Ah yes, this whole thing again. So the Republicans try passing voter ID laws, stating the exact reasons that ornerynorsk echoed. On the surface, it sounds kind of reasonable…but then you start to look into it a little closer and it starts to unravel very quickly.
There are two main charges against voter ID laws:
1) There are very few cases of voter fraud that would be stopped by voter ID laws (i.e. they are unnecessary and/or ineffective)
2) It’s discriminatory against certain groups, namely younger demographics, students, minorities and the poor
Regarding the first charge, what a voter ID law would protect against is people claiming to be someone who they were not and voting under that person’s name, aka voter impersonation (this is important to understand as there are certainly other forms of voter fraud). This endemic issue of voter impersonation, that is destroying the democratic process, has been tracked in a number of places. A extensive database found 2,068 cases of voter fraud...over the entire country...since 2000...
of which only 10 were voter impersonation fraud.
Or
another study that showed that in the 2004 election in Wisconsin there was one reported case of voter impersonation fraud...which turned out to be a clerical error. In New Jersery in 2004, the fraud rate was 0.0004%, none of which would have been prevented by voter ID at the polls. Missouri in 2000, a similar story; a fraud rate of 0.0003%, none of which would have been prevented by voter ID at the polls. (note these particular locations were studied due to the close margin of victory, i.e. would voter fraud have flipped the successful party).
I could go on...
According to Lorraine Minnite, professor of public policy and administration at Rutgers University, “The fraud that matters is the fraud that is organized. That’s why voter impersonation is practically non-existent because it is difficult to do and it is difficult to pull people into conspiracies to do it”.
The second charge is much more damning and also less black and white (quite the unintentionally ironic pun there). The concept of voter suppression is much more difficult to isolate from numerous other factors that affect voter turnout. For example, Georgia, after passing a strict voter ID law, saw an increase in voter turnout amongst African-Americans in 2008. However, this just so happened to be when Obama was running and coincided with a general increase in voter turnout across the nation. But still, this could be used as an example against the voter suppression argument...although it’s not well supported by other research on the topic.
Given the complexity of the issue, some serious research has gone into it. According to a
study by Shelly de Alth, in the Harvard Law & Policy Review, “voter ID laws impose a real burden on millions of voters”. The study says “that states with voter ID laws experienced a 1.6 to 2.2 percentage point decline in 2006 voter turnout, 3 to 4.5 million voters were disenfranchised by the laws”.
A similar
study finds that the “expansion of Voter ID statutes has demobilized Democratic-leaning individuals including young adults, renters, the poor and African Americans using individual voting records over a series of four elections (2004-2010).”
As an aside, 8% of Caucasians of voting age do not have photo ID while 25% of African Americans of voting age do not have photo id.
source. Another survey shows that 18% of elderly citizens, 15% of voters earning less than $35,000/yr, 18% or citizens aged 18-24, 10% of voters with disabilities and 25% of African-American citizens of voting age don’t have government issued photo ID (
source). The numbers jump around from study to study but they all paint a similar picture. The number of people without photo ID is significant and it affects minorities more than Caucasians.
At best, it can be said that voter ID laws are ineffective against fraud at large and lack significant data to say they are blatantly discriminatory (it’s quite the accomplishment to say “this law is likely ineffective but, hey, it’s maybe not racists...that’s a plus!”). At worst, it’s a simple ploy by Republicans to suppress students’, minorities’ and the poor’s right to vote which, surprise, surprise, trend towards voting for the Democrats.
I agree this has nothing to do with the original topic but given how the original poster added a comment in support of restrictive (and arguable discriminatory) voting laws after claiming that a left leaning tax was fascist, I felt compelled to respond. That’s right folks:
- Laws that makes it more difficult to vote, specifically for minorities and the poor = democracy at work
- Tax on carbon by a left-of-center government that uses the revenue to give tax credits to low income families = fascism