Voter identification laws in the United States
[23][30] In 2002, President George W. Bush signed the Help America Vote Act into law, which required all first-time voters in federal elections to show photo or non-photo ID upon either registration or arrival at the polling place.
[33][34] A 2005 report by the bipartisan Commission on Federal Election Reform, chaired by former President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker, concluded that concerns of both those who support and oppose strengthened voter ID laws were legitimate.
[48] Pennsylvania's voter ID law adopted in 2012 allowed various forms of photo identification cards, including those held by drivers, government employees, in-state college students, and residents of elder-care facilities.
[23] According to a 2021 report by the Brennan Center for Justice, the states of Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Montana, New Hampshire, Texas, and Wyoming all enacted harsher voter ID requirements that year.
[61] The majority opinion argued that the formula used to determine which jurisdictions required federal oversight or preclearance had not been updated to reflect current social conditions, including a decline in institutionalized discrimination and direct voter suppression.
[67] In the 2015 Phylon article "A Response to Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder: Energizing, Educating and Empowering Voters," June Gary Hopps and Dorcas Davis Bowles argue that by eliminating section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, Shelby County v. Holder decreased the participation of minorities and that "The participation of these groups is not only important because of the implications for ensuring civil rights, but also for developing social capital within neighborhoods, and increasing positive inter-group relations."
This article also states that combined with the Citizens United Supreme Court decision, there is an extreme potential for erosion to civil rights gains, that could "further alienate disenfranchised people.
[citation needed] Proponents of proof of citizenship laws cite a desire to stop noncitizens from voting illegally and increase confidence in election systems.
Opponents argue there are sufficient safeguards in place already to prevent noncitizen voting (which is very rare),[71][72] and that requiring proof of citizenship could disenfranchise the millions of eligible voters who cannot easily access such documents.
[86] The Act would not take steps to allow for social security numbers to be used, and could create issues if the birth certificate or other document does not match the name due to marriage or divorce.
"[88] Sean Morales-Doyle of the Brennan Center for Justice argued the bill is designed to call into question the legitimacy of the 2024 election so that it would be easier to overturn if Trump lost.
[91] In the 2018 Fish v. Kobach case, U.S. District Court Judge Julie Robinson ruled that Kansas' proof of citizenship law was unconstitutional, in part because the state did not demonstrate any meaningful illegal noncitizen voting occurred, which would be needed in order to justify the undue burden it put on younger voters and those without a political party.
[95] Richard Hasen called parts of Richman's testimony "social science at its worst" and said Spakovsky having a serious credibility problem with a history of not retracting false claims.
examined Arizona state voter and DMV files along with CES data as an expert witness for the case Mi Familia Vota v. Fontes challenging the law.
[116] A 2020 study by the Williams Institute estimated that 260,000 Americans who have transitioned and were eligible to vote in the 2020 US elections did not have a form of ID that accurately reflect their names or gender identity.
[125] Federal appeals courts have struck down strict voter-ID laws in Texas and North Carolina, citing intent by the legislatures to discriminate against minority voters.
The same study reported that "the stricter voter identification requirements depress turnout to a greater extent for less educated and lower income populations, for both minorities and non-minorities.
[136] A 2009 study of the 2006 midterm elections nationwide found that 47% of white voters reported being asked to show photo identification at the polls, compared with 54% of Hispanics and 55% of African Americans.
[138] A 2017 study in the Journal of Politics "shows that strict identification laws have a differentially negative impact on the turnout of racial and ethnic minorities in primaries and general elections.
[140] The paper says that the findings in the aforementioned study "a product of data inaccuracies, the presented evidence does not support the stated conclusion, and alternative model specifications produce highly variable results.
[25] A 2021 paper by University of Bologna and Harvard Business School economists Enrico Cantoni and Vincent Pons found that voter ID laws had no effect on fraud, actual or perceived.
"[162] A 2019 paper by Brown University economists found that the implementation of a photo ID law in Rhode Island led to a decline in turnout, registration, and voting among individuals who did not have drivers' licenses.
[163] A 2021 paper by University of Bologna and Harvard Business School economists Enrico Cantoni and Vincent Pons found that voter ID laws had "no negative effect on registration or turnout, overall or for any group defined by race, gender, age, or party affiliation."
[10] A 2023 report published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS) found that "voter ID requirements motivate and mobilize supporters of both parties, ultimately mitigating their anticipated effects on election results".
[172] A 2021 study in the Quarterly Journal of Economics by University of Bologna and Harvard Business School economists Enrico Cantoni and Vincent Pons found no evidence that strict voter ID laws had any effect on fraud – actual or perceived.
[190] In August 2014, Loyola Law School professor Justin Levitt reported in the Washington Post's Wonkblog that he had identified only 31 credible cases of voter impersonation since 2000.
[191] A 2021 study in the Quarterly Journal of Economics by University of Bologna and Harvard Business School economists Enrico Cantoni and Vincent Pons found no evidence that strict voter ID laws had any effect on fraud – actual or perceived.
[218] The same 2016 study found a notable relationship between the racial composition of a member's district, region, and electoral competition, and the likelihood that a state lawmaker supported a voter ID bill.
[224] In 2021, many Democrats, including Joe Manchin, Stacey Abrams and Raphael Warnock signalled a general openness to voter ID laws in the context of the For the People Act.
[225][226] The National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) March 2023 update of "Voter ID Laws" misrepresents Minnesota's election rules by labeling them as "No document required to vote".
