Voter Identification Laws: Overview

Introduction

The electoral process is among the elements of the United States system of government of greatest concern to the American people. As a representative democracy, the United States enables all eligible citizens to elect officials who will represent their interests in government. In light of the importance of this process, some Americans are deeply concerned with the issue of voter fraud, in which duplicate, illegitimate, or otherwise illegal votes could influence the outcome of an election. Since the mid-twentieth century, more than half of US states have introduced voter identification laws with the stated purpose of preventing voter fraud, particularly in the form of individuals assuming the identities of others in order to vote multiple times or to cast a vote when legally ineligible to do so. The voter identification laws in place range from strict ones, which require voters to present specific documents featuring both the individual's name and picture, to more lenient laws, which name a broader selection of forms of identification or allow voters without official documents to vote using provisional ballots.

Voter identification laws are the subject of considerable debate in the United States, with much discussion devoted to whether such laws disenfranchise legitimate voters and whether they are even necessary at all. Opponents of voter identification laws argue that such legislation encourages voter suppression, particularly disenfranchising poor and minority citizens who were historically disenfranchised by discriminatory laws prior to the passage of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. They further assert that fear of voter fraud is unfounded, arguing that such incidents are few and far between and have little effect on US elections. Supporters of voter identification laws, on the other hand, assert that voter fraud is a major problem in the United States and that requiring voters to present identification is the ideal way of preventing it. They further argue that such laws do not, in fact, disenfranchise legitimate voters, but only prevent unscrupulous individuals from casting fraudulent votes.

Understanding the Discussion

Disenfranchisement: The process of preventing individuals from exercising their right to vote or depriving them of that right.

Jim Crow laws: Laws intended to discriminate against Black Americans, including disenfranchising voters of color.

Voter fraud: The process of illegally influencing, through any of a variety of means, the votes in an election.

Voter suppression: The process of preventing voters from casting their votes.

Voting Rights Act: A 1965 federal law that sought to combat discrimination against minority populations and outlawed various state voting laws that contributed to voter suppression.

History

Although laws concerning which residents of the United States are allowed to vote and the means by which they may do so have been in place since the nation's infancy, voter identification laws are a relatively modern development, first introduced in the mid-twentieth century. In 1950, the state of South Carolina introduced legislation requesting that voters in the state provide a form of identification stating their name when voting at the polls. The law was not particularly strict when compared to its twenty-first-century successors, stipulating only that the identification document include the voter's name. No other voter identification laws were introduced until 1970, when Hawaii introduced its own. Over time, an increasing number of states implemented voter identification laws, with fourteen states having such laws on the books by the year 2000. That number more than doubled within the first decades of the twenty-first century.

While all of the voter identification laws in effect establish rules concerning the need for voters to present some form of identification at the polls, the specifics of such laws vary from state to state. Some states require each voter to present an identification document that features a photograph of the individual in question, such as a driver's license or passport, while others allow the use of documents that do not feature photographs, such as birth certificates. In some states, such as North Dakota, an individual may only present the required identification in order to vote; individuals without such documents cannot vote by any means. Other state laws have built-in considerations for individuals who are unable to obtain the necessary documents. In Montana, for example, an individual who does not present one of the eligible documents is allowed to vote on a provisional ballot, which is kept separate from the official ballots. Following the election, government officials validate the individual's vote by comparing the signature on the provisional ballot to the signature on record. In other states, such as Arizona and Mississippi, an individual who votes on a provisional ballot must present the required form of identification to an election official within a specific time period in order for their vote to be considered valid.

As voter identification laws became more common in the United States, a debate arose over whether such legislation was actually necessary. The stated purpose of such laws is to combat voter fraud, particularly in-person impersonation voter fraud, in which an individual assumes the identity of someone else in order to vote. Such fraud could potentially be committed to circumvent regulations regarding one's eligibility to vote, such as citizenship requirements or the legal disenfranchisement of people with felony convictions, or as a means of casting multiple votes. Supporters of voter identification laws tend to consider in-person voter fraud to be a credible threat to the integrity of the US electoral process. However, opponents of such laws argue that incidents of in-person voter fraud are exceedingly rare, especially when compared to the many forms of voter fraud, such as fraud committed by absentee ballot, that are not affected by voter identification restrictions.

Debate also arose over whether voter identification laws unfairly prevent legitimate voters, particularly from marginalized populations, from voting. Some opponents argue that such laws effectively serve as modern equivalents to the discriminatory Jim Crow laws that disenfranchised Black Americans and other minority populations in the United States prior to the passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965. Among other provisions, the Voting Rights Act outlawed various state and local laws that disenfranchised voters by mandating that prospective voters complete literacy tests or pay fees known as "poll taxes." Some opponents of voter identification laws have compared identification laws to such discriminatory requirements, noting in particular that the fees associated with obtaining certain required forms of identification could be considered a new version of a poll tax. Proponents of voter identification laws, however, argue that such claims are overblown and that such laws do not disenfranchise members of minority groups, instead preventing only fraudulent votes from being cast.

Voter Identification Laws Today

By the third decade of the twenty-first century, voter identification laws remained the subject of intense debate. The debate tends to be divided along party lines, with Republican politicians typically favoring voter identification laws and Democratic lawmakers typically opposing them. Democratic political experts frequently argue that the populations most affected by voter identification laws, such as people of color, students, and low-income Americans, tend to belong to or vote in favor of the Democratic Party. As such, they argue, voter identification laws disproportionately suppress Democratic votes. Republican lawmakers, on the other hand, tend to argue that voter identification laws are not a partisan issue and exist solely to prevent voter fraud. Supporters maintain that identification is a common requirement in other aspects of life, such as banking and travel, and as such represents a reasonable demand to protect democracy.

As of 2022, voter identification laws existed in more than two-thirds of US states and took on a number of different forms, from strict laws mandating the use of photo identification to those allowing for the use of a wider range of documents. The ongoing public debate regarding the topic has led to the legal challenge of a number of voter identification laws and in turn often resulted in a decrease in the strictness of certain legislation. In the state of Texas, for instance, the strict voter identification law in place came under challenge beginning in 2012. At the time, the law required an individual wishing to vote to present one of seven photo identification documents, which included passports and licenses to carry concealed firearms. If the individual could not do so but still wished to vote, they were required to cast a provisional ballot and then bring the necessary identification to the voter registrar within six days of the election. The law made exceptions only for people who did not wish to be photographed because of religious reasons or who had lost their photo identification in a declared natural disaster.

In July 2016, however, the Texas voter identification law was struck down by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, following a successful challenge by groups including the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and the Texas House of Representatives' Mexican American Legislative Caucus (MALC), which argued that the laws effectively discriminated against Black and Latino Texans. Agreeing with that assertion, the courts made the law less stringent by implementing new means for people without photo identification to vote. Under temporary regulations, voters who did not possess the previously required forms of identification could declare that they have a "reasonable impediment" to obtaining such documents, such as a disability, work or family obligations, or a lack of supporting documents needed to obtain a passport or similar form of photo identification. Such voters could then present an alternative form of identification, such as a birth certificate or a utility bill. Those rules were in effect for the November 2016 presidential election and were codified that year in a new law. It too was struck down by a federal district court in 2017, only to be unblocked by the Fifth Circuit in April 2018.

While strict voter identification laws have been upheld in other states, the multiple changes to Texas's law and the striking of similar laws in Pennsylvania and Arkansas in 2014 have served as a reminder that voting regulations in the United States remain in flux. Indeed, from 2012 to 2017, a number of other states made their non-photo voter identification laws stricter. For instance, North Dakota began refusing any IDs that lacked a street address, which, though it effectively disenfranchised many American Indian reservation residents, withstood a court challenge. Still other states amended their photo identification laws to non-strict photo requirements. Non-strict states require the voter to sign an affidavit of identity, have a poll worker swear to their identity, or cast a provisional ballot, which the state confirms later.

Opponents of strict voter identification requirements have instead favored policies intended to increase access to voting, such as automatic voter registration, and increased cybersecurity to protect electoral integrity from threats like the type of hacking perpetrated in the 2016 election, which they see as more credible than voter fraud.

After the public, repetitive claims of voter fraud espoused and the accompanying legal challenges made by influential figures such as President Donald Trump and several Republican politicians following the 2020 general election, many states introduced or enacted changes to voting laws. The COVID-19 pandemic declared earlier that year had led to unprecedentedly expansive adjustments nationwide to the allowance of mail-in voting to accommodate voters' concerns about public health safety. Subsequently, some argued that such processes had enabled rampant fraudulent voting, with many asserting that the election's results, in favor of Democratic nominee Joe Biden, should be overturned. In some cases, such changes targeted, amongst other aspects, identification requirements. In 2021, Texas signed into law a voting bill that established new identification rules for mail-in voting that reportedly resulted in an especially large number of ballots being sent back to voters for correction and potential rejection during the early 2022 state primary voting cycle. Also in 2021, Georgia signed into law a bill that, in part, set new, strict identification requirements for absentee ballots, including mandating the provision of a driver's license number or state identification card number. Arkansas's legislature additionally passed several election law stipulations in 2021, one of which rescinded the option for voters unable to present photo identification at a polling place to still have their ballot counted through submission of a sworn statement; instead, for a ballot to be accepted, voters must fill out a provisional ballot and bring identification in person to the proper authority by the Monday following the election. While an Arkansas county circuit judge issued a permanent injunction blocking this measure as well as three others in March 2022, the state's attorney general indicated the pursuit of an appeal.

About the Author

Joy Crelin is a freelance writer and editor based in Salem, Massachusetts. She holds a bachelor of fine arts degree in writing, literature, and publishing from Emerson College.

These essays and any opinions, information, or representations contained therein are the creation of the particular author and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of EBSCO Information Services.

Bibliography

"Arkansas AG to Appeal Judge's Ruling against New Voting Laws." Associated Press, 21 Mar. 2022, apnews.com/article/elections-voting-arkansas-little-rock-0ed77cba3eb104e8134c37ec1ba0c514. Accessed 13 Apr. 2022.

Corasaniti, Nick, and Reid J. Epstein. "What Georgia's Voting Law Really Does." The New York Times, 18 Aug. 2021, www.nytimes.com/2021/04/02/us/politics/georgia-voting-law-annotated.html. Accessed 13 Apr. 2022.

Davidson, Chandler. "The Historical Context of Voter Photo-ID Laws." PS: Political Science and Politics, vol. 42, no. 1, 2009, pp. 93–96.

Fernandez, Manny. "Texas’ Voter ID Law Does Not Discriminate and Can Stand, Appeals Panel Rules." The New York Times, 27 Apr. 2018, www.nytimes.com/2018/04/27/us/texas-voter-id.html. Accessed 23 May 2019.

Munsil, Leigh. "'Racially Discriminatory' Texas Voter ID Law Struck Down ahead of November." BlazeMedia, 10 Aug. 2016, www.theblaze.com/news/2016/08/10/racially-discriminatory-texas-voter-id-law-struck-down-ahead-of-november. Accessed 14 Aug. 2016.

Nichols, John. “Democracy in Crisis.” The Nation, vol. 307, no. 13, Nov. 2018, p. 3. Points of View Reference Center, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=pwh&AN=132587015&site=pov-live. Accessed 23 May 2019.

Timm, Jane C., and Anjali Huynh. "New Mail Voter ID Rules Sow Confusion in Texas with Thousands of Ballots at Risk of Rejection." NBC News, 19 Feb. 2022, www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/new-mail-voter-id-rules-sow-confusion-texas-thousands-ballots-risk-rej-rcna16637. Accessed 13 Apr. 2022.

Underhill, Wendy. "Voter Identification Requirements." NCSL, National Conference of State Legislatures, 1 Jan. 2019, www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/voter-id.aspx. Accessed 22 May 2019.

Von Spakovsky, Hans A. “Laws Help Maintain Integrity of the Electoral Process.” Insights on Law & Society, vol. 17, no. 1, Fall 2016, p. 5. Points of View Reference Center, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=pwh&AN=122743082&site=pov-live. Accessed 13 Apr. 2022.

"Voter ID History." NCSL, National Conference of State Legislatures, 31 May 2017, www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/voter-id-history.aspx. Accessed 22 May 2019.

"Voter ID Laws." NCSL, National Conference of State Legislatures, 7 Jan. 2022, www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/voter-id.aspx. Accessed 13 Apr. 2022.