photo id laws are pending still. let me note these states are only a fraction of the states where they're technically still pending. the states we've identified here are the ones where we actually see a likely li hood of additional passage. what we're seeing in minnesota, even though we saw a veto, the constitutional amendment process does not require the governor's acquiescence. since we have republican legislature in that state, very likely to see the question of photo i.d. hitting the ballot in minnesota 2012. new hampshire is of course where we saw the voting sting come down with apparently zombie voting and that sort of thing, really targeteding and putting pressure to avoid another veto in new hampshire. pennsylvania, tennessee. tennessee has a whole group of -- introduced legislation in response to the photo i.d. law that was passed. one thing that is the most

interesting that apparently was overlooked by the drafters of the legislation was that seniors in tennessee, if you're over 60, you're not required to have your photo on your driver's license. now they've required new legislation making it harder to access the polls. and then, of course, in 2012 we will see a constitutional amendment on the ballot from missouri. proof of citizenship for registration, we have 13 states introduce laws passed in three additional states. south carolina and apparently a sij effort to make sure that there are reasons to demonstrate the need for section five is introducing more restrictions on the vote and now saying proof of citizenship laws have now been introduced in south carolina, are very concerned about the passage of those laws. as we think about proof of identity and rates of citizenship, let's look at who doesn't have this proof. we know 11% of american citizens lack photo id.

18% of americans over 65 lack current government-issued photo id, 25% of african-americans, 18% of young people 18-24, 7% lack proof of citizenship and 34% of women lack proof of citizenship with their current legal name. as we go on we look at restrictions of photo registration. with more laws pending in south carolina and also in mash gan, we saw additional laws in wisconsin and ohio reducing the abilities of voters to move within counties and remain registered. so when we look at restrictions on voter registration, we have to note that hundreds of thousands of voters registered in both 2004 and 2008, we also know african-american and hispanic voters are twice as likely to register through community voter registration drives as white voters.

restrictions on access to the ballot. for those cases we're talking about changes to absentee voters, changes to early voting days, those kinds of restrictions. so we saw reductions in early voting signed into law in five states, florida, georgia, ohio, tennessee and west virginia. georgia, tennessee, west virginia what we primarily saw was a reduction in days for early voting. west virginia did add saturdays in. where we saw some really stark changes was the elimination of golden week in ohio. that was the week, if people do any g.o.tv work, that was a week wra there was overlap of blg able to register and vote on the same day. that week is now gone. in person voting went from 35 days to 11 days, eliminating saturday afternoon and sundays entirely. elimination of souls to the poles, that was a sunday before

election day and reduced the early voting period from two weeks to one week in florida. i think florida really demonstrates what the impact of just this one day. so when we look at african-american voters, we see over 30% -- about 33% of the people who voted on the sunday before election day are african-american even though african-americans represent about 12% to 13% of the citizen voting population in florida. for hispanic voters we see similar numbers, close to 24% while representing 16% of the citizen voting age population. elimination of these days in voting will have a real impact on voter mobilization in these communities. also work to make it harder to restore rights. we saw reverseless in florida and iowa, both cases making it almost impossible for felons to restore their rights. in iowa, not only must people

with felony con slickses apply after they finish all their -- once they're off state supervision, they must have paid back everything associated with the penalties. the costs associated with incarceration and court fees can be onerous if not totally pre collusive. florida not only reversed the previous executive order, but actually added new barriers. once you get off parole, probation, any state sponsored supervision, you have to wait at least five years before you can apply to -- for a person with a felony conviction to get their rights reinstated. if at any time during that five years you are simply arrested, not convicted. if you are arrested, the clock starts over on the five years. when we talk about populations that are likely toelt g picked up again by the police, very likely to be profiled by the police, it goes without saying

that the intention here was to completely disenfranchise these voters. i think the one thing that's important to note, as we think about this reversal and trend in the franchise that we haven't seen since jim crowell, these are in place since jim crow, exactly the same put in place in the 1890s. when we look at students, we have texas and tennessee that specifically and arizona that specifically exclude student i.d.s, texas it's fairly illuminating auz i don't can use your conceal carry gun license but can't use your university of texas student i.d. so certainly, it raises concerns and suggest there is's far more political motivations than simply the integrity of elections as is oftentimes thrown for. i already talked about the quote

in new hampshire. in maine the secretary of state targeted students paying out of state tuition or displaced by natural disaster, even went to the lengths of actually sending letters to individual students who are registered voters explaining if they go vote, they're likely breaking the law, that we're seeing really organized opportunities. now, the 79%, if we look at the laws that were passed and the ones we expect to go through in the next few weeks targeting specifically and only pennsylvania and virginia because we are fairly certain those will pass, all those states that have passed additional restrictions, if you add up the total electoral votes, they are 79% of the 270 needed to elect the next president. when we think about demographic shifts and democratic power, we're seeing the demographic population growth in direct proportion to the laws most severely affected by restrictive

voting laws. to put it a lot more simply, power is going one way, demographics are going the other way. there's an inverse proportion of where power is being concentrated based on voting laws. with respect to race, and i wanted to try to bring it back to redistricting, i think. one of the things that struck me as most notably, with respect to race, these redistricting patterns, some of the things we're seeing may result in the ability to of populations to create and develop effective infrastructure for political engagement. we talked a lot about partisanship. i'm not convinced and i think it can be said that a lot of people aren't convinced that political parties serve the interests of minority voters. no matter how closely aligned african-american voters in particular, but minority in general, you see a line with political parties. i think pam car land's comment struck me with black people as

political hamburger helper when we're drawing lines, that you're using them as foughter to advance the interest of the political party. it's unclear any policies are put in place when they are in power do anything to advance the social and economic positions of these growing populations. so when we have these systems and structures that make it more and more difficult for these populations to engage, the political engagement and political infrastructure is spent entirely on reactive measures. there is no development of political infrastructure and political power to move the agenda forward. that lack of timer ability -- talk about losing that for a decade -- is huge. we're not talking about just saying, oh, well, the lines will change so then people will be able to go vote. right now the only political infrastructure that exists is

that of the parties which means all of the political power is co-opted within a system that in my mind doesn't necessarily serve these populations. when we talk about the inversion of power with the inversion of democratic growth, we're also talking about a delay in the ability of these populations to actually develop political infrastructure to engage in a way outside of the two-party process, to really talk about real advancements. i'm not going to dali on my -- sort of the audrey lord master's house analogy at this point. i think's important to think about that as long as these populations are shoe horned into the same processes and we think about that, the master's tools could never dismantle the master's house, how can you talk about changes in shift and real political power? not just numbers.

not just how populations fit into the existing structure, but actually changing power dynamics such that these populations are better served, that's what we're really talking about here when we talk about when the entire democratic structure is disserved and undermined by these suppressive measures. >> thank you. we have time for some questions. nate. i think this goes first to lisa's paper. one thing that we have found is that the gender gap in voter turnout among minorities is so enormous that it even subsumes the gap between racial groups. that black women in the 2008 election are voting at levels almost comparable to white men. that's something i don't think political scientists have really paid attention to over the last -- you know, in general. >> i have an article on it.

>> in general, no. we don't talk about it. >> we don't talk about it. it's a whole different way of thinking about the social capital that's available to different groups and sort of how to target reforms and how different forms are going to affect different things. i haven't looked at california specifically. i don't know whether you have and seen whether those gender gaps -- particularly among african-americans but also latinos that you see this gender gap. i have a question for dan which is, i thought it looked like one could create a majority asian voting age population district for the senate in the south bay and the east bay if you drew it like a y. i was wondering if people considered that and if there were -- whether you think the communities -- this is a real

california-specific question. the communities in the south bay and the east bay are sort of emblem attic of what you're talking about, either socioeconomically or the types of countries where they're coming from. >> i think we were hesitant to submit proposals based on voting age population based on the ten you nous of -- >> leaving aside the voting rights act, just in terms of advancing asian-american power, could maybe one of the arguments is that disadvantages the asian communities, the communities are so diverse, the same reasons you were talking about before, comparing them to either chinese -- >> our local coalitions actually prefer that configuration. while we didn't treat it as a

section 2 seat, folks in the fremont area, alameda county and asian-americans and pacific islanders in santa clara certainly saw similarities between their communities and -- i'm trying to remember how many different iterations of our proposal included that. i think we recognized those similarities in the communities, felt like there were those kinds of commonalities that might -- might mean the community would benefit from that kind of configurati configuration. >> i do have to say the naturalization data we have shows that's a huge area. i would think -- i would predict in the next iteration you'll have a much larger proportion especially among south asia in that area. on the gender gap question, i think this speaks to the problems with how we conceptualize sub fields within political science, that bim

study women and folks study race. so women have no place to be studied. it's a huge area that we know very little about. not only do you have this gap, but also in' lkted office. women of color are much more successful at getting elected. we know very little about why. if we or thinking about why do we bring people into the process, they would organize the meals and get everybody to go. at least in my work i found women talking aboutar to political protests or threatening not to feed their families if they didn't turn out to vote. it works. we don't study this. i think we do a disservice to these communities. >> that general dr difference with regard to office holding

and candidacy is historic. bob darcy talked about this 25 years ago in the african-american community. part of his theory was it went to the higher level participation in the churches among african-american women. that's one avenue for hypothesis testing we can pursue. >> we also say catholicism decreases. for latinos we don't have a clear story. >> i don't know if michelle alexander's work talks about the disenfranchisement in the prison system. >> when i first saw this, the north carolina pretty starkly, both at registration and then at voting. so you immediately think disenfranchisement whenever you see that kind of agenda because we know that's going to be --

that there will be a gender gap. if you look across states, it seems to be relevant to disenfranchisement laws. there's this gigantic gap. >> it's definitely historic. you go back and look at the documents particularly around when women were trying to get the vote. the issue with the black vote vote and it's not going make a difference. if you get black women to vote, it's going to be a problem. >> it gets messy. if you go badge to nashville in the teens, you find white republican women working with black women in pursuit of the franchi franchise. >> up until the point of when the amendment actually came through and then there was a huge split, working with, to the extent black women said we'll leave as long as you actually

take out the states rights piece. but anyway. >> we have another question here. i graduated from the law school just four years after the voting rights act of '64. i have a question for lease sachlt you mentioned there were a million and a half latinos in california that qualify for citizenship. one of the barriers is the $675 fee which to me, defacto sounds like a poll tax. i wonder if that had ever been changed? >> to my knowledge -- and -- sh. to my knowledge it hasn't been. this fee increase is relatively recent. it's basically, my quick math quadruples. the 1.4 mill one is just the folks of mexican origin in the state of california. if you think about it, it's not just the $675, but often you need medical exam or pictures. there are other costs involved. >> [ inaudible ]. >> many advocates have been

saying if we want to have a true integration program for immigrants, if we understand their part of american society and should be brought in, you should provide that service for free. with the disconnection of i.c.e., the separation of the en ment and the service with the reorganization under homeland security, usdis is expected to basically pay for itself through fees. that's the current model. if you're a family, how do you decide who is the one we get to put forward? the typeshe cost of going through the bureaucracy, subjecting yourself to the test, all those things are tremendously high. it speaks to the question of is that yet another barrier we're putting in the face of people because we don't want them to participate in the process? that fee is expected to only go up. >> i think specifically the question of a poll text, that was addressed in crawford. crawford simply said, look, even

an $18 birth certificate that you must get to get a driver's license in order to to vote eve license is free was not considered a poll tax by the supreme court. >> certainly not a latino issue, too. the very same situation, when we see it on the ground in the citizenship work we do. >> basically there's a ton of background documentation that must be acquired to obtain citizenship and i.d.s and court had not considered with any of the costs thus far. >> i have a question primarily about florida. you showed us some numbers before about the impact of the legislature's restricting early voting on black and latino voters. this may have bearing on other

states as well. florida strikes me as perhaps an anomaly in na it has a large cuban american population that is more conservative, better pp republican candidates and clearly they've done very well so do you think built into legislature or the expectation or aassumption it would not have a neglective and is there a similar expectation or assumption among other state legislatures in crafting restricting voting laws. >> i think when you look at what the assumptions may or may not be, you can look at exceptions carved out. so you see states like wisconsin where we know that more senior voters tend to be more conservative. there's wide exceptions for i.d. requirements for certain citizens.

we talked about texas where there are certain types of i.d.s that are expectations along certain lines. legislatures are purposeful in terms of how i.d. laws were crafted. it would be surprising to me there wasn't some analysis of drilling down in terms of what population specifically would be impacted versus others, but i can't speak to what in the hearts and minds necessarily of legislators doing what they do. >> i can say it's understood. there's a very powerful and well-organized machine to turn out the cuban american vote in miami-dade county not based around churches. one could imagine cuban american legislators saying, it's not going to affect us necessarily because that's not where cuban voters are necessarily going to be voting. that said, i think there is a perception that cuban americans are powerful. they're not as conservative if you look at social issues. they vote for republicans because the republican party let them run for office. in new jersey they're, in fact,

democrats. they hate fidel castro and foreign policy. it's different than what people think. you get diversification in florida, and they aren't necessarily driving republican politics in florida on all issues. they may have an influence on issues towards the policy, but they may not keep it happening in he a broader sense. >> good afternoon. i have a question for dan. i'm going to take off commissioner hat for a second because i worked p four your office many years ago and was an attorney. you're emphasized and have emphasized the state level redistricting. that's also got the most attention in california and nationally. given the relatively small size of asian-american populations in many parts of california, local

redistricting efforts, counties, city, board of education districting where there are districts might seem an area where you might want to do more advocacy. there's strategic reasons, manageability, resources, the availability of funds to do local work. it seems if you're going to focus on various levels of empowerment strategies that the local level in california or in the states might be more tru fruitful given the numbers we see right now. >> during the statewide process our involvement around the 2001 process was at the state assembly level. obviously smaller districts and communities have the opportunity to have a greater voice. normally we kend of segue into the l.a. city council process. that's something we're engaged in now. certainly we recognize the importance of working at the local level particularly as a smaller community.

so, yeah, there aren't any foundation representatives in theed crowd use a little more money to address more of those local redistricting issues. >> one thing that's important, when people think about politics and needs, they think about how many teachers are in schools and how many police are on the roads which are meaningful at the local level. helping people to get their heads around redistricting and what it means can be effective at the local level. the downside is in most states with the exception of wisconsin it comes after the congressional, and then you have to hope to hold that interest for another decade, which isn't easy. >> question. >> i'm a student at the law school. i have a question that's sort of in a sense the follow-up on a

poll tax. keisha, your talk was informative and a really scary overview of what's going on in terms of restrictions on voting rights in various states. it seems like maybe there are a couple different strategies people might try to employ against those restrictions. one would be to politically mobilize people in the legislative arena as voters to fight against these initiatives. the other, which is the one i'm curious about, is do you have a sense of what sort of purely legal strategies have been effective or ineffective if, you know, what you say about crawford. it seems like some strategy is appealing to the u.s. constitution would be ineffective, but if there's anything that has been effective looking to state constitutions or looking to other legal avenues. >> certainly. okay.

so to take their questions in order, the legislative efforts, there have been a lot of legislative efforts on the ground. people have been working very, very hard, and as a result people were successful in the legislature in nebraska and a couple smaller areas where we actually saw people they have to push back in ohio and maine. there was actually a people's veto that reversed the elimination of election day registration. there was also a signature campaign in ohio that blocked the implementation of all the laws and they would go to the ballot versus a referendum in 2012. so there is a lot of citizen response to it. the challenge is that the votes appear to be primarily with the exception of rhode island along party lines. so where the legislature's has the votes, it's been much more difficult to mount a response where there isn't a mechanism like maine or ohio where there is a way to get at it. we think about the purely legal strategies all the time.

one thing we've -- one thing that we're seeing is strict facial challenges won't work anymore. crawford precluded that possibility, with the exception of some of the laws so much more restrictive than indiana, which was a law considered in crawford. that there are some possibilities where there's i.d.s required for absentee balloting as well as no manageable affidavit systems we see in texas, wisconsin, a few other places, those laws maybe constitutionally infirmed based on the constitutionality in crawford. there are a whole set of legal ideas and one that has been thrown around lately is a first amendment right of association case, and that's actually going to people with i.d.s. the idea that a person with id d their rights are challenges because they conditional organize in communities where massive numbers of people are

without i dis. so that's very, very mushy. so don't -- no more questions on that one. we acknowledge that is very new and may not work. we continue to come up with new theories other than simply straight up this is a poll tax, but certainly where it's been made so restrictive that the burden test, the anderson verdict, we're really trying to find that balance, and it's been a real challenge. >> you're going to need a creative judge if you go through the first amendment. plaintiffs in the illinois case, you may have looked at this, tried to run a first amendment based jerry manderring challenge. the district court said what the first amtd guarantees is you have a right to association.