Expert testifies that election law did not affect turnout in 2014
Published July 28, 2015
by Michael Hewlett, Winston-Salem Journal, July 27, 2015.
An elections analyst testified Monday that North Carolina’s new voting law had no discernible impact on black voter turnout in the 2014 election.
But attorneys for the N.C. NAACP and other groups suing the state and Gov. Pat McCrory objected to testimony from Sean Trende, the senior elections analyst for RealClearPolitics, saying he is not qualified to be an expert.
House Bill 589, which became law in 2013, is at the center of a federal trial in U.S. District Court in Winston-Salem, which is in its third week. House Bill 589 eliminated same-day voter registration, reduced the number of days for early voting from 17 to 10 and prohibited out-of-precinct provisional voting. The law also eliminated preregistration of 16- and 17-year-olds, among other provisions.
Plaintiffs, including the U.S. Department of Justice, allege that the law imposes disproportionate burdens on blacks and Hispanics, poor people and young people, and that state Republican legislators had discriminatory intent in passing the law.
Attorneys representing North Carolina and McCrory deny the allegations and have used black voter turnout in the 2014 election to undercut arguments that the law has placed burdens on minorities.
Trende is the third expert witness that state attorneys have called to bolster their argument that the law cannot be burdensome if blacks voted at higher rates in 2014 — when some of the law’s provisions were in place — than they did in 2010.
Dale Ho, one of the plaintiffs’ attorneys, challenged Trende’s qualifications as an expert. Ho pointed out that unlike other experts called in the case, Trende does not have a doctorate degree — only a master’s degree in political science and a law degree.
Ho also argued that until this case, Trende had not given any academic analysis on the connection between election law changes and how they affects voters’ behavior. Ho also said that Trende’s work had not been subjected to any rigorous academic peer review, Ho said.
Ho also alleged that RealClearPolitics is an online publication that leans to the right politically. Trende said that RealClearPolitics is nonpartisan. He said on direct examination that he has written for such conservative publications as National Review and the Weekly Standard, but added that he has also given speeches to a wide range of organizations. He said he agrees to such speeches, regardless of the political affiliation of the organizations that invite him.
U.S. District Judge Thomas Schroeder ruled to allow Trende to testify and that Schroeder would reserve judgment on the plaintiffs’ objections.
In his testimony Monday, Trende said that North Carolina’s voting law would be considered in the mainstream in other states. He said North Carolina is among 19 states that require voters to show a photo ID. North Carolina’s photo ID is not part of this federal trial.
Trende also said that 31 states prohibit out-of-precinct provisional voting.
He said experts on the plaintiffs’ side had argued that the new voting law would suppress black voter turnout during the shortened early voting period in the 2014 election. But according to his analysis, there was a larger drop-off in black voter turnout on Election Day between 2012 and 2014 than there was with early voting that same period, Trende said.
Trende and another expert, Trey Hood, a political science professor at the University of Georgia, testified that blacks voted in 2014 at higher rates than they did in 2010.
Plaintiffs’ experts said that the higher turnout among blacks can be explained by the highly competitive U.S. Senate race between Democratic incumbent Kay Hagan and eventually Republican winner Thom Tillis, a former state speaker of the House. Under cross-examination by Spencer Fisher, another of the plaintiffs’ attorneys, Hood acknowledged that in 2010, campaign spending was between $10 million to $15 million, as compared to the $110 million spent in the 2014 U.S. Senate race.
Hood conceded under cross-examination that blacks used early voting and same-day voter registration at higher rates than whites in the past elections.
Hood said that the Democratic primary for the U.S. Senate race in 2010 that was won by Elaine Marshall in a runoff over Cal Cunningham was more competitive than the one in 2014, but that overall turnout in 2014 was still higher. Marshall lost in the general election in 2010 to Republican incumbent Sen. Richard Burr.
July 28, 2015 at 9:30 am
Norm Kelly says:
So, he does NOT have a doctorate. We already knew that libs are snobs. Now they are putting in court records that they are truly snobs of the first degree. So much for 'the little guy' that libs always claim they support but always fail to consider with their schemes!
Then there's the issue of registering people too young to vote. Is there logic behind wanting to register people who can't vote? Maybe. If libs think that allowing people too young to vote would sway those youngsters to vote for libs, then we know why libs wanted to allow ineligible voters to be registered. But if there wasn't some sort of game playing involved with registering kids too young to vote, there seems to be no reason to allow it. But we are talking about libs and they NEVER do anything to sway the vote in their favor. Perfect example is gerry. Libs never used gerry to create districts that favored lib pols! It's only those rascally Republicans that use gerry to prevent blacks from voting. And to keep libs out of office!
SCOTUS recently ruled that gay marriage was legal in the entire nation because a majority of states already approved of it so therefore the rest of the nation must be dragged along on the same slippery slope. Except this was an invalid 'thought' process. Some of those states, like NC, had JUDGES decide that gay marriage was legal, so states like NC can't be used as part of SCOTUS' argument. Yet SCOTUS chose to do this. Same rule won't apply to voting rights, according to the libs anyway. Just because 31 states have voting rules set a certain way, does not mean libs in our state will see this as validation of NCs new laws. Just because 31 states do it that way, libs will continue to claim that OUR laws are purposely discriminatory toward blacks. Oh, and those too young to vote.
At some point blacks will catch on that their 'leaders' and major proponents (libs) believe they are incapable and less than their white counterparts. It's not me saying blacks are less qualified to take care of themselves. So before all you libs refer to me as a racist, please look in the mirror first. It's people like the rev buffet slayer who says blacks are incapable. It's the lawyers for the demon party currently in court saying that blacks can't find a way to vote or prove who they are. It's the lib demon party who constantly tell us that blacks need the kindly loving help of white people to make it through life. So, it's the libs, demons, lawyers, black 'leaders' who are the racists with extremely low opinion of black people. When will a majority of blacks figure out that they are being taken advantage of by those who say they are there to help but are actually helping to keep them dependent? If more blacks were to become conservative, they would suddenly have their eyes open to reality. And stop voting for demons/libs!
July 28, 2015 at 2:28 pm
Richard L Bunce says:
I suspect getting a PhD without being a flaming liberal would be difficult in many of the "soft" majors... like Political Science for instance.
July 28, 2015 at 10:45 am
Richard L Bunce says:
Attack the messenger for not having a PhD and not having his paper peer reviewed by a bunch of left wing PhD holders... how about the 39 States that also do not have same day registration or the 40 States that do not have straight ticket ballots or the 14 States primarily in the NE US that have NO early voting? Are they all suppressing voters? How about the requirement to be at least 18 years old... that affects some groups more than others... is that voter suppression as well?
