Voter Fraud and Voter ID Laws
This is the second part of a series on voting rights in the United States, focusing on the recent passing of voter ID laws in different states.
If you haven’t read the first part of this series on voter rights, I recommend you look at it. It details the history of voting in the United States, and sets the stage for where we are today. I concluded with the update to the Voter Rights Act, which stated that a voter law cannot have the effect of denying equal access to vote to minorities, even if that is not the intended outcome of the law. Sadly, we have started to see this happen. In recent years it seems that some states are moving in the direction of renewed disenfranchisement, and justifying it by trying to vastly overplay a relatively minor problem: Voter fraud.
I’m not saying that voter fraud isn’t an issue, but rather that it’s an infinitesimal one. Trump asserted (without any evidence whatsoever) that 3 to 5 million illegal ballots were cast. His administration launched an investigation into the issue, and found no data to back up that claim. Historically, there just isn’t a legitimate foundation for thinking that this is a major problem. Between 2000 and 2012, there were 2,068 alleged incidents of voter fraud of any kind (out of 146 million registered voters, casting votes in over a decade’s worth of elections). Of those fraud allegations, 491 were related to mail-in voting. During a similar timeframe, there were 31 cases of voter impersonation, out of over a billion votes cast. A problem? Yes. A significant problem? Experts don’t seem to think so. While there is always a chance of error or issue (accidental or intentional), there are safety measures in place that effectively protect the election process (despite anecdotal evidence or assertions to the contrary).
Yet, voter fraud has become the default justification for a lot of new voting laws, which data suggests are having a discriminatory effect. Voter ID laws have become the main legislation of choice to combat this relatively minor problem. I am not questioning that a person needs to be able to prove they are who they say they are, but I am questioning the specific choices some states are making. Specifically, I question the rationale behind the types of ID they deem acceptable as proof of identity.
Prior to 2006, no state required any form of photo ID when a person went to the polls. This changed when Indiana implemented its voter ID law. In the following decade, 35 other states would follow suit. Proponents of these policies insist they are simply trying to curb voter fraud, but the handful of fraud cases they might prevent are outweighed by the effects they have on eligible voters. A number of these laws, such as in Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Kansas, North Carolina, and Texas, have been struck down for either being unnecessarily restrictive, burdensome, or blatantly discriminatory, especially against minority voters. How can an ID law be burdensome or discriminatory? Let’s take a look.
The driver’s license is the main form of ID that is acceptable under these laws, but they (and any other photo IDs) are not standard issue in the United States. About 7% of the adult population does not have a government-issued photo ID, including 5% of White people and 13% of Black people (though there are some reports that place these numbers much higher). As they are not standard issue, the onus is on the individual to obtain one. This involves a sometimes lengthy process that can be somewhat expensive, and a lot of lower income Americans don’t necessarily have the time or money to go through with it. It also restricts access to people who live far from government offices, or places where these offices are rarely open, or places without the public transportation in place to get people there. On the surface, requiring a driver’s license doesn’t seem discriminatory, but when you look at the data, it’s clear: minorities, lower income, and young people have lower rates of photo ID ownership. Urban areas also tend to have greater access to public transportation (buses, trains, subways, taxis/rideshare), and may have less of a need for a driver’s license.
There are other forms of ID that are acceptable, though they vary from state to state. As I mentioned earlier, Texas in particular has been criticized for having unusually strict voter ID laws. It is one of only seven states that does not accept student IDs from a public school or university, but also one of only seven that allows voters to use a firearms license or permit. Student IDs are widely held by younger and increasingly more diverse voters, while firearms are not. Looking at firearm licensing data from the Texas Department of Public Safety, about 60% of applications issued in 2017 were to White men (who constitute 35% of the population). Older people were issued more applications as well, while Black men and younger people had a disproportionately higher rate of application rejection. Handgun ownership also tends to be much higher in rural areas than urban ones. Keep this data in mind.
Strict voter ID laws are a relatively recent phenomenon, so their effects are still being researched. However, recent studies have started to paint a picture of a depressing effect on voter turnout. According to data compiled by the Government Accountability Office in 2014, strict voter ID laws in Tennessee and Kansas appear to have resulted in a 2–3% drop in participation (which translates to tens of thousands of voters). But the effects of these laws, especially in the stricter states, seem to be far more significant on younger people, minorities, and those in urban areas (people who tend to vote Democrat) than they are on voters who are older, White, male, and rural (who tend to vote Republican).
Conversely, absentee or mail-in voting, automatic voter registration, or same day voter registration are policies that can increase voter turnout. If we accept the premise that a society that allows more of its people to vote is more democratic, and we assume more democratic is a good thing, then increasing the number of people who can vote should be a priority. Michigan approved such initiatives by a two-to-one margin in 2018, seeing the value in removing barriers to participate in elections. Five states have switched to primarily mail-in voting, and have not had much issue with it. In fact, voter turnout in Utah surged after implementation. There are any number of difficulties a person may face to reach their assigned precinct on election day, but voting by mail makes the process much easier. Factoring in COVID-19, it may make it a lot safer this year too. Rather than waste time and energy fighting this and listing all the anecdotal, and often baseless, reasons why it might not work, why not learn from the states that have already done this and start making preparations to safeguard a mail-in election? There has even been a timeline in place for some time to help states prepare.
I’ll end with this. Take a look at the politicians who are speaking against mail-in voting and trying to scare people into believing voter fraud is a massive problem. Look at the politicians who are very vocal in their support for strict voter ID laws. Take a look at the states that have passed these strict ID laws, especially those being struck down by courts, and see which party controls those state legislatures and/or governorships. Take a look at the type of ID states are allowing (or not allowing) and look at the demographic data to see which groups disproportionately have (or do not have) those forms of ID. Look at the groups of people who are least affected by these laws, and see what party they tend to support.
Notice anything?
