Photo Voter ID in UK Elections: Security or Suppression?
The UK government claims showing photo ID to vote will prevent election fraud. But is this even a problem in the UK?
Earlier this year, the UK government introduced a requirement for voters to show photo ID to prove their identity when voting in UK general elections, local elections in England, and police and crime commissioner elections in England and Wales.
They claim this is to prevent election fraud but others argue it will introduce an unnecessary barrier to voters, especially those with low-income, which could amount to disenfranchisement and suppression.
It is essential that democracy functions well, including that citizens can trust that their vote is equally and fairly counted. Upon hearing that this measure could prevent fraudulent voting, you may worry that this is a large-scale problem threatening the integrity of UK elections. It is not.
In 2019, 58 million votes were cast in the UK and only 33 allegations of impersonation were made. The government justified photo ID pilots in 2018 by claiming that in-person voter fraud had more than doubled in 2014–2016 (from 21 cases to 44). However, this ignored the drop to 28 in 2017.
Overall, voter fraud is not a significant problem in the UK and certainly isn’t threatening UK democracy. Considering the scheme would cost up to £180 million over a decade, this certainly isn’t justified.
Throughout most of Europe, it is common to have a mandatory government-issued ID card but the UK does not have these. Instead, voters would have to use identification like a passport or driving license, both of which cost money and time to obtain which poorer groups may find prohibitive.
For example, older and poorer people are less likely to be drivers or to travel abroad. Unlike voter fraud, this is a widespread problem. In the 2011 census, 9.5 million didn’t have a passport and 9 million didn’t have a driving licence. Although the government will introduce a free voter ID card to counteract disenfranchisement, this would still take time and effort to obtain which could be a barrier to some.
In comparison, voter photo ID has been mandatory in Northern Ireland since 2003. This directly resulted in a 2.3% turnout drop in the 2004 Northern Ireland assembly elections. That may seem like a small percentage at first glance but, if this trend was replicated in the UK, it would lead to one million of the UK’s 47.6 million voters not casting their vote.
In the aforementioned pilots of this scheme in 2018 and 2019, over 1000 people who were turned away for not having ID did not return to vote. Additionally, 2% of people don’t have any photo ID and 4% don’t have recognisable photo ID. Even one additional requirement could reduce how representative the UK’s politics are. Furthermore, it will generally make voting more inconvenient and lengthy.
Importantly, these requirements will have an unequal impact. Those who are unemployed, have no qualifications, are severely disabled, and who have never voted before are less likely to have any photo ID.
Furthermore, concerns have been raised that transgender and non-binary voters may not have access to the necessary forms of ID. This is an important example of how a seemingly bureaucratic alteration has real, negative consequences for certain demographics. In turn, this impacts how representative politics and policies are.
If even a small number in society cannot use their voice to vote, this is concerning for all of us.
Overall, requiring voters in the UK to present photo ID is an expensive solution to a non-existent problem. Despite claims that it would not disenfranchise certain groups of voters, this scheme would do exactly that. Having observed Northern Ireland’s drop in voter turnout and cases of voters not returning with ID in the pilot trials, it seems ill advised to continue with this. The funds, administration, and overall efforts of this scheme would be better placed addressing other societal problems that actually exist.
Without evidence of widespread voter fraud, the scale of the scheme and the barriers it would introduce are unjustified and unnecessary.
