Costs According to a
Harvard Law report, getting documentation, possible travel, and waiting time (at a DMV, for example) are significant—especially for minority group and low-income voters. The author of the study notes that the costs associated with obtaining the card far exceeds the $1.50
poll tax (equivalent to $ in ) outlawed by the
24th amendment in 1964. Costs are also borne by
get out the vote nonprofits organizations and volunteers who must spend more time and money trying to help people to get and updated ID in order to be able to register to vote.
Disparate impact Low-income people, people of color and younger voters are less likely to have ID while transgender people are less likely to have an ID that is up-to-date.
Gender identity 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. 25% of respondents reported having experienced verbal harassment from poll workers when their ID did not match their current names or identity. A 2014
Frontline article noted that these laws are all sponsored by Republicans and passed overwhelmingly by Republican legislatures. A 2024 survey led by researchers at the
University of Maryland found that 23% of Democrats, 16% of Republicans and 31% of independents did not have a license with their current name and address. In a 2014 review by the
Government Accountability Office of the academic literature, three studies out of five found that voter ID laws reduced minority turnout whereas two studies found no significant impact. Charges of racial discrimination in voter ID laws are founded in the
disparate impact doctrine of constitutional law, which claims that any action—intentional or unintentional—that statistically disadvantages a protected class constitutes discrimination. Disparate impact is most often discussed in the context of
African Americans. The moral validity and constitutionality of this doctrine is hotly debated. This is relevant to voter ID laws because of accusations that these laws disproportionately reduce turnout among minority voters. According to an assessment of the existing research on voter ID laws by University of Pennsylvania political scientist Dan Hopkins, the research indicates that voter ID laws do disproportionately disenfranchise minority voters. 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 appeals court noted that the North Carolina Legislature "requested data on the use, by race, of a number of voting practices"—then, data in hand, "enacted legislation that restricted voting and registration in five different ways, all of which disproportionately affected African Americans." The changes to the voting process "target African Americans with almost surgical precision," and "impose cures for problems that did not exist." A 2009 study found that 84% of white registered voters in Indiana had access to photo ID to comply with that state's ID law, as compared to 78% of black voters on the rolls there. A 2008 study found that African Americans, Hispanics, and the elderly were less likely to have a voter ID that complied with Georgia's voter ID law. A 2014 study by the Government Accountability Office reported that voter ID laws in Kansas and Tennessee reduced turnout in these states by 1.9 and 2.2 percent, respectively, compared to four states that did not pass voter ID laws—Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, and Maine. The study indicates that young people, black people, and newly registered voters were most likely to have their turnout reduced. But Tennessee officials suggested that the reduced turnout may have been due to a lack of compelling ballot measures in 2012, and Kansas officials dismissed the drop in black voters as a product of high
random variance in a small population. Tennessee officials questioned the reproducibility of this report, given its reliance on data from
Catalist, which they claimed was a
progressive political group. A 2014 study from the
University of Iowa found no evidence that strict voter ID laws reduce minority turnout. A 2012 study found that, although the Georgia voter ID laws lowered overall turnout by 0.4%, there was no racial or ethnic component to the suppression effect. Disparate impact may also be reflected in access to information about voter ID laws. A 2015 experimental study found that election officials queried about voter ID laws were slightly more likely to respond to emails from a non-Latino Anglo or European name (70.5% response rate) than a Latino name (64.8% response rate), though response accuracy was similar across those groups. Studies have also analyzed racial differences in ID requests rates. A 2012 study in the city of
Boston found strong evidence that non-white voters were more likely to be asked for ID during the 2008 election. According to exit polls, 23% of whites, 33% of Asians, 33% of blacks, and 38% of Hispanics were asked for ID, though this effect is partially attributed to black and Hispanics preferring non-peak voting hours when election officials inspected a greater portion of IDs. Precinct differences confound the data, as black and Hispanic voters tended to vote at black and Hispanic-majority precincts. A 2010 study of the 2006 midterm election in New Mexico found that election officials asked Hispanics for ID more often than they did early voters, women, and non-Hispanics. 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." Very few people were denied the chance to vote as a result of voter identification requests. 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. We also find that voter ID laws skew democracy toward those on the political right." The results of this study were challenged in a paper by Stanford political scientist Justin Grimmer and four other political scientists. 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. When errors are corrected, one can recover positive, negative, or null estimates of the effect of voter ID laws on turnout, precluding firm conclusions." Columbia University statistician and political scientist
Andrew Gelman said that the response by the authors of the original study "did not seem convincing" and that the finding of racial discrepancies in the original study does not stand. A 2017 report by Civis Analytics for the liberal super PAC Priorities USA purported to show that Hillary Clinton lost Wisconsin the 2016 presidential election due to voter suppression brought on by Wisconsin's strict voter ID laws. Political scientists expressed serious skepticism of the report's methodology; Yale University political scientist Eitan Hersh said the report "does not meet acceptable evidence standards." A 2019 study in the journal
Electoral Studies found that the implementation of voter ID laws in South Carolina reduced overall turnout but did not have a disparate impact. 2019 studies in
Political Science Quarterly and the
Atlantic Economic Journal found no evidence that voter ID laws have a disproportionate influence on minorities. A 2022 study found that Black and Latino voters were disproportionately likely to vote without ID. A 2024 University of Maryland report evaluating the 2020 election found that participants who were Black or Hispanic were twice as likely to report not having a photo ID. The numbers are likely higher in states with more urban areas, as fewer voters have driving licenses. Since some legitimate voters lack the kind of IDs demanded by voter ID laws, some commentators have argued that strict voter ID laws reduce voter turnout, especially among poor, black, elderly, disabled, and minority-language voters, and voters who have changed their names. However, the results of studies assessing the effect (or lack thereof) of these laws on turnout have been inconclusive. For example, a 2012 study found that a stricter voter ID law in Georgia lowered turnout by about 0.4% in 2008 compared to 2004. In contrast, several other studies have failed to demonstrate significant turnout reductions. A 2010 study found that 1.2% of registered voters in three states with voter ID laws (Indiana, Maryland, and Mississippi) lacked an ID that complied with the law. A 2011 study found that photo ID laws were correlated with a 1.6% decline in turnout, and non-photo ID laws were correlated with a 2.2% decline. In a 2014 review by the
Government Accountability Office of the academic literature, five studies out of ten found that voter ID laws had no significant effect on overall turnout, four studies found that voter ID laws decreased overall turnout, and one study found that the laws increased overall turnout. A 2014
Rice University study reported that
Texas's voter ID law decreased turnout mainly among people who incorrectly thought they did not have the type of ID needed to comply with the law. The authors of this study also suggested that an education campaign aimed at clearly communicating what types of ID are acceptable in Texas would be beneficial. A 2016 study argued that, although no clear-cut relationship exists between strict voter ID laws and voter turnout, the disenfranchising impact of voter ID laws may be hidden by Democratic voter mobilization. Strong negative reactions to voter ID laws among Democratic constituencies could, in theory, boost Democratic turnout enough to compensate for effects of the laws themselves. 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. 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." It speculated that this was in part because of increased voter mobilization efforts that counteracted the effect.
International comparisons Many nations require some form of voter identification at the polling place, but specific details of the requirement vary widely. Several Western democracies do not require identification for voting, such as
Denmark,
Australia, and
New Zealand. In 2012, the head of
Libya's national election commission expressed surprise that the American system "depends so much on trust and the good faith of election officials and voters alike". The 2005
Commission on Federal Election Reform, co-chaired by former President
Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State
James Baker, concluded that, although proven voter impersonation is minimal, a photo ID requirement would ensure election integrity and safeguard public perception of the nation's voting system. Among certain demographics, voter ID laws lower electoral confidence. A 2016 study concluded that Democrats in states with strict ID laws have reduced faith in the electoral system. It said that negative politicization by the Democratic Party may be to blame. Republicans living in strict photo identification states were more confident in their elections, though possibly due to similar politicization by Republican elites. A 2016 study found that people living in states with voter ID laws were no more confident in their elections than people in states without such laws, nor did they perceive lower rates of voter impersonation fraud. A 2017 study found similar results for both national and local election outcomes. 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.
Public opinion Public opinion polls have shown broad support for voter ID laws among voters in the United States. A 2011
Rasmussen poll found that 75% of likely voters "believe voters should be required to show photo identification, such as a driver's license, before being allowed to vote." A 2012
Fox News poll produced similar results, revealing that 87% of Republicans, 74% of independent voters, and 52% of Democrats supported new voter ID laws. More recently, a 2021
Pew Research poll showed that 93% of Republicans and 61% of Democrats favor requirements that voters show government-issued photo ID to vote. A 2021
Monmouth poll found that 56% of self-identified liberals and 84% of nonwhite voters favored photo ID requirements. A 2022
Gallup poll found that 97% of Republicans, 84% of independents and 53% of Democrats favored photo ID requirements. Although all major political demographics support voter ID laws, a 2013 study showed significant divergence in opinion between conservative-affiliated demographics, which are staunch supporters, and liberal-affiliated demographics, which are less supportive. The study also showed that support depends on survey framing: when
questions biased against voter ID laws are asked, support drops 15% compared to when questions favorable to voter ID laws are asked. Another 2016 study found that white people with high levels of implicit
racism, but not explicit racism, were more supportive of voter ID laws when they were exposed to a fear-eliciting condition. A 2016 study found that partisan affiliation is a major determinant of support for voter ID laws and that Republicans are much more likely than Democrats to be concerned about voter fraud. Research shows that individuals who hold
hostile views towards nonwhite immigrants are most likely to believe that voter fraud is rampant. Former Attorney General
Eric Holder and others have compared the laws to a poll tax, in which southern states during the Jim Crow Era imposed voting fees, which discourage black and even some poor whites until the passage of grandfather clauses from voting. Some studies have failed to find a correlation between states with Voter ID laws and increased confidence in the voting system. The vast majority of voter ID laws in the United States target only
voter impersonation. According to
PolitiFact, "in-person voter fraud—the kind targeted by the ID law—remains extremely rare". The available research and evidence point to the type of fraud that would be prevented by voter ID laws as "very rare" or "extremely rare". PolitiFact finds the suggestion that "voter fraud is rampant" false, giving it its "Pants on Fire" rating. In 2016, PolitiFact noted that it was fair to say "impersonation cases can be hard to count in that they are hard to prove -- particularly when no photo ID requirement is in place and a voter can cast a ballot simply by stating the name of a registered voter." Writing in 2009, Harvard political scientist
Stephen Ansolabehere noted that despite the common belief "that fraud occurs at least somewhat often in elections … social scientists have been unable to develop unambiguous measures of the incidence of fraud, and legal cases find very little hard evidence on the matter." 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. 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. David Becker, at the time the director of Election Initiatives for Pew, said this study's results pointed to the need to improve voter registration, rather than to evidence of voter fraud or suppression. Proponents of voter ID laws fear that motivated individuals could exploit registration irregularities to impersonate dead voters or impersonate former state residents, casting multiple fraudulent ballots. They have argued that voter fraud could go undetected without voter ID laws. Critics of such laws note that they only prevent one kind of fraud, namely voter impersonation. They say that this form of fraud is illogical, as the risks (a fine of up to $10,000 and/or 5 years in prison) far outweigh the benefits (casting one extra vote for the voter's desired candidate). Democrats have alleged that the scale of impersonation fraud has been greatly exaggerated by Republicans for political reasons. A 2012 investigation of 207 alleged dead voters in South Carolina found only five instances unexplained by clerical errors. For instance, sometimes a son with the same name as his dead father was accidentally recorded as voting under the father's name. A study of dead voters in the 2006 Georgia midterm election concluded that only fifteen of the 66 alleged instances of dead voting were potentially fraudulent. All but four of the dead votes were cast absentee, and most of the absentee voters in question cast early ballots but died before the election, giving the impression of voter fraud. A 2013 study testing for additional cases of electoral fraud in addition to two cases that had already been documented found no additional cases of such fraud. A 2007 report by the liberal
Brennan Center for Justice concluded that voter impersonation was rarer than being struck by
lightning. The author of this report,
Justin Levitt, later reported in 2014 that he had identified only thirty-one credible instances of voter impersonation since 2000, involving a total of 241 ballots, out of a billion ballots cast. Also, in 2007,
Lorraine Minnite released a report for
Project Vote concluding that voter fraud was "extremely rare" in the United States. In 2014, a survey was published concluding that there was no evidence of widespread voter impersonation in the
2012 U.S. general election. Proponents of voter ID laws have pointed to a widely discredited 2014 study by
Jesse Richman, Gulshan A. Chatta and David Earnest as justification. The 2014 study did not change the virtual consensus in academia that noncitizen citizen did not exist on any functional level. One reason why was a 2015 replication of the study by the managers of the
Cooperative Congressional Election Study, the data relied on, found that Richman and Earnest's study was "almost certainly flawed" and that it was most likely that 0% of non-citizens had voted in recent American elections. The Old Dominion study also concluded that voter ID requirements would be ineffective at reducing non-citizen voting. Richman later conceded that "the response error issues … may have biased our numbers", though he stood by the study. Richman rebuked
Donald Trump for claiming that millions voted illegally in 2016. Support for voter ID laws correlates with perceived prevalence of voter fraud.
Politicization of voter ID issues In 2014, a study released by the
Congressional Research Service concluded that, in the absence of systematic risk analyses, it is difficult to determine what points in the election process—
voter registration, voting systems,
polling place location and hours, poll worker training, voter identification, vote tabulation, or other steps—involve the greatest potential risks to election integrity and therefore warrant the greatest attention. Another 2014 study argued that careful
voter roll maintenance is probably a more effective method for preventing voter fraud than voter ID laws. Another 2015 study found a similar correlation between the enactment of voter ID laws and a state's electoral competitiveness, suggesting
electioneering motives. A 2016 study found polarization over voter ID laws was less stark in state legislatures where
electoral competition was not intense. 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. A 2017 study in
American Politics Research found that the adoption of voter ID laws is most likely when control of the governor's office and state legislature switches to Republicans, and when the size of black and Latino populations in the state increases. Another 2017 study found that the different advertising strategies used to advertise
Kansas' voter ID laws by different county clerks influenced the effect of these laws on turnout. Several states controlled by Democrats maintain voter ID laws. For instance,
Hawaii has required a state-issued photo ID for decades. However, both Hawaii and Rhode Island are "non-strict photo ID states", meaning that, in some circumstances, an
affidavit or other legal measure can satisfy the ID requirement. In 2021, many Democrats, including
Joe Manchin,
Stacey Abrams and
Raphael Warnock signaled a general openness to voter ID laws in the context of the
For the People Act.
The Washington Post observed an "evolution" by many Democrats on the issue, some of whom were no longer as strongly opposed to voter ID, and in a few cases, went on record to say they had never really been opposed to it. ==Registration and election day voter ID laws by state==