Recent reports of a rise in African American turnout in the 2014 primaries, the implications of this in light of the new voter ID law, and the upcoming court case surrounding it, looks like much ado about nothing. Others may disagree, of course, but the latest analysis by DemocracyNC seems to indicate that those who say “Massive Black turnout increase! Voter ID vindicated!” and “Massive Black turnout increase! Voter backlash! Republicans doomed this November!” are both wrong.
Here are the facts: Black turnout in the 2010 primaries was 11.42%. In the 2014 primaries, turnout increased, to 13.36%.
That’s it.
Reports of a mammoth increase in African American turnout are based on raw numbers of voters. In 2010, about 150,000 Blacks voted in the primaries. In 2014, that number was about 200,000. Those same reports say this is an increase of about 29%, while whites only increased their numbers by 16% or something. While that’s true, one must consider the fact that the Black population of this state is on the rise, particularly in urban areas. The white population is not growing as fast. But this is not news to anyone. It’s the same demographic shift we’ve been hearing about for years now. And it has almost nothing to do with voter turnout, or has any implication for November (though a declining White population is obviously not good news for Republicans).
Up to this point, I’m in agreement with the folks at DemocracyNC, who concede that yes, overall Black turnout increased. But wait, they say. Just looking at the statewide voting totals is a distortion of the real picture, and it’s necessary to look at turnout, county-by-county. They find, to their horror, that Black turnout actually declined in 32 counties. Oh no! If that’s the case, then there were only 68 counties with a rise in African American turnout from 2010.
Then they point out this statistic: “Two-thirds (66%) of the increased number of votes cast by black voters statewide came from just 7 counties where there were hot races and/or stronger Early Voting opportunities than offered in 2010.”
So basically, one-third of the increased African American turnout came from counties where there were no hot races and Early Voting opportunities no stronger than those offered in 2010. Basically, the rise in Black turnout is unaccounted for. Thank goodness we might get a preliminary injunction to stop this madness.
Their implication is that in many counties where there was a rise in Black turnout, there were actually competitive races on the ballot, so we should just discount those results. OK, but what about the counties that saw a drop in African American turnout? Maybe they had competitive races in their locality in 2010 and didn’t this year. Should we just ignore those counties too?
Finally, DemocracyNC ignores the biggest contest from 2010 – the May Democratic U.S. Senate primary. We would expect to see a decline in African American turnout from 2010, if nothing else because most African Americans are Democrats and Democrats did not have a competitive Senate primary in 2014. The increase in Black turnout in spite of this is perhaps evidence that African Americans are indeed more energized than they were in 2010. A study on the partisan turnout from the 2010 and 2014 primaries would be needed to confirm these findings.
While I disagree with their conclusions, the report at DemocracyNC deserves a look. And if you really want to delve deeper into the data, download the Excel file to see the dataset they compiled from which they derived their analysis. Special thanks to them for making this data available.
The bottom line: given the lack of a competitive Democratic Senate primary, we would have expected to see a decline in Black turnout. Instead, we saw an increase. We don’t know why. It could be that local races drew higher turnout – say, the 12th district Democratic primary. It could be that backlash against Republican legislators did the trick. Perhaps there was a combination of both.
In any case, those who favor the new voter reforms don’t have to provide evidence of higher turnout from certain groups, though they have it now. Instead, the burden of proof is on liberal organizations to show that turnout has been reduced. So far they’ve failed, miserably.
John Wynne is the “conservative voice” at PoliticsNC, where he also provides polling analysis and commentary on legislative campaigns. When not writing about politics, he enjoys gardening and listening to opera. Contact: johncwynne@gmail.com.
So the attempts by Republicans to suppress the black vote aren’t working so far?
Obviously the term African-American isn’t user friendly to you but dude you love the term black. Almost two dozen times but zero African-American. Or is that a Republican thing?
I made some edits because I do agree the term was overused and distracting to the reader. Thanks for bringing this to my attention.
“a declining White population is obviously not good news for Republicans”
1. why should that be obvious? are you not going to address the elephant in the room?
2. “white” does not require capitalization unless it’s a proper name. the fact that you did anyway speaks volumes.
Do you? Do you have proof that voter turnout is rising in the face of the voter ‘reforms’ that have been instituted? Giving even partial weight and consideration of the fact that the full range of changes, modifications, and enactments have yet to come to fruition yet and won’t until the 2016 election cycle, how can you draw such conclusions and make such definitive prognostications?
That is hardly conclusive and really isn’t evidence of anything, particularly when you consider the “liar, damned liar, and statistician” paradox regarding statistics and how they are explained. I see an arbitrary enquiry of the data, each side using it to shore up it’s own position in order to draw conclusions and foist them out among the populace in an effort to support that point of view.
NCGOP has to deal with the fact that THE MINUTE SCOTUS voided some parts of the 1964 Voting RIghts Act, NCGOP leaders marshaled the forces to shorten voting time and require voter ID.
In the absence of massive voter fraud (and there really is no evidence of massive fraud that required this immediate action), what’s the purpose of this? How despicable on the part of the ALEC-led-by-the-nose NCGOP! They’ve also decided to make it harder for high school students to register.
As Colin Powell noted some months ago, that’s some screwy outreach NC Republicans are making to the “non-traditional” voters. (http://politi.co/1kBlzPh) We’ll see how this plays out in November.
John, voter ID hasn’t gone into effect yet, so it couldn’t have had an impact on the primary voting in 2014. Do you not know this, or are you lying?
You’re right; the photo ID requirement does not go into effect until 2016. But several other changes, like elimination of same-day registration and a week of early voting, have already been implemented and were in effect for the May primary.
Obviously, the full effect of the voter ID law will not be understood until after 2016, but the evidence we have now does not support liberal arguments that it will result in a reduction in turnout.
It is not that hard to get an ID. ID is required for most every other adult transaction in this state. I am tired of fraud. We have in Guilford Co. an activist that has voted twice from same vacant lot and has not even gotten a slap on the wrist. A person that wants to vote, will vote. When I first registered to vote, I had to go to the court house to register…did not feel that an imposition. Now, a person that is not a citizen can just submit a post card…it is silly. As for a reduction in turn out….fine, some people should not vote. So many are so ignorant, is is a crying shame. If you can’t name your senators, governor, and congressman you should not vote. Or, if you don’t know the 5th Amendment from a 5th of booze, you shouldn’t vote.