This is not evidence. Evidence involves looking at actual turnout figures with competitive races and comparing them between states with Voter ID and without.
Here is what Bloomberg had to say:"
To see if the recent election offers any evidence either way, I dug up voter turnout figures for the 21 states that had a competitive gubernatorial or Senate race, as rated by the Cook Political Report. (I excluded Colorado, where voters cast ballots mostly by mail.) Some results are still unofficial and may change slightly.
Fourteen of the 21 states had a voter ID requirement in place, while seven didn't. If ID laws affected turnout in these states, it didn’t show up in the numbers: The average turnout rate for each group was 51 percent.
Next, I looked at turnout in the South, where much of the debate on voter ID has focused, because many opponents argue that ID laws function as a modern day poll tax, hitting poor and minority voters hardest.
Five states in the old Confederacy, and two that bordered it, had competitive statewide elections. The states with a voter ID requirement, including Louisiana and Florida, had the highest turnout rates; the two states where no ID is required -- Maryland and North Carolina -- had the lowest."
Here is CNN about the Texas elections:
"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."
The common refrain of "Republicans want to suppress votes" simply doesn't add up when you look at voter turnout.
