Voter Eligibility Laws Could Determine Control of U.S. Senate
October 14, 2014
"New and expanded laws regulating voter eligibility haven't been this critical to election outcomes over the last few election cycles," said Professor Zelden. "Voter eligibility has been constricting for a decade and will reach its peak relevancy in next month's elections.' Zelden, a professor of history and legal studies, specializes in politics and voting. Control of the U.S. Senate hangs in the balance because at least eight states – Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana and North Carolina – have races so close that party turnout will be the key, Zelden said. The outgoing Senate is comprised of 53 Democrats, two independents who caucus with Democrats and 45 Republicans. On Nov. 4, 34 of the 100 Senate seats are up. "If Democrats can get enough of their voters to the polls, they will retain control of the Senate; if they don't, they won't," Zelden said. "But where the votes are close, turnout is going to depend not just on who shows up to vote, but on who is allowed to vote under the new voter ID laws." Among many examples is North Carolina, which has one of the toughest voter ID laws on the books. Incumbent Democrat Kay Hagan leads Republican challenger Thom Tillis in most polls but by just a few percentage points – spreads that are within the error margins. The growing number of tightened eligibility laws would appear to favor Republicans, who have championed this kind of legislation. However, Zelden said that hostile reactions by voters to these laws would favor Democrats. "Democrats always need a turnout push in non-presidential years, and this issue could ignite them in numbers big enough to keep them in control of the Senate, if the party exploits the issue," he observed. Republicans have positioned eligibility laws as necessary impediments to fraud at the polls. Democrats contend that instances of polling fraud are insignificant and the laws amount to voter suppression. Zelden said that the voter suppression argument is inherently emotional and there were instances in the 2012 and 2008 presidential elections where constricting the vote had the effect of bringing out Democrats at higher levels. In a mid-term election season like this one, he said it's difficult to see whether emotions will ride high enough to have the same effect. Pre-election polling has become less dependable in recent years because so many samples are conducted through automated robo-calling and many young and minority constituencies aren't reachable by traditional land line phones, Zelden said. Polling questions about voter ID laws linked to voters' willingness to turn out aren't being asked widely, so this issue can't be reliably tracked. "Pollsters need to be asking people if they are more likely to vote because someone is trying to take their vote away," Zelden said. "Both sides benefit from their respective positions," Zelden said. "Democrats push inclusion and an expanding electorate works for them. Republicans on the other hand have a more reliable voter base, and expansion of voters and voting hours doesn't help them in relation to the aid it gives their opponents."
|
||