Over the weekend, the Supreme Courtgave Texas the go-ahead on a strict voter ID law. The law requires that anyone
planning on going to the polls will have to show a state issued photo ID. With
midterm elections just around the corner, many Democrats fear that this law
will further reduce the already low voter-turnout and hit especially hard for
low-income and minorities who may be less likely to have this type of
identification at hand.
In terms of his discussion on
voting and rational absenteeism, Johnson would clearly identify this law as one
that would reduce voter turnout out by increasing the costs for those
individuals who may not have a license or a passport. Given the new law, if one
does not have a proper form of identification, they must spend hours in line at
the DMV as well as shell out additional cash in order to receive an ID so that
they may cast their vote. Thus, increasing both the monetary and opportunity costs associated with voting for these people. This law is
extremely controversial because it has been estimated that close to 600,000 voting
age people in Texas lack state issued ID’s, the majority of which are assumed
to be minorities. The law will clearly serve as a significant obstacle and
deterrent to voting for these people, and is being compared to the voting taxes
of the late 1800s and early 1900 that were used to prevent blacks from voting. By raising the costs associated with voting,
Johnson would claim that this law would give those without state-issued ID’s
the incentive to rationally abstain from voting in the elections. Given that
minority voters are typically liberal and Texas is a traditionally conservative
state, the probability of decisiveness for a minority voter in Texas is already
essentially zero. So, by Johnson's reasoning when you combine these additional
costs of voting targeted at minorities with the existing costs of voting and
the infinitely small probability of decisiveness of a minority voter, the
marginal costs will certainly exceed to marginal benefits of voting and it simply
wont be rational for these voters to spend the time and money to go to the
polls.
1 comment:
As we discussed in class, voters already face enough costs. The stricter ID law in Texas, as Hayley shows using Johnson’s rational abstention theory, will reduce voter turnout even more. While the supporters of the law say that this ensures the integrity of the votes, its critics argue that the law ultimately targets minorities who don’t have a proper ID and tend to vote Democrat. The integrity of the votes is not as great of a cause for concern as the fact that not many people are even voting. Texas has now made the act of voting harder for its people, when it should be making it easier. The marginal cost of voting has increased for the 600,00 people who don’t have the proper ID, and if they don’t feel strongly about the election, Johnson would argue that they have no reason to vote. Since Texas is known to be conservative, the effect of the ID law might not be as great – it might just reflect a more significant Republican win in terms of numbers. It will be very interesting to see the results of the election and how the new ID law comes into play.
Post a Comment