Voter Identification Laws Research Articles

The Legislative Legacy of Voter Identification Laws

The Legislative Legacy of Voter Identification Laws

Democracy in the Valley: Impacts of Voter ID Laws in Texas’s Rio Grande Valley

ABSTRACT: While we celebrate the monumental achievements of American democracy since its inception, we should also acknowledge that the Founding Fathers purposefully excluded a segment of the population from participating in the new republic. What has come to be known as “voter suppression” is a political strategy to discourage those qualified to vote from participating in the democratic process. For example, white supremacists used direct violence, literacy tests, and poll taxes to keep the former enslaved and their descendants from voting in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. In Texas, the integrity of the voting process came under intense scrutiny after the 2008 presidential cycle. Even though voter fraud and irregularities were generally unproven, state officials still passed new voter identification laws, which took effect in 2013. Critics of the new laws claim they are merely a voter suppression act aimed at the state’s growing Hispanic population. Therefore, this case study examines the predominantly Hispanic region of Texas, known as the Rio Grande Valley, to determine if such voter suppression acts successfully reduced voter participation during the national elections between 2012 and 2022.

Examining the Effects of Perceptions of Voter Suppression and Voter Fraud on Support for Voter Identification Laws in the United States

Democracy is fundamentally grounded in the people's right to vote, but what happens when the same mechanisms meant to protect the electoral process become barriers? This study examined the relationship between perceptions of voter suppression and voter fraud and support for voter restrictions, such as requiring identification to vote. The study utilized data from the American National Election Studies 2020 Times Series Study, examining a sample of 5,264 voters. Results revealed that voter support for voter ID laws depends on their perceptions of voter integrity and suppression. The more confidence voters have in the integrity of elections and the more they believe in voter suppression, the less likely they are to support voter identification requirements. Other demographic factors are considered.

Assessing the Impact of the United States Postal System and Election Administration on Absentee and Mail Voting in the 2012 to 2020 U.S. Midterm and Presidential Elections

Absentee and mail voting were important ways of ballot casting during the coronavirus pandemic and the 2020 presidential election. Several studies (Burden et al. 2014, 2017; Ritter and Tolbert 2020) have established that the impact of absentee and mail voting is shaped by the presence of other election laws and broader features of a state's election administration. However, more study is needed to address whether and to what degree accessible versus restrictive features of a state's election administration impact the ability of individuals to vote in these ways. Using the accessible voting framework (Ritter and Tolbert 2020) and data from the 2018 and 2020 Catalist voter file as well as the 2012 to 2020 Cooperative Election Study, this study evaluates the impact of excuse required absentee, no-excuse absentee, permanent absentee, and universal mail voting laws on individual-level voting. In addition, this study evaluates whether state cure laws, voter identification laws, notary or witness signature requirements, and variations in United States Postal Service delivery times moderate the impacts of absentee and mail voting laws. Ultimately, this study demonstrates that the level of accessibility of state absentee and mail voting laws as well as their administration have significant effects on voter turnout. The results also reveal that higher performing U.S. Postal Service administration can enhance the impact of absentee and mail voting laws, particularly in states with the most restrictive mail voting laws.

Understanding a Key Electoral Tool: A New Dataset on the Global Distribution of Voter Identification Laws

ABSTRACT Relating electoral laws to electoral integrity has long been a focus of academic research. Using the strategic-relational approach, as outlined in this special issue, it is possible to better understand how electoral laws shape the voter experience and electoral outcomes. This paper contributes to this understanding by looking at Voter Identification (ID) laws. With no consolidated dataset of voter ID laws existing outside the U.S.A. it is difficult to answer research questions put forward in this special issue, especially the second. This paper begins to address this shortfall by presenting the Comparative Voter ID Law (CVIL) index. Which has collected data on 246 individual electoral jurisdictions. Data presented show how voter ID laws are distributed globally, regionally, by regime type and level of democracy. The second part of the analysis goes on to describe voter ID laws by whether a jurisdiction has compulsory ID laws, how many different types of ID are accepted and the minimum number of ID documents that must be shown. Thirdly, other variables within the dataset are described. The CVIL will provide opportunities to understand how Voter ID laws are part of institutional design, are used by actors, shape the voter experience and electoral out-comes.

No House, No Vote

Canadian election laws oscillate between elite and participatory approaches, where the former precludes, and the latter facilitates, equity-deserving groups from exercising their democratic right to vote. The term ‘houseless’ replaces the pejorative ‘homeless’, removing the inherent familial and kinship components of home possession to focus on lacking shelter as the missing element of one’s life. In this paper, I marshal extant scholarship in elections policy, voter identification law, and political history to argue that elite voter identification laws systematically exclude houseless voters from Canadian political venues. I articulate and defend a participatory approach in designing future election legislation, extinguishing heuristics surrounding houseless Canadians and supporting their political involvement. This article provides directions for optimal voter identification laws, reflecting a participatory approach to protect the democratic rights of every Canadian—not just those with a permanent roof over their heads.

Who Do Voter ID Laws Keep from Voting?

Voter identification (ID) laws have sparked concerns of vote suppression, but existing evidence relies on aggregate analyses or survey self-reports. We leverage unique information from Texas, where registrants without ID filed “reasonable impediment declarations” (RIDs) before voting. Linking 16,000 RID forms to the Texas voter file, we provide the first direct documentation of the traits of voters who would be stopped from voting under strict identification laws. Our preregistered analysis finds registrants voting without ID in 2016 were disproportionately Black and Latinx when compared to voters voting with ID. Examining voters’ stated reasons for not providing ID, we find socioeconomic hardships are not the most commonly cited impediment, but voters with hardships were less likely to vote in a strict-ID election than those who previously had identification. Our findings indicate that strict identification laws will stop a disproportionately minority, otherwise-willing set of registered voters from voting.

Battling the Hydra: the disparate impact of voter ID requirements in North Dakota.

Minority voters have experienced a renewed effort to curtail their access to the ballot box in recent years. Although a host of research has examined the impact of election changes on Black and Latino voters, scholars have dedicated much less attention to the rights of Native Americans, even as they face challenges to voting in states where they comprise a significant portion of the population. Many of these states are likewise increasingly important to national elections. Such laws may impact Native Americans when they intersect with the political geography of living on a reservation, and voting rights advocates have challenged them in places like Montana, Nevada and North Dakota. This paper empirically evaluates how such laws might uniquely impact Native American voters. We draw on North Dakota's voter identification law as a case study, but our analysis has wider implications, since residency is the primary means by which election administration uniquely impacts this group. Drawing on two rich survey datasets collected in 2015 and 2017, we offer descriptive evidence of the barriers individuals may encounter while trying to obtain an ID under North Dakota's law, and find that Native Americans are statistically less likely to have access to an ID than are whites. This gap is largely due to the requirement that an ID has a physical address and attendant difficulties in obtaining such an ID, given the remote nature of reservations. We bring needed attention to the impact of carefully crafted electoral rules on this often-overlooked group.

Who Gets to Vote? Racialized Mental Images of Legitimate and Illegitimate Voters

When people support voter identification (ID) laws, who do they imagine they are keeping in and out of the voting booth? We investigated this question across three studies. First, using a traditional survey approach, we found support for voter ID laws was associated with beliefs that ID requirements reduce illegal voting by both Black and White people to the same degree. Because explicit surveys are vulnerable to social desirability concerns, in the following two studies, we utilized an indirect measure, reverse correlation, to investigate mental images of those who try to vote illegally (Study 2) and mental images of those who should and should not get to vote (Study 3). The findings of these studies suggest that support for voter ID laws is associated with racially biased perceptions of illegal voters and who should get to vote. Critically, these biased perceptions may be underestimated by traditional explicit survey approaches.

(Almost) no one votes without ID, even when they can

This paper documents whether enacting a strict voter identification law could affect voter turnout and election outcomes. It uses historical data on more than 2,000 races in Florida and Michigan, which both allow and track ballots cast without identification. Results indicate that at most only 0.1% and 0.3% of total votes cast in each state were cast without IDs. Thus, even under the extreme assumption that all voters without IDs were either fraudulent or would be disenfranchised by a strict law, such a law would have only a very small effect on turnout and election outcomes.

Who Votes Without Identification? Using Individual‐Level Administrative Data to Measure the Burden of Strict Voter Identification Laws

Legal disputes over laws that require certain forms of identification (ID) to vote mostly focus on the burden placed on people who do not possess ID. We contend that this singular focus ignores the burden imposed on people who do possess ID, but nonetheless cannot access it when voting. To measure this alternative conception of burden, we focus on Michigan, which allows anyone who lacks access to ID to vote after signing an affidavit. A sample of affidavits filed in the 2016 presidential election from a random set of precincts reveals that about 0.45 percent of voters lacked access to ID. Consistent with our broader conception of the burden of voter ID laws, nearly all voters who filed an affidavit were previously issued a still‐active state ID. Importantly, we show minority voters were about five times more likely to lack access to ID than white voters. We also present survey evidence suggesting that people who live in states where voters are asked to show ID, as in Michigan, are more likely to incorrectly believe that access to ID is required to vote than are people who live in states that do not ask voters to show ID.

Updating with Others: Testing the Effect of Informational Social Influence on Political Attitudes

AbstractWhat role does information concerning the beliefs of others play in the correction, or persistence, of misperceptions? Can social pressure affect whether someone will change their mind on a salient political issue? Building on the “backfire effect” and informational context literatures, we theorize that informational social influence can affect one's willingness to accept new information. Specifically, when individuals receive partisan cues, their attitudes will be different compared to individuals without similar social influence. We test our theory and hypotheses using a unique experimental between‐subjects design using a student sample (N = 839) as well as a nationally representative sample (N = 777). Using the salient debate over voter identification laws, we find some evidence for our theory. We conclude by considering the policy implications of our analysis and directions for future research.Related ArticlesCaillier, James. 2010. “Citizen Trust, Political Corruption, and Voting Behavior: Connecting the Dots.” Politics & Policy 38 (5): 1015‐1035. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747‐1346.2010.00267Dettrey, Bryan J. 2013. “Relative Losses and Economic Voting: Sociotropic Considerations or ‘Keeping up with the Joneses?’” Politics & Policy 41 (5): 788‐806. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12038Nielson, Lindsay. 2017. “Ranked Choice Voting and Attitudes toward Democracy in the United States: Results from a Survey Experiment.” Politics & Policy 45 (4): 535‐570. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12212

Review: The Turnout Gap: Race, Ethnicity, and Political Inequality in a Diversifying America, by Bernard L. Fraga

Review: <i>The Turnout Gap: Race, Ethnicity, and Political Inequality in a Diversifying America</i>, by Bernard L. Fraga

The Legislative Legacy of Strict Voter Identification Laws

The Legislative Legacy of Strict Voter Identification Laws

America's first voter identification laws: The effects of personal registration and declining political party competition on presidential election turnout, 1880–1916

Engaging a persistent puzzle on the decline in U.S turnout after 1896 from which the nation never recovered, this paper tests the impact of strict registration laws and declining electoral competition on turnout. This study uses an original dataset on nineteenth century voter registration laws for 1880–1916. I estimate a panel model with state and year fixed effects to test the hypothesis that the shift in electoral behavior was a function of registration reforms and competition. Findings show that turnout dropped by as much as 6 points because of personal registration laws, whereas competition increased turnout by up to 10 points. I also analyzed two case studies at the county level. The results indicate that when registration laws became increasingly stringent with stricter identification requirements, turnout dropped by as much as 19 points. Findings suggest that electoral competition could mitigate the suppressive effects of strict voting laws on turnout.

Foreword: The Degradation of American Democracy—and the Court

Foreword: The Degradation of American Democracy—and the Court

Controversy and Costs: Investigating the Consensus on American Voter ID Laws

Voter identification laws (VID) potentially affect who votes and who wins elections, making debates about them highly contentious among national elites and state legislatures. Yet the debate is far more muted among members of the public, with over three quarters of Americans supporting a photo identification requirement to vote, including majorities of both Democrats and Republicans. Research points to several factors that affect opinion on VID; however, these studies have not led to a theoretical framework for understanding the broad consensus of public support. We propose that the public generally views policies requiring ID to vote as commonsensical, uncontroversial, and essentially costless insofar as most people (likely) possess the necessary ID. These perceptions, we argue, undergird the sizable public consensus on VID. If true, then when presented with dissonant information cueing controversy and increasing the costs of compliance with the law, we should expect support to substantially decline. We test these hypotheses using observational and experimental data. We find that citizens are significantly less supportive of an ID requirement upon learning of lower public support, and become dramatically less supportive when obtaining such identification involves some degree of cost. This latter result also holds among Republicans—a group that has long-been exceptionally supportive of VID. We conclude that the strong public consensus on voter ID is, in large part, a result of its costlessness to most citizens combined with limited familiarity with the policy, its controversial nature, and the costs potentially incurred by other citizens to comply with the law.

The downstream consequences of long waits: How lines at the precinct depress future turnout

Researchers have increasingly paid attention to the impact that the administrative component of elections has on voter behavior. Existing research has focused almost exclusively on the effect that legal changes--such as voter identification laws--have on turnout. This paper extends our understanding of the electoral process by exploring how one aspect of the precinct experience--standing in line to vote--can shape the turnout behavior of voters in subsequent elections. I demonstrate that for every additional hour a voter waits in line to vote, their probability of voting in the subsequent election drops by 1 percentage point. To arrive at these estimates, I analyze vote history files using a combination of exact matching and placebo tests to test the identification assumptions. I then leverage an unusual institutional arrangement in the City of Boston and longitudinal data from Florida to show that the result also holds at the precinct level. The findings in this paper have important policy implications for administrative changes that may impact line length, such as voter identification requirements and precinct consolidation. They also suggest that racial asymmetries in precinct wait times contribute to the gap in turnout rates between white and non-white voters.

Who will defend democracy? Evaluating tradeoffs in candidate support among partisan donors and voters

ABSTRACT Scholars and pundits fear that the American public’s commitment to democracy is declining and that citizens are willing to embrace candidates who would trample democratic principles. We examine whether violations of those principles generate resistance from voters and/or top campaign donors and whether such resistance extends across partisan lines. In a conjoint survey experiment, we investigate how regular Americans and donor elites trade off partisanship, policy positions, and support for democratic values when choosing between hypothetical political candidates. Our findings indicate that both citizens and donors punish candidates who endorse violations of democratic principles irrespective of the candidate’s party. However, partisans react very differently to candidates who support voter identification laws that threaten access to the franchise. This polarized response is especially strong among donors. These results suggest that the public and donors may sometimes be willing to forgive transgressions against democratic norms that align with their partisan and policy preferences.

Racially Neutral in Form, Racially Discriminatory in Fact: The Implications for Voting Rights of Giving Disproportionate Racial Impact the Constitutional Importance It Deserves

In two decisions in the mid-1970s, Washington v. Davis and Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp., the Supreme Court made clear that proving that a law racially neutral on its face disproportionately disadvantages racial minorities does not establish a violation of the Equal Protection Clause or even create a presumption that such a violation has occurred. Disproportionate racial impact “is not irrelevant,” the Court explained, but “it is not the sole touchstone of an invidious racial discrimination forbidden by the Constitution.” The key, according to the Court, lies in proving that the law was the product of a racially discriminatory purpose. This Article, part of a Contemporary Issues in Election Law symposium, examines the fundamental inadequacy of the Davis-Arlington Heights approach and the reprieve that it wrongly gives to voter identification laws, purges of voters from registration rolls, and other legal barriers to voting that, though framed in terms that make no mention of race, disproportionately disadvantage racial minorities. Part I explains the lessons of Davis and Arlington Heights for equal protection challenges to facially race-neutral laws that disproportionately disadvantage racial minorities. Drawing on legal barriers to voting for illustrations, Part II maintains that, from the start, the Davis-Arlington Heights approach posed relatively little threat of invalidation to laws disproportionately disadvantaging racial minorities and that the only laws truly threatened by the approach are ones patently and unmistakably the product of bias against racial minorities. Proceeding in a more prescriptive mode, Part III argues that the Davis-Arlington Heights approach to disproportionate racial impact wrongly ignores basic assumptions about the lawmaking process that help explain the Court’s longtime treatment as “suspect” of laws explicitly disadvantaging racial minorities. Part IV then proposes an alternative approach that gives disproportionate racial impact the independent importance it deserves under the Equal Protection Clause. Part V discusses the implications of adopting the proposed approach, with special attention to the implications for prevalent legal impediments to voting. The Article concludes in Part VI by highlighting the practical importance of the proposed approach even if today’s Supreme Court may not appear to be an ideal audience to embrace it.