Exactly. And they *knew* they would be disproportionately affected from the getgo. They're solving a problem that wasn't there to suppress votes for political purposes.

US Census.

In the 2010 census Republican states had a population boom in comparison to Democratic ones... partially because due to the GFC, Republican states are actually doing a lot better job and economics wise comparativly then before the GFC.

Except you know... a lot of democrats agreed this was a problem before THEY realized they would be disproportionatley effected.

Ask Jimmy Carter.  (Also, according to him there is a BIG problem with voter fraud.)

It's not Republicans who have moved off the issue.

It's Democrats.

I don't really give a shit about their motives. Voter fraud is a thing, and minorities and the poor are most likely to have their votes stolen, so I reckon that goes both ways. Saying that poor people are uniquely incapable of obtaining an ID that is provided free of charge seems seriously patronizing.

When you don't have regular access to transportation and the distrubution center is further away than your voting precinct, it is.

So rather than just saying no IDs, period, why not make it easier for such people to obtain one?

We've tread this ground before, but in Pennsylvania they're really not making it much easier.

That's a problem for people in Pennsylvania, then. So far the courts don't seem to agree, but I guess we'll see where the Supreme Court comes down.

I don't know how common actual ballot manufacturing and the like is as opposed to voter regsitration fraud, but if it helps to improve the integrity of the vote then it just doesn't seem all that burdensome or unreasonable to me in a society where you need a photo ID to do practically anything. And the fact that a Democratic legislature and independent governor in Rhode Island passed voter ID kind of takes the steam out of the kneejerk "it's bad, because Republicans" argument.

I looked this up (http://www.270towin.com/blog/electoral-college/electoral-votes-in-2012) and found a preview of increases and decreases back in feb 2008 that is very accurate to the 2010 numbers, so I wouldn't say it was predominantly affected by gfc or "who was doing better than whom post gfc", since the numbers were known so far back.

Guess there weren't enough years to reflect in the data yet.  Guess that makes sense.  Was only 2 out of 10.

  Either way, there has been something of a big increase ever since republican states have been able to turn things around quicker.

Guess that'll show more in 2020.  Not that it matters, since migration generally means a migration of people, and not their polticial stances.