Editor's note: Bryan Preston is editor at large of the conservative blog PJ Media. He was a founding blogger and producer at Hot Air, was producer of the "Laura Ingraham Show" and was communications director of the Republican Party of Texas.

(CNN) -- For weeks leading up to the 2013 off-year elections, prominent Texas Democrats directly blamed the state's new voter ID law for problems in registration.
First, Judge Sandra Watts said she had a problem because the name on her driver's license and the name on her voter registration card did not match. It turns out she had left her maiden name on her voter registration. It also turns out that it is the individual's responsibility to ensure that his or her voter information is up to date. Watts was able to vote.

Then, state Sen. Wendy Davis, the presumed Democratic nominee for Texas governor, said she had a problem, too. Like Watts, the name on her driver's license did not match the name on her registration card. She signed an affidavit, which the polling place provided, and was able to vote.

Then, nearer Election Day, former Speaker of the House Jim Wright said that he, too, had a problem voting. He said the Texas Department of Public Safety would not give him a voter ID card. But Wright, who is 90, tried to use an expired driver's license, which for most voters serves as their photo ID. How is this the fault of the state or anyone who supports voter ID? Wright got his card by going home and finding his birth certificate, and was able to vote.

We know of these stories because all three prominent Democrats took those voting problems straight to the media.

What we do not know from these three stories is how the voter ID law actually affected turnout.

Democrats who oppose voter ID have consistently claimed that it suppresses votes. If they are correct, then Texas should have seen turnout drop off in 2013 compared with the closest comparable
election.

The 2013 election in Texas was an off-year, constitutional amendment election. Texas holds constitutional amendment elections every two years, after its legislative sessions, to give Texans the opportunity to approve or reject items that the legislature has approved for a vote. The Texas secretary of state administers elections and posts totals going back to 1992.

According to the Texas secretary of state's office, 10 amendments were up for vote in 2011, the last constitutional amendment election before the voter ID law passed. Some issues received more votes than others. The one most voted on received 690,052 votes, for and against. Overall, an average of about 672,874 Texans voted on these 10 constitutional amendments.
If voter ID suppressed votes, we should see a drop in turnout, right? Well, according to the Texas secretary of state's office, nine amendments went up for vote in 2013. The amendment that attracted the most votes, Proposition One, attracted 1,144,844. The average number of votes cast in 2013 was 1,099,670.

So, in terms of raw votes, turnout in 2013 increased by about 63% over turnout in 2011 in comparable elections. But that's statewide. How about in areas the anti-voter ID side predicted should see "suppression"?
Turnout for the 2011 election was 5.37% of registered voters; for 2013 it was about 8%.

Democrats allege that voter ID will suppress the vote in predominantly Hispanic regions. Hidalgo County sits on the Texas-Mexico border and is 90% Hispanic. In 2011, an average of just over 4,000 voted in the constitutional amendment election. In 2013, an average of over 16,000 voted.
If voter ID was intended to suppress votes, it is failing as spectacularly as HealthCare.gov.

Look at Cameron County, which is about 85% Hispanic. Turnout increased from an average of 4,700 votes in 2011 to 5,100 in 2013.
So in its first real-world test, Texas' voter ID law -- which 66% of Texans support, according to a 2012 University of Texas poll -- had no impact on suppressing the vote. It even can be argued that voter ID helped increase turnout. Turnout was up, and in fact, the 2013 constitutional amendment election saw the highest constitutional amendment election turnout in Texas in about eight years.

Opponents of voter ID must come up with a new line to attack it. The old dog that it suppresses the vote just won't hunt.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
But, But ,But The disenfranchised.
While this is a compelling case, I would want to see how it is in other states, in cali it is 30$ for an ID, so Im just wondering if they tried that here if it would show a different.
Im weary of one case in one state, try it in others, I want to see.

 cincydooley wrote:
Wow. That's really interesting. Anyone know the costs for the IDs in Texas?

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
But, But ,But The disenfranchised.
While this is a compelling case, I would want to see how it is in other states, in cali it is 30$ for an ID, so Im just wondering if they tried that here if it would show a different.
Im weary of one case in one state, try it in others, I want to see.

If you do not have any of the following acceptable forms of ID, beginning June 26, 2013, you may apply for an Election Identification Certificate (EIC) at no charge. However, if you already have any of the following forms of ID, you are not eligible for an EIC:

Texas driver license—unexpired or expired no longer than 60 days at the time of voting
Texas personal identification card—unexpired or expired no longer than 60 days at the time of voting
Texas concealed handgun license—unexpired or expired no longer than 60 days at the time of voting
U.S. passport book or card—unexpired or expired no longer than 60 days at the time of voting
U.S. Military identification with photo—unexpired or expired no longer than 60 days at the time of voting
U.S. Citizenship Certificate or Certificate of Naturalization with photo

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
But, But ,But The disenfranchised.
While this is a compelling case, I would want to see how it is in other states, in cali it is 30$ for an ID, so Im just wondering if they tried that here if it would show a different.
Im weary of one case in one state, try it in others, I want to see.

I'm surprised that Cali charges for ID. I believe that North Carolina and Indiana (possibly Texas too) provide voter ID free of charge, and rightly so.

 Kanluwen wrote:
There's a difference between saying that you provide voter IDs free of charge and actually doing so.

But hey, it's not like I live in North Carolina and actually have experience in dealing with the NC DMV.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
There's a difference between saying that you provide voter IDs free of charge and actually doing so.

But hey, it's not like I live in North Carolina and actually have experience in dealing with the NC DMV.

Its not like I live in Indiana, and actually have experience dealing with the Indiana BMV (as recently as last week)

Are you trying to say that the law providing for free ID is not being followed and people are being charged for them? Or is it your usual track of claiming that no one has time off before elections, and that people who lost their original documents have to pay to replace those before a free ID can be obtained?

 Maddermax wrote:
One in Five Texas Voters had to sign an affidavit to vote - Just remember that, because the original law did not allow that until Wendy Davis introduced an amendment to it.

Now Republicans are blaming Davis because of the problems they're having sorting out all the affidavits. They did not want those people to be able to vote. Remember that.

Anyway, two points about the higher turn out. Firstly, it's a single off-year poll on certain issues, numbers would fluctuate highly depending on the issues being voted on. Secondly, one of the biggest motivations for voting is feeling like you're having your rights violated, which is why Florida had large turnouts of Democrats even when Republicans went out of their way to suppress the vote there in 2012. It does not change the fact that the laws are designed to suppress the vote of certain segments of the community in order to help one party, nor that they are highly unnecessary.

 whembly wrote:

 Maddermax wrote:
One in Five Texas Voters had to sign an affidavit to vote - Just remember that, because the original law did not allow that until Wendy Davis introduced an amendment to it.

Where are you getting this info? But, then again... so what?

Now Republicans are blaming Davis because of the problems they're having sorting out all the affidavits. They did not want those people to be able to vote. Remember that.

Source please...

Anyway, two points about the higher turn out. Firstly, it's a single off-year poll on certain issues, numbers would fluctuate highly depending on the issues being voted on. Secondly, one of the biggest motivations for voting is feeling like you're having your rights violated, which is why Florida had large turnouts of Democrats even when Republicans went out of their way to suppress the vote there in 2012. It does not change the fact that the laws are designed to suppress the vote of certain segments of the community in order to help one party, nor that they are highly unnecessary.

Wut? That doesn't even make one iota of sense.

They.Had.Higher.Turnout.

Democrats have worried that some voters will be entirely unable to vote. The latest big name to join that chorus is former U.S. House Speaker Jim Wright, who said this weekend he was denied a state ID card. Wright, 90, said an expired driver's license and a university faculty ID card were not enough to get a state ID from the Texas Department of Public Safety.

By Monday, Wright said the problem was resolved but expressed concern about the "nuisance." He also questioned the conservative presumption that voters are trying to defraud the system.

"It's unfortunate ... that we look for ways to disqualify people," Wright said.

Democratic activists also accused state officials of politicizing enforcement of the voter ID law after a rural county Democratic Party chairwoman filed a grievance with Steen's office. Nelda Couch Calhoun said she was asked to sign an affidavit because her maiden name wasn't on the voter rolls.

Her formal complaint drew a written response from Keith Ingram, the state's elections director, who pointed out that Democratic state Sen. Wendy Davis was responsible for an amendment that included the affidavit provision.

Davis, who is running for governor, has defended the unanimously passed amendment as a voter safeguard. Ingram wrote that his office regretted "any inconvenience that this portion of the law has caused voters."

Matt Angle, a Davis adviser and director of the pro-Democratic group the Lone Star Project, called the tone of the letter "overtly political and partisan" for a state official.

Alicia Pierce, a spokeswoman for Steen's office, said the language was "is in no way a political statement but meant simply as an acknowledgement of the voter's feelings."

Read more here: http://www.star-telegram.com/2013/11/04/5305334/abbott-voter-id-affidavit-complaints.html#storylink=cpy

But the numbers likely won't be significant in this election, which draws mostly ardent voters with correct ID, DeBeauvoir said. So far, about one-fifth of Travis County's early voters had to initial an affidavit because the name on their ID was slightly off and only about 30 needed to file provisional ballots, she said.

But the numbers could spike during gubernatorial elections next year. "If people say, 'See there's no problem,' I would say: 'Not yet,'" DeBeauvoir said.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Just because the had a higher turn out doesnt mean IDs affected it directly

 Kanluwen wrote:
Not every DMV location offers ID services, not everyone has the time, etc.

Manchu wrote:
Here in VA, Democrats ran ads encouraging people to vote for the very purpose of confronting Voter ID laws (the losing GOP candidate supported them). Similar campaigns in GA saw large turnouts of black voters in the immediate aftermath of a Voter ID law. That's one way to skew results. In any case, the problems with voter suppression -- like any form of institutionalized racism -- are toxic over time. Also, the article does not note a single instance of in-person voter fraud that was prevented by the law.

 cincydooley wrote:
Because minorities can't afford IDs or don't have the time to go get them?

 Maddermax wrote:
One in Five Texas Voters had to sign an affidavit to vote - Just remember that, because the original law did not allow that until Wendy Davis introduced an amendment to it.

Now Republicans are blaming Davis because of the problems they're having sorting out all the affidavits. They did not want those people to be able to vote. Remember that.

Senator Davis offered the following amendment to the bill:
Floor Amendment No. 41
Amend SB 14 in SECTION 7 of the bill, in amended Section 63.001(c), Election
Code (page 4, line 6), by adding after the period "If in determining whether a voter s’
name is on the list of registered voters the election officer determines that the voter s’
name on the documentation is substantially similar but does not match exactly the
name on the list, the voter shall be accepted for voting as otherwise required by this
section if the voter submits an affidavit stating that the voter is the person on the list of
registered voters."
The amendment to SB 14 was read and was adopted by the following
vote: Yeas 30, Nays 0.
Absent-excused:iiUresti.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Not every DMV location offers ID services, not everyone has the time, etc.

Lets see, the Indiana BMVs extended their opening hours to facilitate voter registration, almost all locations provide ID for free, and the argument that no one has time to get an ID is not worth the pixels on my screen

The evidence shows that after this law voter turn out increased, and almost every reason advanced to prevent voter ID was proven false.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Not every DMV location offers ID services, not everyone has the time, etc.

Lets see, the Indiana BMVs extended their opening hours to facilitate voter registration, almost all locations provide ID for free, and the argument that no one has time to get an ID is not worth the pixels on my screen

The evidence shows that after this law voter turn out increased, and almost every reason advanced to prevent voter ID was proven false.

The argument that voter ID laws are to protect the "integrity of voting" is as laughable now as they are when you first started to tout the virtues of it.

And once again, what the Indiana BMV does is not relevant when you want to try to argue with me about what the state where I live and have lived for 26 years does.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Not every DMV location offers ID services, not everyone has the time, etc.

Lets see, the Indiana BMVs extended their opening hours to facilitate voter registration, almost all locations provide ID for free, and the argument that no one has time to get an ID is not worth the pixels on my screen

The evidence shows that after this law voter turn out increased, and almost every reason advanced to prevent voter ID was proven false.

The argument that voter ID laws are to protect the "integrity of voting" is as laughable now as they are when you first started to tout the virtues of it.

And once again, what the Indiana BMV does is not relevant when you want to try to argue with me about what the state where I live and have lived for 26 years does.

So laughable that the voter turn out increased?
So laughable that the histrionics about minorities being disenfranchised was untrue?
So laughable that the three tales put forward by Democrats claiming they would be unable to vote was proven false?

Let me guess, no one can possibly make it to a NC DMV that is open 08.00-17.00 five days a week between now and the next election? That NC DMVs do not open longer hours for voter registration? You still haven't said how these free IDs are not free either

 djones520 wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Not every DMV location offers ID services, not everyone has the time, etc.

Lets see, the Indiana BMVs extended their opening hours to facilitate voter registration, almost all locations provide ID for free, and the argument that no one has time to get an ID is not worth the pixels on my screen

The evidence shows that after this law voter turn out increased, and almost every reason advanced to prevent voter ID was proven false.

The argument that voter ID laws are to protect the "integrity of voting" is as laughable now as they are when you first started to tout the virtues of it.

And once again, what the Indiana BMV does is not relevant when you want to try to argue with me about what the state where I live and have lived for 26 years does.

So laughable that the voter turn out increased?
So laughable that the histrionics about minorities being disenfranchised was untrue?
So laughable that the three tales put forward by Democrats claiming they would be unable to vote was proven false?

Let me guess, no one can possibly make it to a NC DMV that is open 08.00-17.00 five days a week between now and the next election? That NC DMVs do not open longer hours for voter registration? You still haven't said how these free IDs are not free either

He's lived there for 26 years, and he's Kanluwen. He doesn't need to provide proof.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Not every DMV location offers ID services, not everyone has the time, etc.

Lets see, the Indiana BMVs extended their opening hours to facilitate voter registration, almost all locations provide ID for free, and the argument that no one has time to get an ID is not worth the pixels on my screen

The evidence shows that after this law voter turn out increased, and almost every reason advanced to prevent voter ID was proven false.

The argument that voter ID laws are to protect the "integrity of voting" is as laughable now as they are when you first started to tout the virtues of it.

And once again, what the Indiana BMV does is not relevant when you want to try to argue with me about what the state where I live and have lived for 26 years does.

So laughable that the voter turn out increased?
So laughable that the histrionics about minorities being disenfranchised was untrue?
So laughable that the three tales put forward by Democrats claiming they would be unable to vote was proven false?

Let me guess, no one can possibly make it to a NC DMV that is open 08.00-17.00 five days a week between now and the next election? That NC DMVs do not open longer hours for voter registration? You still haven't said how these free IDs are not free either

 Grey Templar wrote:
Silly cincydooley, don't you know poor people don't drive cars.