -26.4 16.7

Henry -31.9 7.9

Highland -35.8 1.8

isle of Wight -20.3 26.4

James City -21.3 24.8

king & Queen -27.9 14.3

king george -16.3 32.7

king William -22.8 22.5

lancaster -29.5 11.8

lee -40.6 -5.8

loudoun -18.5 29.3

louisa -19.3 28.0

lunenburg -31.8 8.1

Madison -26.7 16.3

Mathews -32.7 6.7

Mecklenburg -24.8 19.3

39





19.36 18 1020

1.66 4 53

43.7 45 757.25

7.45 13 907.25

4.53 6 531.5

1.2 4 46.25

11.65 11 629.5

19.68 6 1317.25

4.33 5 77.75

13.78 14 231.5

2.17 2 1481

18.08 20 2532.25

12.58 10 1732.5

27.34 30 15485.25

47.56 50 2366.5

0 0 0

31.67 28 1628.75

29.35 23 1582.5

48.49 52 430

46.25 41 719.5

34.13 28 569

25.2 35 596.25

0.36 1 198.25

9.22 5 3693.25

38.67 43 1130.25

2.26 6 960

25 9 279

22.1 19 187.5

28.78 37 2368.25

40



Middlesex -28.2 13.9

Montgomery -18.1 29.9

nelson -27.9 14.3

new kent -20.2 26.6

northhampton -24.0 20.5

northhumberland -26.8 16.1

nottoway -26.1 17.2

orange -22.3 23.2

Page -31.6 8.4

Patrick -34.2 4.3

Pittsylvania -29.0 12.7

Powhatan -24.6 19.6

Prince Edward -18.2 29.7

Prince george -23.6 21.2

Prince William -22.0 23.8

Pulaski -33.4 5.7

rappahannock -31.4 8.8

richmond -29.2 12.4

roanoke -31.5 8.7

rockbridge -29.2 12.3

rockingham -27.9 14.3

russell -36.1 1.4

Scott -37.1 -0.3

Shenadoah -29.4 12.0

Smyth -36.5 0.8

Southampton -23.4 21.5

Spotsylvania -24.8 19.4

Stafford -23.7 21.0

Surry -22.1 23.5

41





15.94 15 418.25

16.23 17 757

48.9 45 405.25

19.5 15 545.75

22.55 32 923.25

26.4 25 642

2.03 2 1257

45.11 31 787.25

1.23 4 81.75

8.74 9 219.25

43.59 35 2765.25

5.69 1 1216

35.83 39 1508.75

23.53 28 2198

33.24 23 12816.5

24.6 0 371

6.02 23 75.5

40.12 42 609

10 828

4.92 6 112

2.13 5 249.75

4.27 11 68.25

0 0 16

4.97 7 123

4.89 8 127.5

49.5 45 1400.25

31.96 19 3215

28.03 17 3553.75

76.04 50 641.25

42



Sussex -21.5 24.5

tazewell -38.1 -1.8

Warren -27.2 15.5

Washington -30.6 10.1

Westmoreland -22.6 22.8

Wise -37.5 -0.9

Wythe -32.0 7.9

york -28.2 13.8

alexandria -27.5 15.1

Bedford -31.7 8.4

Bristol -31.1 9.3

Buena vista -35.5 2.3

Charlottesville -17.7 30.6

Chesapeake -25.6 18.0

Colonial Heights -32.4 7.3

Covington -35.4 2.5

Danville -30.2 10.8

Emporia -25.6 18.1

Fairfax -31.5 8.7

Falls Church -29.7 11.5

Franklin -20.8 25.6

Fredericksburg -18.7 28.9

galax -35.3 2.7

Hampton -22.8 22.5

Harrisonburg -15.5 34.0

Hopewell -23.4 21.4

lexington -32.8 6.6

lynchburg -17.6 30.7

Manassas 159.2 311.2

43





27.58 32 1507.75

8.8 15 261

8.43 9 299.5

7.67 14 132.75

35.27 42 920.25

4.76 7 510.25

8.68 10 189.5

20.72 18 1582.5

21.16 19 5779

1.1 1 279.25

42.82 43 226.25

17 17 71.75

20.68 23 1575.75

27.95 31 11728.5

34.86 32 325

52.8 47 151

12.13 13 3791

2.2 2 645

6.2 7 186.25

17.84 26 94.75

4.17 5 878.75

21.88 20 941

15.05 15 44

14.55 20 12692

29.74 29 601

21.23 19 1413.5

42 42 90.5

23.7 24 3930.75

62.48 47 848.25

44



Manassas Park -21.3 24.8

Martinsville -26.5 16.5

newport news -24.2 20.3

norfolk City -20.4 26.2

norton City -36.8 0.3

Petersburg -18.2 29.8

Poquoson -31.1 9.3

Portsmouth -25.2 18.6

radford -29.4 12.0

richmond -20.6 25.9

roanoke -27.9 14.3

Salem -31.6 8.5

Staunton -27.6 14.8

Suffolk -21.4 24.7

virginia Beach -27.5 15.0

Waynesboro -29.8 11.4

Williamsburg -0.9 57.2

Winchester -31.4 8.8

average -26 17.4

45





55.92 55 325.75

16.27 13 1160.75

15.57 19 12885

13.35 15 19280.75

11 11 36

6.02 14 4901.5

0 0 7

9.31 14 9127

22.95 24 279

8.35 10 19308

19.43 13 4874.25

17.17 24 282

26.13 22 541.75

10.54 9 6118.75

24.16 25 14931.5

41 42 350

50 41 373.75

29.28 29 536.5

21.09 20.9 total= 283,099

46


Counties in Pa aa DEM gr 04-08 aa rEP gr 04-08

adams 18.4 -67.3

allegheny 13.9 -68.5

armstrong 8.5 -70.0

Beaver 14.9 -68.2

Beford 10.9 -69.4

Berks 22.9 -66.0

Blair 10.3 -69.5

Bradford 12.3 -69.0

Bucks 17.1 -67.6

Butler 18.8 -67.2

Cambria 9.4 -69.8

Cameron 4.1 -71.2

Carbon 20.8 -66.6

Centre 32.7 -63.3

Chester 24.2 -65.7

Clarion 15.6 -68.1

Clearfield 10.3 -69.5

Clinton 19.2 -67.1

Columbia 17.2 -67.6

Crawford 11.8 -69.1

Cumberland 20.0 -66.8

Dauphin 20.0 -66.9

Delaware 17.5 -67.5

Elk 9.1 -69.8

Erie 13.8 -68.5

Fayette 8.5 -70.0

Forest 6.2 -70.7

Franklin 22.2 -66.2

Fulton 12.6 -68.9

47

from DMv, and the number of aa with no iD in Pennsylvania




2.3 2.48 279.25

16.05 17.3 96.75

0.45 2.26 96.75

9.86 13.64 1823.5

0 0 33.75

14.5 47.46 3112.25

1.49 5.27 355

0 0 43.5

19.8 14.94 3803.25

0.89 4.11 310.25

12.2 23.25 994.5

0 0 0.75

0.89 2.61 153.75

6.23 6.78 969.25

28.87 16.28 5590

1.84 5.27 96.5

7.18 0.46 428.25

2.4 4.48 117

2.23 2.46 189.75

6.14 23.35 296.75

5.48 5.6 1350.25

15.86 10.69 7993.5

28.55 10.94 18273.25

0 0 12.75

9.24 12.87 3152.25

8.85 10.46 1139.75

89.69 2.95 298.25

13.74 26.74 771.75

0.445 1.24 23.5

48



greene 15.0 -68.2

Huntington 15.4 -68.1

indiana 16.8 -67.7

Jefferson 7.6 -70.3

Juniata 8.7 -70.0

lackawanna 16.0 -68.0

lancaster 16.3 -67.9

lawrence 8.5 -70.0

lebanon 18.1 -67.4

lehigh 18.1 -67.4

luzerne 12.3 -69.0

lycoming 10.9 -69.4

Mckean 3.0 -71.6

Mercer 17.2 -67.6

Mifflin 11.0 -69.3

Monroe 37.0 -62.2

Montgomery 19.1 -67.1

Montour 18.6 -67.2

northhampton 20.5 -66.7

northumberland 2.3 -71.7

Perry 13.8 -68.6

Philadelphia 20.0 -66.8

Pike 28.7 -64.4

Potter 6.0 -70.7

Schuylkill 8.2 -70.1

Snyder 15.9 -68.0

Somerset 6.7 -70.5

Sullivan 6.3 -70.6

Susquehanna 13.6 -68.6

49





13.03 2.79 313.5

37.55 5.59 576.5

9.11 9.54 478.75

0.02 0.45 24.75

0 0 10.25

3.48 8.37 794.5

5 9.15 3070.25

5.21 8.24 545.25

5.1 23.16 373

10 24.71 3165

5.13 11.87 1735.5

9.15 14.53 808.75

0.01 0.01 228.5

15.3 12.13 1098

0.17 2.28 38.25

51.7 20.63 3558.25

21.9 15.4 12134.25

0.69 0.69 32.75

11.78 25.51 2302.25

4.58 3.4 365.25

0 0 44.5

12.88 11.83 119154

47.87 21.56 513.5

0 0 16

4.66 5.39 851

0.44 0.45 66.5

16.55 3.7 422.25

2.7 2.7 28.75

0 0 27.5

50



tioga 14.8 -68.3

union 21.3 -66.5

venango 10.5 -69.5

Warren 8.2 -70.1

Washington 14.2 -68.4

Wayne 17.4 -67.6

Westmoreland 11.3 -69.3

Wyoming 14.9 -68.3

york 22.1 -66.3

average 14.8 -68.3

51





1 1.03 54.75

0.55 2.79 774.25

0.3 1.62 72.25

0 0 23.25

9.8 14.19 1259

12.14 2.05 323.5

4.4 6.58 1385.5

0.2 0.46 39

0.169 20.14 3639.5

9.3 21.2 total= 212,154.5

52


Counties in Fl aa DEM gr 04-08 aa rEP gr 04-08

alachua 36 .1 -62 .5

Baker 34 .1 -63 .0

Bay County 30 .5 -64 .0

Bradford 29 .5 -64 .3

Brevard 31 .0 -63 .9

Broward 26 .4 -65 .1

Calhoun 26 .4 -65 .2

Charlotte 29 .9 -64 .2

Citrus 32 .2 -63 .6

Clay 40 .1 -61 .4

Collier 33 .5 -63 .2

Columbia 35 .8 -62 .6

DeSoto 28 .3 -64 .6

Dixie 34 .6 -62 .9

Duval 31 .9 -63 .6

Escambia 30 .4 -64 .1

Flagler 54 .1 -57 .5

Franklin 22 .6 -66 .2

gadsden 29 .7 -64 .3

gilchrist 33 .1 -63 .3

glades -3.5 -73 .4

gulf 19 .5 -67 .1

Hamilton 32 .7 -63 .4

Hardee 23 .2 -66 .1

Hendry 34 .1 -63 .0

Hernando 31 .7 -63 .7

Highlands 30 .1 -64 .1

Hillsborough 34 .0 -63 .1

Holmes 24 .7 -65 .6

53

from DMv, and the number of aa with no iD in Florida




23.2 24.5 8836.75

32 31.3 675.26

19.1 16.6 3075

35.5 45.2 1202.99

21.8 17.2 9402.75

21.4 23 78878.99

16.5 2.4 422.75

18.2 16.3 1687.75

8 3.7 697.5

20.2 22.6 2926

17.7 13.8 3454.25

34.9 30.6 2161.51

16.4 9.6 852.75

41.6 28.1 189

16.5 18 43477.75

15.8 16.4 11513.25

16.1 16.2 1771

46.6 55.1 313

6 6.3 4599

15.7 8.2 155.75

0.3 0.46 255.25

28.5 29.7 674.5

6.9 4.3 1047

29.2 20.7 476.5

14.3 20.2 1022.75

14.8 10.7 1394

32.6 25.1 1648

17.7 18.7 33374

45.1 24.2 223.44

54



indian river 38 .8 -61 .7

Jackson 31 .4 -63 .8

Jefferson 28 .3 -64 .6

lafayette 21 .5 -66 .5

lake 43 .8 -60 .4

lee 35 .8 -62 .6

leon 31 .6 -63 .7

levy 35 .5 -62 .7

liberty 30 .5 -64 .0

Madison 29 .3 -64 .3

Manatee 27 .9 -64 .8

Marion 40 .1 -61 .4

Martin 31 .2 -63 .8

Miami-Dade 35 .0 -62 .8

Monroe 23 .2 -66 .1

nassau 42 .1 -60 .8

okaloosa 28 .5 -64 .6

okeechobee 26 .3 -65 .2

orange 44 .1 -60 .3

osceola 47 .4 -59 .4

Palm Beach 31 .2 -63 .8

Pasco 36 .7 -62 .3

Pinellas 22 .9 -66 .1

Polk 40 .1 -61 .4

Putnam 29 .4 -64 .3

St. Johns 48 .4 -59 .1

St. lucie 45 .5 -59 .9

Santa rosa 36 .7 -62 .3

Sarasota 28 .7 -64 .5

55





14.6 12.8 2340

47.3 37.7 2483.75

37.3 39.1 965.47

12.1 16 142

22.1 15.1 4667

13.8 12 7926.01

22.6 17.4 15405.45

35 15 689

46 31 229.03

14.2 13.6 1378.75

15.7 14.3 4516

21.6 18 6808.25

13.1 7.1 1430.75

12.3 14.5 84547.25

25 20.4 869

17.2 17 917

35.8 34.1 3070

37 22.5 527.53

16 18.3 39453.75

25.1 26.5 4830

19.7 18.5 37699.57

6.5 3.7 3196.5

23.9 12.9 16182

23.4 25.9 14409

29.3 25.1 2028.26

8.5 5.6 1779

23.7 25.8 8485.5

25.1 20.2 1259.614

9.7 4.8 2919.7

56



Seminole 33 .5 -63 .2

Sumter 87 .0 -48 .5

Suwannee 34 .6 -62 .9

taylor 31 .5 -63 .8

union 36 .4 -62 .4

volusia 28 .5 -64 .6

Wakulla 47 .0 -59 .5

Walton 36 .0 -62 .5

Washington 29 .9 -64 .2

average 33 .3 -63 .3

57





17.4 18.4 7909

5.2 4.7 1918.25

40.2 22.9 790.5

6.8 9.4 911.49

5.3 8.4 612.75

15.5 10.3 9057.5

31.9 22.9 773.75

3.2 3.6 526.9

24 23.1 656.25

21.4 18.32 total=510,720

impact's african american voter access report

Documents