This page shows textual changes in the document between the two versions indicated in the dates above. Textual matter removed in the later version is indicated with red strikethrough and textual matter added in the later version is indicated with blue.
Some states require voters at a polling place to produce identification before casting a ballot. Such requirements have emerged as a controversial issue in recent elections, particularly requirements in some states for photographic identification (photo ID), and they are the focus of this report.
Since 2008, more than 30 states have enacted laws relating to voter identification, with several containing photo ID requirements. Several states enacted voter identification laws that have either been struck down by courts or are not yet in effect. A number of bills with voter identification provisions have been introduced in the 113th Congress and one (S. 1945) has received committee consideration.
Thirty states require voters to provide an accepted identification document when voting in person, although few require such documentation for absentee voters. Eighteen states require photo ID for voting. With respect to what type of photo ID is acceptable and what happens if a voter does not have it, no two states are the same. Nine of the 18 photo ID states require it for polling-place voting but permit alternatives such as signing an affidavit for voters without an ID. Eight states—Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Mississippi, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia—permit only voters who present a photo ID to cast a ballot, with few exceptions. Arkansas, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin enacted similarly stringent photo ID laws that, due to court action, were not in effect for the November 4, 2014, election. Washington conducts its elections by mail, but one in-person vote center is open in each county on Election Day and photo ID is required; thus, it is included among the photo ID states.
About 60% of U.S. voters live in the 33 states that require a voter at a polling place to produce an identification document (ID) before casting a ballot. Among those states, 20 permit voters without ID to cast a ballot through alternative means, such as signing an affidavit; 13 strictly enforce the ID requirement. The other 17 states and the District of Columbia have a range of nondocument requirements instead. Over the last two decades, the number of states requiring voter IDs has tripled. The stringency of those requirements is controversial. States vary substantially in the range of IDs accepted, the information they must contain, and the ease with which a voter can procure an ID. Although all states requiring voter ID accept a local driver's license, no two states have the same overall requirements. Among states with voter ID laws, 20 require photographic identification (photo ID), while 13 permit a nonphoto ID. In addition, eight states require ID for voters casting absentee or mail-in ballots. Several states enacted voter ID laws that have been struck down by courts or are not yet in effect. Recent congresses have seen a number of bills with voter ID provisions, including H.R. 885, H.R. 2867, H.R. 3277, H.R. 3364, H.R. 5557, S. 1659, and S. 1912 in the 114th Congress. State legislatures also continue to consider the issue. Supporters of the more stringent requirements often emphasize the need to prevent voter fraud, while opponents emphasize the need to avoid disenfranchising legitimate voters who do not have ready access to an accepted ID. Polling data suggest that most voters and most local election officials support a voter ID requirement but that many are also concerned about the risk of disenfranchisement. Both voter fraud and disenfranchisement pose potential risks to the integrity of the electoral process, but the policy debate is being conducted in the absence of a consensus about the evidence pertaining to those risks, with available studies producing a broad range of results. Election administration is complex, and changes in voter ID requirements may affect elections in unanticipated ways, such as a need for more provisional ballots, increased waiting times at polling places, and misapplication of the rules by pollworkers. The longer that election officials have to implement changes to voting procedures, the lower the risk of unintended and potentially harmful consequences may be. The impact of state voter ID laws is likely to continue to be a topic of high interest beyond November 2016. It seems likely that state legislators will continue to consider such legislation in the future. The 2016 election may provide useful data on the implementation and performance of voter ID laws, which Congress may choose to examine, and which may lead to greater consensus about the benefits and disadvantages of voter identification requirements. Leading up to the 2014 midterm election, state voter photo ID laws were challenged under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA), orThat Mandate an ID (Either Photo or Nonphoto) for In-Person Voting
Appendixes
Summary
November 42014 general election. InSuch challenges have drawn attention in view of a 2008 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that upheld the constitutionality under the Fourteenth Amendment of a voter photo ID law, such challenges have drawn attention. They are also notable because of their application ofand because some suits have been brought under Section 2 of the VRA, which in the past, has generally been invoked in the context of redistricting. Similarly, in the midst of the 2016 presidential election cycle, there is ongoing litigation challenging certain state laws. As a result, it is unclear whether, and to what degree, some state voter ID laws will be in effect for the November 2016 general election.
Introduction and Overview
More than half the states require a voter to provide a specified identification document (ID) to cast a ballot at the polling place, and a few extend the requirement to absentee or mail-in voting. Many states require an ID with a photograph of the voter (photo ID). Some require a document that does not need to include such a photograph (nonphoto ID). Othershas generally been invoked in the context of redistricting plans, at-large elections, and felony disenfranchisement laws. Further litigation in this area is expected, and it is unclear how courts in other jurisdictions or appellate courts will rule.
Supporters of photo ID requirements in particular emphasize the need to prevent voter fraud, while opponents emphasize the need to avoid disenfranchising legitimate voters who do not have ready access to a photo ID. Polling data suggest that most voters and most local election officials support a photo ID requirement but that many are also concerned about the risk of disenfranchisement. The policy controversy centers largely on whether the risk of disenfranchisement or the risk of voter fraud is the greater threat to the integrity of the electoral process. This policy debate is being conducted in the absence of a broad consensus about the evidence pertaining to those risks.
Election administration is complex, and changes in voter ID requirements may affect elections in unanticipated ways, such as a need for more provisional ballots, increased waiting times at polling places, and misapplication of the new rules by poll workers. The longer that election officials have to implement changes to voting procedures, the lower the risk of unintended and potentially harmful consequences may be.
More than half the states require a voter to provide a specified identification document (ID) to cast a ballot, and some of those states require photographic identification (photo ID). Seventeen states and the District of Columbia do not require any type of ID to vote, but a voter may be asked to provide certain information to verify what is contained in the registration record or otherwise confirm his or her identity, such as stating an address or birth date or providing a signature. Washington and Oregon conduct elections entirely by mail, although Washington provides for in-person voting on Election Day and photo ID is required.
See "Differences in Voter Identification Requirements among the States" for further discussion of requirements among the states. Identification
Voter identification requirements across the states vary in flexibility, in the typetypes of documents allowed, in exceptions made to the requirements, and in the recourse available to a voter who cannot comply with the ID requirement at the polls. Photo ID requirements in particular have been a major issue of policy debate in recent years, but for both photo and nonphoto ID, the range of IDs accepted and how strictly the state enforces the requirement have also been sources of controversy. Debates over such requirements are typically complex and can be contentious.
This report provides an updated overview of state requirements for voters to presentThis report provides an overview of states that require a voter to provide some form of ID before casting a ballot. in a federal election.1 The report also discusses the origins of voter ID, relevant federal legislative action in the 113114th Congress related to voter identification, and background and legal, and selected legal and policy issues related to state voter ID laws. The scope is limited to identification requirements for voting; the report does not address voter registration requirements.
Status of Voter ID Requirements in the States
Thirty-three states require voters to show an ID to cast a ballot at a polling place. Ten of those permit no alternatives to photo IDs. Another 10 states require a voter to show a photo ID, if available, but also permit other means of identification. Examples of such alternatives include signing an affidavit, providing nonphoto ID, and permitting the voter to cast a provisional ballot, with the election office confirming identity subsequently by matching information or a signature provided by the voter to what the office has on file (see Table A-1).
Thirteen states require a voter to present an ID but accept documents that do not include a photo, such as a voter registration card, current utility bill, hunting or fishing license, bank statement, paycheck, tribal ID, Social Security card, or other approved document (see Table A-2).
voter ID, particularly photo ID, laws in the states.
Among the 30 states that require voters to show an identification document for the November 2014 election, 8 permit only photo IDs (Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Mississippi, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia) while others permit other means of identification for voters without photo IDs (see Table 1).1 Another nine states require a voter to show a photo ID, but permit other means of identification that might include signing an affidavit, providing non-photo ID, permitting the voter to cast a provisional ballot and subsequently matching the voter's signature to one on file, and others. Washington has vote-by-mail elections in which all voters receive a ballot in the mail. They may cast a ballot in person on Election Day but must provide photo ID to do so.
Twelve states require a voter to provide non-photo ID, such as a voter registration card, current utility bill, hunting or fishing license, bank statement, paycheck, tribal ID, Social Security card, or other document that shows the voter's name and address (see Table 2).
A number of developments during the past 14 years may have focused attention on identification requirements for voting. After the 2000 election, numerous studies and reports were issued that assessed the nation's voting process, or aspects of it, and made policy recommendations. Perhaps the best known study was issued in August 2001 by the National Commission on Federal Election Reform, often referred to as the "Carter-Ford Commission." The study was sponsored by the Miller Center of Public Affairs at the University of Virginia and The Century Foundation, and it was co-chaired by former Presidents Gerald R. Ford and Jimmy Carter (often referred to as the "Carter-Ford Commission").2.4 The report noted that states should work to improve "verification of voter identification at the polling place"35 and recommended that they
require those who are registering to vote and those who are casting their ballot to provide some form of official identification, such as a photo ID issued by a government agency (e.g., a driver's license). A photo ID is already required in many other transactions, such as check-cashing and using airline tickets. These Commissioners point out that those who register and vote should expect to identify themselves. If they do not have photo identification then they should be issued such cards from the government or have available alternative forms of official ID. They believe this burden is reasonable, that voters will understand it, and that most democratic nations recognize this act as a valid means of protecting the sanctity of the franchise.46
Many of the report's recommendations were incorporated in the Help America Vote Act (HAVA, P.L. 107-252) which was enacted in October 2002.7 Title III of HAVA includes requirements for states on voting systems and, voter information, provisional voting, and voter registration. Since 2006, states have been required to maintain a single, computerized list of all registered voters that every election official in the state can access.58
The actTitle III also includes a limited voter identification requirement. An individual who registers to vote by mail and has not previously voted in a federal election in the jurisdiction must provide a current, valid photo ID or a copy of a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other government document with the voter's name and address, whether voting in person or by mail.69 The requirement does not apply to a voter who registers under the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA, P.L. 103-31, also known as the "motor-voter" law),10 and submits with the registration application one of the required identifications, or who provides a driver's license number or the last four digits of the voter's Social Security number that matches an existing state record with the same number, name, and date of birth as provided in the registration. A voter who does not provide one of the required documentsdocumentation may submit a provisional ballot that is counted in accordance with state law if the appropriate election official determines that the voter is eligible.
Following passage of HAVA, states enacted laws to implement the act's identification requirement, and in some cases, more stringent requirements. A related provision ofAnother provision in HAVA made clear that states wereare free to adopt strictermore stringent election administration requirements than those imposed by HAVAthe act:
The requirements established by this title are minimum requirements and nothing in this title shall be construed to prevent a State from establishing election technology and administration requirements that are more strict than the requirements established under this title so long as such State requirements are not inconsistent with the Federal requirements under this title or any law described in section 906.7
Following passage of HAVA, states enacted laws to implement the act's identification requirement, and in some cases, more stringent requirements, leading to a doubling over the next few years in the number of states with voter ID requirements.12 Much of the public discussion about voter ID focuses on how to balance the goals of preventing voter fraud and protecting voter rights (see "Impacts on Turnout and Voter Fraud"). Public opinion surveys over the past decade have consistently found significant majority support for requiring a photo ID to vote. The wording of the questions has varied, with some surveys providing more context about the issues than others. Although all of the surveys described broad categories of ID, several specified that they be "valid," "official," or "government" documents. Some points from the surveys relevant to this report are summarized below:Another related development was the passage of legislation in the House of Representatives in the 109th Congress to require photo ID and proof of citizenship to vote. The Committee on House Administration reported an amended version of H.R. 4844 (Hyde) on September 14, 2006, which was taken up and passed by the House on September 20.8 It was not taken up by the Senate before the 109th Congress adjourned. The amended version of the bill would have required a government-issued photo ID (beginning in 2008) and proof of citizenship (beginning in 2010) for voting in federal elections. It would have required that voters who cast a provisional ballot because they did not have the required ID provide such within 48 hours for the ballot to be counted. It included an exception for military and overseas voters. The bill would have required states to provide photo ID documents to qualified voters who did not have such documents, and to provide them to indigent voters at no cost. It would have authorized appropriations to cover the costs of providing such identification11
to indigent voters.
Public opinion surveys have tended to show significant majority support for requiring photo ID to vote. A Pew Research Center poll from October 2006 found that 78% of respondents answered yes when asked whether voters should be required to show photo ID; 18% answered no.9 A similar Pew Research Center poll from October 2012 found that 77% of respondents believed that voters should be required to show "official photo ID before they vote on Election Day," while 20% did not. When asked whether they had the "identification you might need to vote?" 98% answered yes, 1% said no, and 1% volunteered that identification was not needed.10
A Washington Post poll from August 2012 asked a series of questions about photo ID and vote fraud, and found that 74% of respondents believed that voters should be required to show "official, government-issued photo identification, such as a driver's license" to vote, while 23% did not.11 In response to a question that asked whether voter fraud is a major problem, minor problem, or not a problem in presidential elections, 48% believed it is a major problem, 33% considered it a minor problem, and 14% believed vote fraud is not a problem. Another question asked whether voter suppression—described as eligible voters taken off registration lists or denied the right to vote—is a major problem, minor problem, or not a problem in presidential elections; 41% believed it is a major problem, 32% believed it is a minor problem, and 20% believed it is not a problem. One question joined those two concepts by asking which was more of a concern to the respondent, the potential for vote fraud or the potential that eligible voters could be denied the right to vote? In response, 49% believed that vote fraud was more of a concern and 44% believed that denying eligible voters the right to vote was more of a concern.
These survey results suggest that the public's support for photo ID has remained steady in recent years. That is, according to the polls examined for this report, a majority of the public believes that voters should show photo ID to vote, and a plurality believes that both vote fraud and vote suppression are major problems. When voters were asked in one poll to rank which was of greater concern—vote fraud or denying the right to vote—vote fraud ranked first by five percentage points and denying eligible voters ranked second. It is not clear to what extent respondents were aware of evidence on the degree to which voter fraud occurs or how such information would have affected their opinions.
Seven bills introduced in the 113th Congress include provisions that pertain to voter identification, including photo ID. Five bills would affect the state voter ID requirements by amending either HAVA (three bills) or NVRA (two bills). Two would amend the Voting Rights Act to exclude a voter identification requirement from the list of triggers for federal oversight of elections. The Senate Committee on the Judiciary held a hearing on S. 1945 (see below) on June 25, 2014, but none of the other bills has received committee or floor consideration.
H.R. 281, H.R. 5144, and H.R. 1748 would amend HAVA. H.R. 281 would prohibit a state or local election official from requiring a photo ID to register or to vote, either in person or by mail, in a federal election. It would also prohibit an election official from requiring an individual to cast a provisional ballot if the individual does not present a photo ID to vote. H.R. 5144 would require a state or local election official to accept a current, valid student photo identification from an institution of higher learning to vote in a federal election. H.R. 1748 would permit an individual to meet a photo identification requirement to vote in a federal election by signing an affidavit attesting to the individual's identification and that the individual is registered to vote.
H.R. 3321 and H.R. 2115 would amend the NVRA. H.R. 2115 would require states with a photo ID requirement for voting in a federal election to provide individuals who lack a government-issued identification with such an identification for free upon request. H.R. 2115 would require an individual who applies for a driver's license to indicate whether the individual resides or resided in another state and whether the individual intends the new state to serve as the residence for voting purposes. It would require the motor vehicle authority to communicate such information to the individual's previous state of residence if the new state will be the voting residence.
H.R. 3899 and S. 1945 would amend the VRA to exclude from the list of violations that trigger jurisdiction retention under Section 2 a requirement that an individual provide photo identification as a condition of receiving a ballot in a federal election. S. 2399 would amend the VRA to make an unexpired tribal identification document issued by an Indian tribe or Native Corporation a valid form of identification in states and jurisdictions that have a voter ID requirement for registering or voting.
As with many aspects of election administration, there is wide variation among the states with respect to verifying voter identity. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures,12 30 states require a voter to show ID before voting at the polls on Election Day. Of those 30 states, some require a voter to provide photo ID in order to vote. Seventeen states and the District of Columbia do not require a voter to provide any ID to vote, and Oregon and Washington conduct elections entirely by mail. In these two states, election officials mail ballots to all registered voters, who are not required to provide proof of identity when submitting the ballot. Washington also permits a voter to cast a ballot in person on Election Day and requires a photo ID to do so.
For the 2014 election, 18 states had a photo ID requirement in effect. An additional four states enacted photo ID laws that were not in effect or have been delayed from taking effect because of court action. (Arkansas,13 Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin photo ID laws were not in effect for the November 4 election; North Carolina's law takes effect in 2016.)
A description of the photo ID requirements in the 18 states with such a requirement is shown in Table 1 below. For each of those states, the table presents information about the types of photo IDs accepted; the voting methods used; exceptions to the photo ID requirement, if any; recourse if the voter is not able to comply with the requirement; and a comments column. The comments column has other information about the laws, including when the law was enacted, how it is administered, and exceptions that are permitted.
Some states accept a wide range of photo IDs, including ones that are issued by other states, while others limit the type of ID more narrowly. In Louisiana, for example, voters can meet the photo ID requirement with a driver's license or special ID issued by the state or "other generally recognized picture identification card with [your] name and signature."14 The Office of Motor Vehicles will provide a free special ID card to any person who presents a voter information card. In comparison, Indiana voters must provide an ID issued by the state of Indiana or the federal government that includes a photo and a name that conforms15 to the voter registration record and is current or that expired after the date of the last general election.
|
State |
|
Voting Method |
Exceptions |
Recourse if No ID |
Comments |
|
|
In-Person |
| |||||
|
Alabama |
|
X |
X |
Regular ballot upon affidavit sworn by two election officials attesting to voter's identity and eligibility; provisional ballot, counted if, by 5 pm on the Friday after the election, voter presents ID at county election office. |
||
|
Florida |
|
X |
Provisional ballot, counted if validated by signature matching. |
|||
|
Georgia |
|
X |
Provisional ballot, counted if, within 3 days after the election, voter presents ID at county election office. |
First enacted in 2003; amended in 2005 and 2006. State provides free ID. DL may be expired. |
||
|
Hawaii |
Not specified but must have the voter's signature |
X |
Voter must state date of birth and residence address. |
ID must be provided upon request by a pollworker. |
||
|
Idaho |
|
X |
Voter must complete and sign affidavit, which must be accurate under penalty of law. |
ID requirements enacted in 2010. |
||
|
Indiana |
|
X |
State-licensed care facility where the voter resides. |
Provisional ballot, counted if, by noon of the Monday following the election, voter presents ID at county election office or signs an affidavit declaring indigence or religious objection to being photographed. |
ID requirements enacted in 2005. Except for military IDs, must include expiration date, which must be after the most recent general election. |
|
|
Kansas |
|
X |
X |
Permanent physical disability preventing travel; absent active duty military and merchant marine and their families; religious objection to being photographed. |
Provisional ballot, counted if, before the meeting of the county board of canvassers, voter presents ID to county election officer in person or by mail or electronic means. |
|
|
Louisiana |
Generally recognized ID |
X |
Voter must sign affidavit and present other identification information required by election commissioners, and is subject to challenge. |
|||
|
Michigan |
|
X |
Voter must sign affidavit. |
| ||
|
Mississippi |
|
X |
X |
State-licensed care facility where the voter resides and votes; religious objection to being photographed. |
Affidavit ballot, if, within five days following the election, voter presents ID at county election office; a voter with a religious objection to being photographed must execute an affidavit at county election office within five days following the election. |
|
|
New Hampshire |
|
X |
For registration, residents of care facilities may use a letter from the administrator rather than a photo ID. |
ID is requested and a voter who does not present an ID may vote a provisional ballot; a subsequent mailing is sent to the voter to sign and return. If unreturned, the voter may be investigated for vote fraud. |
New photo ID law was delayed by action of the legislature until August 30, 2015. Expired DL and passport may be used until then. Thereafter, date ID expired must be less than five years. |
|
|
Rhode Island |
|
X |
Provisional ballot, counted if provisional ballot application signature matches the voter registration signature. |
Must be current. |
||
|
South Carolina |
|
X |
Provisional ballot, counted if, before county certification of the election, voter presents ID to county election office; or if voter completes an affidavit at the polling place attesting religious objection to being photographed or a reasonable impediment (any valid reason, beyond voter's control) to obtaining a photo ID. |
|||
|
South Dakota |
|
X |
X |
Voter must complete and sign affidavit with name and address, under penalty of perjury. |
||
|
Tennessee |
|
X |
Indigence; religious objection to being photographed. Requires affidavit. |
Provisional ballot, counted if, by the end of the second business day after the election, voter presents ID to county election officer. |
||
|
Texas |
|
X |
Provisional ballot, counted if, within six calendar days of the election, voter presents to county election office ID or, under penalty of perjury, affidavit declaring religious objection to being photographed, or that lack of ID resulted from declared natural disaster within 45 days of casting of ballot. |
| ||
|
Virginia |
|
X |
|
Provisional ballot marked "ID-ONLY" and counted if, by noon on third day after election, voter submits a copy of an accepted ID to the electoral board by facsimile, email, in-person, USPS, or commercial delivery. |
Must be current. |
|
|
Vote-by-Mail State |
||||||
|
Washington |
Valid Photo ID |
X |
Provisional ballot, counted if signature on declaration matches signature on voter registration record. |
All voters receive a ballot in the mail, but county auditors must open at least one vote center for in-person voting and ID requirement pertains to these voters. |
||
Sources: Government Accountability Office, Elections: State Laws Addressing Voter Registration and Voting on or Before Election Day, GAO-13-90R, October 4, 2012, http://www.gao.gov/assets/650/649203.pdf; National Conference of State Legislatures, "Voter ID: State Requirements," 2014, http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/voter-id.aspx. Original statutory language was not checked by CRS in preparing this table to verify descriptions in the two sources, except to resolve conflicts or ambiguities between the descriptions.
Notes: Oklahoma has a photo ID requirement but permits use of a valid voter registration card (which is not a photo ID) in lieu of the photo ID. DL means driver's license. DMV means the state agency that issues drivers licenses. IHE means an Institute of Higher Education. Passport means a U.S. passport. State means the state in which the voter is attempting to vote. States vary in whether accepted student IDs may include those issued by high schools as well as postsecondary institutions, or whether they must be issued by a school in the state. Three states enacted photo ID laws that will not be in effect for the November 4, 2014, election due to court action: Arkansas, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.
|
State |
|
Voting Method |
Exceptions |
|
Comments |
|
|
In-Person |
| |||||
|
Alaska |
|
X |
X |
An election official who knows the voter may waive the requirement. |
The voter may cast a "questioned" ballot. |
|
|
Arizona |
|
X |
Provisional ballot, counted if voter ID presented to county recorder by 5pm on the fifth business day after a federal general election, or 5pm on the third business day after any other election. |
|||
|
Colorado |
A copy of a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck or government document that contains name and address |
X |
Provisional ballot, counted if a designated election official can verify the voter's eligibility. |
Most CO voters vote by mail but at least one location is open in each county on Election Day for in-person voting and ID requirement applies to those voters. |
||
|
Connecticut |
|
X |
Voter must complete and sign a form that shows the voter's address and date of birth and which includes a statement attesting that the voter is the person listed on the checklist. |
|||
|
Delaware |
|
X |
Voter signs an affidavit of affirmation that he or she is the person listed on the election district record. |
|||
|
Kentucky |
|
X |
When election officers disagree about a voter's qualifications or the voter is challenged, the voter may sign a written oath of qualification. |
|||
|
Missouri |
|
X |
Voter may cast ballot if two supervising election judges, one from each party, attest that they know the voter. |
|||
|
Montana |
A copy of a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, notice of confirmation of voter registration, or government document that contains name and address |
X |
Voter must sign precinct register and may cast a provisional ballot, pending a comparison of signature on provisional ballot affirmation with voter registration record. |
|||
|
North Dakota |
|
X |
Government ID must be current. |
|||
|
Ohio |
|
X |
X |
Provisional ballot with provision of SSN, last four digits of SSN, or completed affidavit, counted if, within 10 days of election, voter provides ID in person to board of elections. |
Documents must be current. |
|
|
Oklahoma |
|
X |
Provisional ballot, counted if name, address, DOB, driver's license or last four digits of SSN match registration record. |
|||
|
Utah |
|
X |
County clerk may verify identity and residence "through some other means." |
Provisional ballot. |
||
Source: National Conference of State Legislatures, "Voter ID: State Requirements," 2014, at http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/voter-id.aspx, Government Accountability Office, Elections: State Laws Addressing Voter Registration and Voting on or Before Election Day, GAO-13-90R, October 4, 2012, http://www.gao.gov/assets/650/649203.pdf.
Notes: DL means driver's license. DMV means the state agency that issues drivers licenses. IHE means an Institute of Higher Education. Passport means a U.S. passport. State means the state in which the voter is attempting to vote. States vary in whether accepted student IDs may include those issued by high schools as well as postsecondary institutions, or whether they must be issued by a school in the state.
It is not clear to what extent respondents in any of the polls were aware of evidence on the degree to which voter fraud occurs; nor is it possible to know how such information would have affected their opinions. No information was found in the surveys about how voters respond to the different specific kinds of photo ID that different states permit (e.g., a driver's license, an employee ID card, a passport). These and similar policy concerns remain factors in the ongoing debate about whether obtaining required ID presents an undue hardship for some who wish to vote, or whether voter IDs are essential, despite any such hardships, to prevent voter fraud (see "Implementation Issues and Policy Considerations"). Several bills introduced in the 114th Congress contain provisions pertaining to voter ID. Some of those bills contain provisions would promote or protect voter ID requirements, while provisions in others would modify, restrict, or eliminate the use of such requirements. As of June 2016, none of those bills had received further consideration by the committees to which they were referred. A discharge petition was filed that month for H.R. 2867. As with many aspects of election administration, states vary widely with respect to verifying voter identity. Some require photo ID, others nonphoto ID, and yet others nondocument identification. Some states with ID requirements accept a broad range of documents, while others permit only a narrow range. Some states permit voters without ID to confirm their identity through another means, while others do not.
Note: "Strictly enforced" means that, with certain exceptions, a voter who does not present the required ID at the polling place either cannot vote or must take action after leaving the polling place to verify his or her identity in order for the ballot to be counted. The figure depicts state voter ID requirements as of the date of this report. Ongoing litigation in some states may lead to changes in requirements that may not be reflected in the figure. See text. A voter without an ID is permitted other means of identification in Examples of such alternative means of identification include signing an affidavit or providing a nonphoto ID. In some states voters may cast a provisional ballot, and the election office will attempt to confirm identity subsequently by matching information or a signature that is provided by the voter against the information that the office has on file. Georgia and Indiana were the first states to enact strictly enforced photo ID requirements, in 2003 and 2005, respectively. The most recent such requirement is that of North Dakota, enacted in 2015. Oregon and Washington conduct elections entirely by mail. In these two states, election officials mail ballots to all registered voters, who are not required to provide IDs when submitting those ballots. Both states also permit voters to cast a ballot in person during a designated voting period that ends on Election Day. Washington requires either a photo ID or signature declaration for in-person voting. Oregon uses signature verification for both mail-in and in-person ballots.27 Some states in the "strictly enforced" category also provide exceptions or other recourse to a restricted group of voters. For example, Kansas permits voters with religious objection against being photographed to sign a form declaring the objection either in advance or at the polling place.28 Alabama and Missouri permit voters without IDs to cast regular ballots if two election officials at the polling place sign an affidavit attesting to the voter's identity and eligibility.29 The 20 states with ID requirements not categorized as strictly enforced permit ballots to be counted for most or all voters who do not have ID without the need for them to take action after leaving the polling place. For example, in Florida, a voter without an ID must cast a provisional ballot, but it will be counted if the signature on the ballot matches that in the registration record.30 In North Carolina and South Carolina, a voter without a photo ID must cast a provisional ballot along with a declaration of a "reasonable impediment" to obtaining such an ID. In North Carolina, the ballot will be counted when election officials verify the information on the declaration. In South Carolina, it will be counted unless someone presents proof to the election commission that the voter is lying about his or her identity or the impediment.31 Seventeen states with photo ID requirements had them in effect for the federal election in November 2014. Among the four other states that had enacted such requirements before the 2014 election, Wisconsin's went into effect in 2015 and North Carolina's in 2016. Because North Dakota enacted its requirement in 2015, the 2016 federal election will be the first for which it will be in effect. The requirements enacted in Arkansas and Pennsylvania were rejected by state courts. See also the section on "Legal and Constitutional Issues Regarding Voter Photo ID Laws." Some patterns can be discerned from the tables, such as on the kinds of IDs accepted, application to mail-in and absentee voting, and the recourse voters have if they do not have an accepted ID. The discussion below illustrates both commonalities and the complexity of variation among state requirements. There is a common set of IDs accepted by most or all states. All states accept driver's licenses or nondriver IDs issued by that state. All but one state (North Dakota) will accept a U.S. passport or other federal photo ID, although some states stipulate that a voter produce an ID showing the voter's address (e.g., Arizona, Ohio), in which case a second ID might be necessary. Other IDs are specified as acceptable by several states. For example, tribal IDs are explicitly mentioned by 16 states. Overall, while the requirements in some states, such as Alabama and Mississippi, appear to be similar overall, no two states have clearly identical requirements. The ID requirements for polling-place voters apply to those voting by absentee or mail-in ballots in eight states (Alabama, Alaska, Kansas, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, Virginia, and Wisconsin). Three of those (Alaska, Ohio, and South Dakota) do not have strictly enforced voter ID requirements. Eight states with strictly enforced requirements do not extend them to absentee voters (Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Tennessee, Texas, and Utah). Three of those (Arizona, Georgia, and Utah) do not require voters to provide a reason when applying to vote absentee. Among the states with voter ID requirements for absentee voting, notable exceptions occur in two: North Dakota permits absentee voters who do not have approved IDs to have their identities attested to by other qualified voters.34 In Virginia, this ID requirement pertains only to those applying in person for an absentee ballot.35 See also "Impacts on Turnout and Voter Fraud." In 9 of the 10 states with strictly enforced photo ID requirements, (Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Mississippi, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin), a voter who does not have the required photo ID may cast a provisional ballot that will be counted if the voter presents an accepted ID to election officials within a specified period after the election. North Dakota does not provide such an option.36 Two states (Kansas and Virginia) specify that a voter can provide the ID via mail or other designated means rather than in person. Five of the photo ID states where the requirement is not strictly enforced permit a voter without ID to cast a regular ballot after signing an affidavit (Idaho, Louisiana, Michigan, New Hampshire, and South Dakota). The other five permit the voter to cast a provisional ballot, which will be counted after confirmation of a signature match (Florida and Washington) or information provided in an affidavit (North Carolina, Rhode Island, and South Carolina). The voter's eligibility may be challengeable or subject to subsequent investigation to verify eligibility. Missouri's requirement does not contain such an option. A voter without ID can cast a ballot only if two supervising election judges at the polling place who are from different major political parties sign an affidavit attesting to the voter's identity. No data were available on the frequency of such attestations, but they would seem unlikely except for polling places in small, tight-knit communities where most voters would be known to the pollworkers. That suggests that among the nonphoto ID states, Missouri's requirements are most similar to those of North Dakota, which has a strictly enforced photo ID requirement.37 Among the 11 states with strictly enforced ID requirements permitting subsequent verification of identity, the time period within which verification must occur varies. It might be a specified day or number of days after the election—ranging from 2 to 10 days—or before a meeting of election officials or county certification of the election, or by a deadline to be provided to the voter at the polling place. Ohio permits a voter who cannot present identifying information at the polling place to present it within 7 days to the election office. State voter photo ID laws have been the subject of litigation. (While nonphoto ID laws have also been challenged, this section focuses on legal issues relating to the generally stricter voter photo ID laws.) These laws have been challenged under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA),39 and state constitutional provisions. Such challenges have drawn attention in view of a 2008 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, discussed below, that upheld the constitutionality of an Indiana voter photo ID law. Challenges under Section 2 of the VRA are also notable because in the past, Section 2 has generally been invoked in the context of redistricting.40 Section 2 of the VRA provides a right of action for private citizens or the government to challenge discriminatory voting practices or procedures. The law prohibits any voting qualification or practice by any state or political subdivision that results in the denial or abridgement of the right to vote based on race, color, or membership in a language minority.41 The statute further provides that a violation is established if, based on the totality of circumstances, electoral processes are not equally open to participation by members of a racial or language minority group in that its members have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to elect representatives of their choice.42 Until the final weeks and months preceding the November 2014 election, due to ongoing appeals, the question of whether some state voter ID laws would be in effect was unknown. Likewise, in the midst of the 2016 presidential election cycle, there is ongoing litigation challenging certain laws.43 As a result, it is unclear whether, and to what degree, some state voter ID laws will be in effect for the November general election. This section of the report analyzes challenges to voter photo ID laws under the Fourteenth Amendment and Section 2 of the VRA, specifically addressing, by way of example, pending litigation in Texas and Wisconsin; provides an overview of a challenge to a voter photo ID law under a state constitutional provision; and finally, discusses some potential implications of these challenges.Some of the 18 photo ID states strictly enforce the photo ID requirement—the voter cannot cast a regular ballot in person without providing a required ID—while others require a photo ID but will allow a voter without one to verify his or her identity by some other means. Of the 18 states with a photo ID requirement, 10 permit an individual to vote after signing an affidavit, by providing certain information to an election official, or if the voter's signature can be subsequently matched to one that is on file (Alabama, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Louisiana, Michigan, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, South Dakota, and Washington). The voter's eligibility may be challengeable or subject to subsequent investigation to verify eligibility. In the other eight states (Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Mississippi, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia), a voter who does not have the required photo ID may be eligible to cast a provisional ballot that will be counted if the voter provides an accepted ID after the election. To illustrate differences in state laws, in Louisiana, a voter must sign an affidavit and present other identification information (a utility bill, payroll check, or government document with the voter's name and address) to an election official, and may be subject to challenge. In Indiana, a voter who lacks the required photo ID. The response was about evenly split, with a few percent more stating they thought vote fraud was more of a concern. can cast a provisional ballot that will be counted if the voter appears at the county elections office by noon on the Monday after the election and either brings the required ID or signs an affidavit affirming indigence or religious objection to being photographed.
Georgia and Indiana were the first states to enact photo ID requirements in 2003 and 2005, respectively, and both strictly enforce the photo ID requirement. Georgia provides free photo ID to any voter and both states make allowances for voters with expired photo ID.
Table 2 includes information on states that require a voter to provide some form of identification that does not need to contain a photograph, which can include such documents as a voter registration card, birth certificate, tribal identification, vehicle registration or insurance card, employee ID, utility bill, paycheck, Social Security card, student ID, hunting or fishing license, and many others. In most of these states, a voter who does not produce an approved identification may cast a provisional ballot that will be counted if the voter signs an affidavit, the voter's eligibility can be verified by election officials, or the voter's signature is subsequently matched to a signature on file.
Leading up to the 2014 midterm election, state voter photo identification (ID) laws were challenged17 under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA),18 and state constitutional provisions. In some instances, due to ongoing appeals, the question of whether a particular state voter ID law would be in effect was resolved only in the final months or weeks preceding the November 4 election. In view of a 2008 Supreme Court ruling that upheld the constitutionality under the Fourteenth Amendment of a voter photo ID law, such challenges have drawn attention. They are also notable because of their application of Section 2 of the VRA, which has generally been invoked in the context of redistricting plans, at-large elections, and felony disenfranchisement laws.
In April 2014, a federal district court enjoined a Wisconsin voter photo ID law finding that it violated both the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Section 2 of the VRA.19 In September, the U.S. Court Appeals for the 7th Circuit issued a stay of the district court's injunction, but in October, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the appellate court ruling and ordered that immediate implementation of the Wisconsin voter ID law be stopped, pending a petition for certiorari. If the petition is denied, the Supreme Court's order will automatically terminate; if it is granted, the order will terminate upon a judgment by the Court. Accordingly, the law was not in effect for the November 4 election.
In its 2008 ruling, Crawford v. Marion County Election Board,20 the Supreme Court upheld an Indiana voter photo ID law against a facial challenge under the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Indiana law requires voters to present a photo identification card issued by the government.21 Although a45
A majority of the Court in Crawford did not agree on a rationale for upholding the voter photo ID law, the. The lead opinion found that although the voter photo ID law imposes a "somewhat heavier burden" on a "limited number" of people, the severity of that burden is mitigated by the fact that eligible voters may cast provisional ballots that will ultimately be counted.2246 Moreover, the opinion reasoned, even if the burden cannot be justified as to a few voters, that fact would be insufficient to require the relief sought by the petitioners in Crawford, which was to invalidate the voter photo ID law in allall its applications. The47
In conclusion, the lead opinion concludeddetermined that Indiana's voter photo ID law imposed only a "limited burden" on voting rights that is justified by the state interest in protecting election integrity.2348 Notably, the opinion announced that if a law is nondiscriminatory, and supported by valid, neutral justifications, then those justifications should not be disregarded merely because partisan interests might have provided one motivation for the law's enactment.24
Litigation challenging a number of state voter photo ID laws has occurred, or is currently ongoing, in the lower courts.50 By way of example, this report discusses specific pending cases in Wisconsin, where the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit upheld a voter photo ID law against claims that it violates the Fourteenth Amendment and Section 2 of the VRA; and in Texas, where the Fifth Circuit held that a voter photo ID law violates Section 2 of the VRA.In 2011, Wisconsin enacted "Act 23,"25 which required residents to present one of nine forms of photo ID in order to vote. The law further providedsuch justifications are still relevant to consider even if one of the legislature's motivations in enacting the law was to pursue partisan political interests.49
Lower Court Rulings
Wisconsin
In 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed a lower court ruling,51 and upheld a Wisconsin voter photo ID law against claims that it violates the Fourteenth Amendment and Section 2 of the VRA.52 As the lower court observed, the Wisconsin law required residents to present one of nine forms of photo ID in order to vote, and that individuals seeking a qualifying photo ID could apply for a state ID card at the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) for a fee of $18.00, which could be waived for applicants who are citizens; will be 18 years of age on the date of the next election; and request that the card be issued without charge for voting purposes.53 In addition, the court noted that the law provided that In addition, in order to obtain a state ID card, the law required an applicantan applicant was required to present certain primary identification documentsdocuments of identification, appear at a DMV service center to submit an application, and be photographed.
Regarding Section 2 of the VRA, the Seventh Circuit found that despite having a disparate outcome on minority voters, the voter ID law did not result in the "denial" of the right to vote based on race, color, or membership in a language minority.60 Section 2 does not prohibit a voting practice, the court observed, just because it has a disparate effect on minorities. Instead, the court pointed out that Section 2 requires examining the "totality of circumstances" to determine if the political processes leading to nomination or election in the state are not equally open to participation by minorities in that its members have "less opportunity" than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process.61 The appellate court observed that the lower court in this case did not determine that African-American or Latino voters have less opportunity than whites to obtain photo IDs, but instead, "the judge found that, because they have lower income, these groups are less likely to use that opportunity. And that does not violate §2."62 Accordingly, the Court of Appeals held that the Wisconsin law did not violate Section 2.63
After the Supreme Court in 2015 declined to review the Seventh Circuit ruling, one of the two sets of plaintiffs in this litigation petitioned the district court to consider issues not previously resolved.64 In response, the district court rejected on the merits the plaintiffs' contention that the Wisconsin law violated the Equal Protection Clause because it did not accept veterans' ID cards.65 (Shortly thereafter, the Wisconsin legislature amended the law to require election officials to accept veterans' ID cards.66) The district court, however, declined to address the plaintiffs' principal argument that some qualified voters are entitled to relief because it is difficult for them to obtain an acceptable photo ID, and ruled that this issue was resolved by the Seventh Circuit in 2014.67 Plaintiffs appealed this portion of the district court's decision.
As of the date of this report, litigation in this case is ongoing. In April 2016, the Seventh Circuit vacated the portion of the district court's ruling concerning veterans' IDs, and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss that aspect of the litigation as moot.68 Further, the Seventh Circuit vacated the remainder of the district court's decision on procedural issues, and remanded the case for proceedings consistent with the court's opinion.69 Most recently, on July 19, 2016, the district court granted the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, ordering the state of Wisconsin to permit voters at the November 8 general election, who do not possess the requisite ID and who cannot obtain one with "reasonable effort," to receive a ballot by executing an affidavit to that effect.70 The court found that although most Wisconsin voters possess the requisite ID, or can easily obtain such ID, a "safety net" is necessary for those voters who are unable to do so.71 On July 22, the state of Wisconsin appealed the preliminary injunction to the Seventh Circuit, and sought a stay of the district court's order.72
On the other hand, a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held in 2015 that a Texas voter photo ID law violates Section 2 of the VRA.73 The Texas law requires residents to present one of several forms of photo identification in order to vote, including (1) a Texas driver's license or personal identification card issued by the Department of Public Safety (DPS) that has not been expired for more than 60 days; (2) a U.S. military identification card with a photograph that has not been expired for more than 60 days; (3) a U.S. citizenship certificate with a photo; (4) a U.S. passport that has not been expired for more than 60 days; (5) a license to carry a concealed handgun issued by DPS that has not been expired for more than 60 days; or (6) an Election Identification Certificate issued by DPS that has not been expired for more than 60 days.74
In a narrow yet notable ruling, among other holdings, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's determination that the Texas voter photo ID law has a discriminatory effect in violation of Section 2 of the VRA.75 Citing Supreme Court precedent, the court observed that unlike discrimination claims brought under the Fourteenth Amendment, violations of Section 2 of the VRA can be proved only by showing that a law has a discriminatory effect.76 Furthermore, to satisfy this "results test," plaintiffs must not only demonstrate that the challenged law imposes a burden on minority voters, but that it "interacts with social and historical conditions to cause an inequality in the opportunities enjoyed by black and white voters to elect their preferred representatives."77 In evaluating the district court's analysis, the Fifth Circuit determined that the lower court did not clearly err in its determination that the Texas law acted "in concert with current and historical conditions of discrimination" to diminish the ability of African-Americans and Hispanics to participate in the political process.78 The Fifth Circuit found that the district court properly delineated each step of its analysis in concluding that (1) the Texas law specifically burdens residents of the state living in poverty, who are less likely to possess the required ID, are less able to obtain it, and who may not otherwise need it; (2) a disproportionate number of Texans living in poverty are African-Americans and Hispanics; and (3) as a result of the socioeconomic effects caused by decades of racial discrimination, African-Americans and Hispanics are more likely than whites to be living in poverty.79 The court remanded the case for consideration of a remedy.
As of the date of this report, litigation in this case continues. On March 9, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ordered this case to be reheard by the court en banc, that is, by the full court, which occurred on May 24.80 On April 29, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an order denying a request to stay the Texas law, while also acknowledging the "time constraints the parties confront" in view of the upcoming November 2016 election.81 Accordingly, the Court ordered that if on or before July 20, 2016, the court of appeals has neither issued an opinion on the merits nor issued an order vacating or modifying the current stay order, an aggrieved party may seek interim relief from the Supreme Court.82 On July 20, issuing a plurality opinion, a divided en banc panel of the Fifth Circuit held that the Texas voter ID law has a discriminatory effect on minorities' voting rights and therefore, violates Section 2 of the VRA.83 The court also held that the indirect cost on voters who were not born in Texas to obtain an ID was not the equivalent of a poll tax.84 Accordingly, the court remanded the case to the district court for consideration of an appropriate remedy in view of the November 8 general election.85
State Constitutional Qualifications Beyond challenges under the U.S. Constitution or federal law, challenges to voter photo ID laws may also arise under state constitutional provisions. For example, similar to certain other state constitutions, the Arkansas Constitution sets forth qualifications for voters.86 Based on that constitutional provision, less than three weeks prior to the November 2014 election, the Arkansas Supreme Court invalidated a voter photo ID law.87In Frank v. Walker,26 a federal district court determined that the Wisconsin photo ID law violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it imposes a substantial, yet unjustified, burden on many eligible voters who do not possess the requisite photo ID. In Frank, the court reasoned that because a majority of the Supreme Court in Crawford agreed that a photo ID requirement is appropriately evaluated under the "Anderson/Burdick"27 balancing test (referencing Court decisions dating back to 1983 and 1992, respectively) for equal protection purposes, Act 23 should likewise be evaluated. However, the court found that a majority of the Justices in Crawford could not agree on how to apply that test. That is, while the court observed that a majority in Crawford agreed that, in applying Anderson/Burdick, the state's interests justified the photo ID law's burdens on all voters, it did not answer the further constitutional question as to whether the law could be invalidated based on the burdens it imposes on a subgroup of voters. Therefore, the court concluded that Crawford was not precedential on that question, and reverted to applying the Anderson/Burdick balancing test in order to answer it. According to the district court's interpretation of Anderson/Burdick, it requires invalidation of a law "when the state interests are insufficient to justify the burdens the law imposes on subgroups of voters."28 In applying that test, the court first identified that the state's justifications for the law were not supported by the evidence. In particular, the court found that virtually no voter impersonation occurs in the state. The court also found that not only does the voter ID law fail to further the state's interest in promoting confidence in the electoral process, but there is evidence to suggest that it affirmatively undermines such confidence by creating the false perception that voter impersonation fraud is widespread. At the same time, the court found that Act 23 imposed a unique burden on the 9%, or 300,000, of Wisconsin registered voters who would need to obtain an ID exclusively for voting, a substantial number of whom are low-income individuals, and who would be deterred or prevented from voting. In weighing the burdens against the state interests, the court concluded that "it is absolutely clear that Act 23 will prevent more legitimate votes from being cast than fraudulent votes."29 Accordingly, the court held that the burdens imposed by Act 23 on the subgroup of voters who lack the requisite ID are not outweighed by the state's justifications, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The lower court also found that Act 23 violates Section 2 of the VRA.30 Section 2 provides a right of action for private citizens or the government to challenge discriminatory voting practices or procedures. Specifically, it prohibits any voting qualification or practice that results in the denial or abridgement of the right to vote based on race, color, or membership in a language minority. The statute further provides that a violation is established if, "based on the totality of circumstances, it is shown that the political processes leading to nomination or election in the State or political subdivision are not equally open to participation by [members of a racial or language minority group] in that its members have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political processes and to elect representatives of their choice."31 After acknowledging that Section 2 case law has generally been limited to the context of evaluating redistricting plans, at-large elections, and felony disenfranchisement laws and therefore was of limited utility, the court focused on the language of the statute. In the context of the photo ID law, the court found that Section 2 "protects against a voting practice that creates a barrier to voting that is more likely to appear in the path of a voter if that voter is a member of a minority group than if he or she is not."32 Referencing evidence at trial showing that minorities are less likely than whites to possess qualifying ID, the court concluded that "the photo ID requirement results in the denial or abridgment of the right of Black and Latino citizens to vote on account of race or color," in violation of Section 2.
Reversing the district court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit ruled that the lower court's findings did not justify an outcome different from the Supreme Court's ruling in Crawford.33 In Crawford, the 7th Circuit observed, the opinion concluded that the prevention of voter impersonation, and the preservation of public confidence in the integrity of elections, justify a photo ID requirement, despite the fact that persons without government-issued photo IDs must spend time to acquire the necessary documentation, such as birth certificates. The Crawford opinion found that for most voters, the inconvenience of obtaining a photo ID does not constitute a substantial burden on the right to vote or even impose a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting. The 7th Circuit concluded that those observations were equally true in Wisconsin, as they were in Indiana. While conceding that the Wisconsin voter ID law differs from the Indiana law upheld by the Supreme Court, the 7th Circuit found that those differences did not matter under the Crawford analysis. For example, while acceptable documentation under the Wisconsin law (drivers' licenses, Wisconsin state ID cards, passports, military ID of persons in active service, recent naturalization papers, photo ID issued by a recognized Indian tribe, or signed photo ID issued by a college or university) omits some documents that the Indiana law accepts, it also includes some documentation that the Indiana law omits. The court concluded that such differences were not sufficient enough to establish that the burden of voting in Wisconsin is significantly different from the burden in Indiana.34
Regarding Section 2 of the VRA, the 7th Circuit found that although the voter ID law had a disparate outcome on minority voters, the law did not result in the "denial" of the right to vote based on race, color, or membership in a language minority as Section 2 requires. Unless the voter ID law makes it needlessly difficult to obtain a photo ID, it has not denied anything to any voter, the court concluded. The appellate court observed that the district court did not find that differences in economic circumstances are attributable to discrimination by the state of Wisconsin. Instead, the district court reasoned that minority voters are disproportionately likely to lack the requisite ID because they are disproportionately likely to live in poverty, resulting from discrimination in education, employment, and housing. The district court did not conclude that Wisconsin had discriminated in any of these respects, which was important, the 7th Circuit concluded, because Section 2(a) of the VRA forbids discrimination by race or color, but does not require states to overcome societal effects of private discrimination that affect the income or wealth of potential voters.35 Furthermore, Section 2(b) of the VRA clarifies that violations are established if, based on a totality of the circumstances, it is shown that the political processes leading to nomination or election in the state or political subdivision are not equally open to participation by members of the protected class of citizens in that its members have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process. The Wisconsin voter ID law does not draw any line by race, the 7th Circuit found, and the district court did not determine that African Americans or Latinos have less opportunity than whites to get photo IDs. Instead the lower court found that due to economic disparities, these groups are less likely to use that opportunity, which the appellate court concluded does not violate Section 2. Act 23 extends to every citizen an equal opportunity to get a photo ID, the 7th Circuit concluded.36
In Arkansas, less than three weeks prior to the November 4 election, the highest state court invalidated a voter photo ID law. On October 14, 2014, the Arkansas Supreme Court held that a voter photo ID law violated the state constitution.37 According to the court, the framers of the constitutional provision intended that only the four listed voter qualifications be required,38 According to the court, the framers of the constitutional provision intended that only the four listed voter qualifications be required, and nothing further. The court found that if it upheldupholding the voter ID law, it would disenfranchise Arkansas voters, and negate the intent of the framers of the state constitution.88
The question of whether voter photo ID laws comply with the U.S. Constitution, the VRA, and state constitutional provisions continues to unfold. Further litigationLitigation in this area is expectedongoing, and it is unclear how courts in other jurisdictions or appellatevarious courts will rule. Although the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of a statean Indiana voter photo ID law in 2008, courts might find other state laws distinguishable. Furthermore, as case law regarding Section 2 of the VRA has primarily been limited to redistricting plans, at-large elections, and felony disenfranchisement laws, it is unclear how case law applying the VRA in the context of voter ID laws will develop.
Most notably, case law addressing the question of whether voter photo ID laws violate Section 2 of the VRA is just beginning to develop. In the past, litigation under Section 2 of the VRA was generally invoked in the context of redistricting. Therefore, it is unclear how case law applying Section 2 of the VRA to voter photo ID laws will evolve, and whether the U.S. Supreme Court will ultimately consider this issue.
Implementation Issues and Policy ConsiderationsSeveral issues may arise in the application of voter ID requirements. Among them are these:
Election administration changes have the potential to introduce a degree of uncertainty in the voting process simply because they involve new procedures. ThisThat is especially true in the first election for which they are implemented. Some states, such as Florida, Georgia, Indiana, and Michigan, have had photo ID requirements in effect for two or more presidential elections. In 10 others (Alabama, Mississippi, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin), the November 2016 election will mark the first time the current requirements will be in effect in a presidential election.89 In addition, lawsuits that could affect voter ID requirements for that election have been filed in some states.90
The administration of federal elections by state and local jurisdictions is a complex, interconnected process, in which steps taken to address potential problems at any pointchanges to any part may have both expected and unexpected effects, not only on the problem being addressedwhat those changes affect directly, but on other parts of the process, and on individual voters, as well. Implementing such changes may reduce the resources available for other tasks before the election, or may have unforeseen effects that would require correction. It may therefore be advantageous for policymakers to provide to have as much time as possible to implement changes to voting proceduresfor implementation, so that election officials, poll workerspollworkers, and voters have time to adjust.
Some changes Other issues that could arise because of new photo ID laws include the potential for long lines and the possibility that pollworkers could misapply the rules. Long lines may develop in high-turnout elections, such as presidential ones, if new check-in procedures require each voter to present an ID. Voters who are unaware of such new requirements and those who do not have an acceptable ID may cause delays and complications if they need to execute affidavit votes or cast provisional ballots. Finally, there is the possibility that some pollworkers will not be sufficiently trained to know which IDs are acceptable (particularly in states that accept a range of federal, state, and other IDs), which voters, if any, are exempt from the requirement,91 the procedures to be followed if a voter lacks the proper ID, and how to interpret an ID photograph, especially if the voter has changed in appearance in some way, such as hair color or facial hair. Pollworker training is one of several kinds of costs that state and local governments may incur in implementing voter ID requirements.92 Such considerations suggest that implementation of new or newly modified voter ID requirements could increase the risk of polling-place problems, but that such risks can be mitigated through administrative preparation, training of pollworkers, and timely education of voters. According to survey data, most local election officials believe that pollworker training and voter education can be important factors in preventing problems at the polling place, and many have said there is a need for improvement.93 While no systematic studies were available for this report on the effects of changes in election procedures, examples can be found where problems are attributed to such changes.94 Even after implementation issues have been addressed, the wide variation in voter ID requirements among the states may create difficulties for voters who move to a different state. Census data suggest that 8-10% of the U.S. population relocates to another state approximately every five years.95 In 2014, about 2.3% (7.3 million people) moved to a new state, with about 1.5% (4.5 million people) moving to a state with a different class of voter ID requirement (e.g., photo ID to nonphoto ID, no ID to photo ID).96 affect a limited number of voters, such as changing, such as moving the location of an individual polling place or introducing new voting equipment in a jurisdiction, while others affect all the voters in the state, affect a limited number of voters. Others, such as changing voter registrationvoting systems or identification procedures. In both cases, election, may affect all the voters in the state. Election officials may be required to educate the voting public about the changes and make the necessary adjustments to poll workerpollworker training and procedures before the election to insureensure a smooth transitionimplementation on Election Day. Voters need to understand the changes and undertake actionsmay need to undertake actions, such as obtaining an ID, to insure that they do not jeopardize their ability to cast a ballot.
to insure that they do not jeopardize their ability to cast a ballot.
There is no universal votingvoter ID that is used in the United States (including the voter registration card, which is mostly used to provide information for the voter rather than for identification).97 Acceptable forms of identification differ by state and may be obtained from different agencies or entities within each state. agencies or other entities that vary among the states.
Voters who possess one of the acceptable IDs need not take any action except to bring it with them to the polling place.
In states with stringent ID requirements, voters who do not have an acceptable ID must secure one in order to cast a ballot. Sometimes the voter must obtain another document first, such as a birth certificate, as proof required for the voter ID.39 It is also possible that a voter may possess an approved ID that does not match the information in the voter's registration record, for example because of a recent name change due to marriage or divorce, which would require the voter to rectify the discrepancy.
Other issues that could arise because of new photo ID laws concern the use of provisional ballots, the potential for long lines, and the possibility that poll workers could misapply the new rules. Voters who do not have an accepted ID may cast a provisional ballot. In states that have a stringent ID law, the voter will need to present required documentation at the county election office within a specified time period for the provisional ballot to be counted. Long lines may develop in high-turnout elections, such as presidential ones, if new check-in procedures require each voter to present an ID. Voters who are unaware of such new requirements and those who do not have an acceptable ID may cause delays and complications if they need to execute affidavit votes or cast provisional ballots. Finally, there is the possibility that some poll workers will not be sufficiently trained to know which IDs are acceptable (particularly in states that accept a range of federal, state, and other IDs), which voters, if any, are exempt from the requirement,40 the procedures to be followed if a voter lacks the proper ID, and how to interpret an ID photograph, especially if the voter has changed in appearance in some way, such as hair color or facial hair.
In several studies published between 2007 and 2013 for five states, and one nationwide study from 2013, the percentage of registered voters with valid ID ranged from 80% to 95%.99 Some of the studies found that the percentage of voters with IDs was lower for some minority groups or for voters without regular access to vehicular transportation.100 In the 13 states with strictly enforced ID requirements, voters who do not have an acceptable ID must secure one in order to cast a ballot. All 10 states with strictly enforced photo ID requirements as well as some others provide free IDs to voters who qualify. It is not only the kinds of IDs accepted that may affect a voter's ability to cast a ballot, but also the kinds of information required to obtain an accepted ID. The voter may need to obtain one or more other documents first—such as a birth certificate, government-issued ID, or proof of residence such as a current utility bill—to apply successfully for a voter ID.101 The documents required vary among the states, may have associated costs, and may be difficult to obtain for some eligible voters.102 For example, in Texas, a voter applying for a free voter ID may have to provide an original or certified copy of the voter's birth certificate plus two additional forms of identification.103 Whether such costs and other factors, such as difficulty in obtaining supporting documents, place an inappropriate burden on some voters, especially those who are poor, elderly, or members of minority groups, has been a subject of debate for several years.104 In states with strictly enforced voter ID requirements, except Missouri and North Dakota, voters who do not bring an accepted ID to the polling place may cast a provisional ballot. Such voters need to present required documentation at the county election office within a specified time period for the provisional ballot to be counted. One study found that in two states, Kansas and Tennessee, in the 2012 election, fewer than one in a thousand voters cast a provisional ballot because of ID problems, with fewer than half of those being counted.105 No information was available for this report on the application and impacts of that requirement in other states, however. The term turnout refers in this report to the number of voters or the proportion of the electorate that votes in a given election. Definitions of the term voter fraud vary.106 Herein, the term comprises voter impersonation and illicit voter registration—namely, illegal activities that voter ID might potentially help to reduce. It does not include other electoral crimes such as vote buying.107 Whatever their individual views on voter ID or other voting requirements, most observers would probably agree on these two goals: Whatever their individual views on photo ID or other voting requirements, most observers would probably agree on these two goals: (1) that all eligible voters should have equal opportunity to cast a ballot, and (2) that all However, it is also possible that a voter may possess an approved ID that does not match the information in the voter's registration record, for example because of a recent name change due to marriage or divorce, which would require the voter to rectify the discrepancy. Or the ID might be of a type that is accepted, such as a tribal ID, but does not have information that may be required under state law, such as an address and date of birth.98
boththey are sometimes thought of as conflicting. ItOn the one hand, it may be reasonable to suppose that the more focus is placed on providing access to the ballot box for all eligible voters, the greater the risk that people who do not meet the criteria for eligibility—for example by reason of non-citizenship, non-residencenoncitizenship, nonresidence, or criminal history—will be improperly included on the voter rolls, or succeed in voting despite not being on the rolls. It may also be reasonable to suppose that the more focus is placed on preventing fraud and abuse, the greater the risk that people who do meet the fundamental criteria for eligibility will be improperly excluded from the voter rolls, or not succeed in voting despite being on the rolls.41
It could be that the apparent conflict is in fact a false one—for example, changes to the election process aimed at increasing access or at decreasing fraud might not have significant effects on actual access and fraud—or that the impact of any particular measure that seems likely to be effective is in fact minimal. No broad consensus has emerged on how to interpret the data that exist.42 That uncertainty is not surprising, given both the complexities of the election process and the difficulties of collecting data about it that are amenable to scientific analysis.43
The lack of data may also explain the somewhat paradoxical views of election officials on voter photo ID. Two scientific surveys of local election officials in 2006 and 2008 found that on average they supported a photo ID requirement but believed it would have a negative effect on turnout. They also believed it would increase election security even though they found voter fraud uncommon and not a serious problem in their jurisdictions.44
Also, once a voter is registered, it may be reasonable to suppose that the less stringent the identification requirements at the polling place, the greater the risk that someone might successfully impersonate a legitimately registered voter either at the polling place or on an absentee or mail-in ballot.108 Voter ID laws would appear to be best suited to preventing voter impersonation rather than illicit registration. Some observers might argue, however, that voter ID requirements can serve as an additional line of defense against illicit or erroneous voter registration. On the other hand, it may also be reasonable to suppose that the more focus is placed on preventing fraud and abuse, the greater the risk that people who do meet the fundamental criteria for eligibility will be improperly excluded from the voter rolls, or not succeed in voting despite being on the rolls. Such concerns have been raised especially for specific demographic groups such as elderly, poor, and minority voters.109 Some observers have proposed solutions that might reduce the risk of such a conflict, for example, by placing digital photographs of registered voters in electronic pollbooks, thereby eliminating the need for most voters to present separate identification documents.110 It could be that the apparent conflict is in fact a false one—for example, changes to the election process aimed at increasing access or at decreasing fraud might not have significant effects on actual access and fraud—or that the impact of any particular measure that seems likely to be effective is in fact minimal. Some observers argue that examples of voter fraud at the polling place are rare.111 Some also claim that voter fraud is much more of a risk with absentee and mail-in voting than at the polling place.112 Among the 33 states with voter ID requirements, 8 apply those requirements to voters casting absentee or mail-in ballots. However, there does not appear to be sufficient information available to determine the degree to which more broadly applied ID requirements for absentee and mail-in voting would reduce the risk of fraud or how they would affect turnout. In general, no broad consensus has emerged on how to interpret the data on voter fraud that exist.113 That uncertainty is not surprising, given the complexities of the election process, the difficulties of collecting data about it that are amenable to scientific analysis, the difficulty of controlling for the effects of various factors other than voter ID requirements, the relative recency of ID requirements in several states, variation among states in the stringency of the requirements, and other factors.114 In addition, as with many aspects of election administration, the impact of any effect of voter ID requirements on the results of the election will depend on factors such as the closeness of the contest. For example, if the implementation of an ID requirement caused a change in turnout, either a reduction or an increase, of 2%,115 but the margin of victory for a contest was 5%, there would be no effect on the outcome of the election for that contest. In contrast, if the margin of victory were 1%, a 2% reduction in turnout might change the outcome. The observed tendency for some demographic groups to vote more frequently for one major political party than another has raised questions for some commentators about the impacts of voter ID requirements that might affect turnout more for some groups than others.116 However, given the range of results found in various studies, no compelling consensus has yet emerged about the strength or direction of such impacts. The lack of conclusive data may also help explain seemingly paradoxical views of election officials on voter ID. Two scientific surveys of local election officials in 2006 and 2008 found that on average the officials supported a photo ID requirement, but they believed it would have a negative effect on turnout. They also believed it would increase election security, even though they found voter fraud uncommon and not a serious problem in their jurisdictions.117A systematic approach to achieving the two goals discussed above would presumably include a risk analysis of all steps in the election process with respect to each goal. In recent elections, attention has shifted among different points in the process, with voter identification being subject to significant legislative attention since the 2010 election
Given recent state legislative activity on photo ID, and identification requirements generally, it is likely that legislators in the states will continue to consider similar legislation in the future. According to NCSL, 121 identification bills were considered in the states during legislative sessions in 2013 and 2014.45the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), more than 200 voter ID bills were considered in the states during legislative sessions in both the current (2015-2016), and previous (2013-2014) federal election cycles, although that is a significant decrease from the more than 300 bills considered in the preceding cycle (2011-2012).118 Further action in the courts and the Department of Justice should be expected as well on photo ID asvoter ID in response to the several new laws that have recently gone into effect. Finally, the 2014
The 2016 election may provide useful data on the implementation and performance of photovoter ID laws, whichdata that Congress may choose to examine. The impact of voter ID laws in a growing number of states is likely to continue to be a topic of high interest for the foreseeable future.
| 1. |
Interpretation of the requirement may not always be clear-cut. For example, the Kansas requirement does not include an alternative to photo ID for most voters, but it exempts some voters with disabilities, members of the military, and people with religious objections to being photographed. New Mexico requires an ID document, but permits voters who do not have one to vote a regular ballot if they correctly state name, registration address, and year of birth. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2. |
The National Commission on Federal Election Reform, To Assure Pride and Confidence in the Electoral Process, August 2001, at http://web1.millercenter.org/commissions/comm_2001.pdf. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 3. |
Ibid., p. 14. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 4. |
Ibid., p. 31. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 5. |
§303. Under the requirement states must maintain a "single, uniform, official, centralized, interactive computerized statewide voter registration list" that contains the name and registration information of every registered voter in the state and to which every election official, including local officials, may obtain "immediate electronic access to the information contained in the computerized list." The requirement does not apply to states that do not have voter registration (North Dakota). Voters in North Dakota must provide an acceptable ID (driver's license; passport; tribal, military, or student ID; a current utility bill; or a USPS verification of a change of address form) or be vouched for by a pollworker in order to vote. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 6. |
§303 (b). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 7. |
§304. The statutes referred to in §906 are the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act, the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act, the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 8. |
The vote was 228-196 in favor of the bill. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 9. |
Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, "Democrats Hold Double-Digit Lead in Competitive Districts," October 26, 2006, at http://www.people-press.org/2006/10/26/democrats-hold-double-digit-lead-in-competitive-districts/. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 10. |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 11. |
Washington Post Poll, "Fear of Voter Suppression High, Fear of Voter Fraud Higher," August 13, 2012, at http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/polling/voter-identification-laws-washington-post-poll/2012/08/13/13829cb0-e419-11e1-89f7-76e23a982d06_page.html. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 12. |
Available at http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/voter-id.aspx#Laws%20in%20Effect. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 13. |
Under current law, Arkansas pollworkers ask each voter for some form of identification, but a voter who does not have it is permitted to vote a regular ballot. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 14. |
Louisiana Secretary of State website, at http://www.sos.la.gov/tabid/457/Default.aspx. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 15. |
The name does not need to be identical to the registration record. Indiana Secretary of State website, at http://www.in.gov/sos/elections/2401.htm. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 16. |
This portion of the report was written by [author name scrubbed], Legislative Attorney. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 17. |
For further discussion, see CRS Legal Sidebar WSLG1080, UPDATED: As Midterm Election Approaches, State Election Laws Challenged, by [author name scrubbed]. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 18. | In any case, voter ID is likely to continue to be a topic of significant interest well beyond the November 2016 election. The tables briefly summarize the major requirements for each state, describing Specific types of accepted IDs (e.g., passport) are listed in the tables if they are specified in state law or guidance. A glossary of summary terms and abbreviations in the table (in addition to postal abbreviations, used for all states except Idaho) is below: DL a state driver's license DMV the state agency that issues driver's licenses and nondriver IDs, and that may issue other forms of ID in some states, such as Texas DOB date of birth DVA U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Federal issued by the U.S. government ID identification document IHE a post-secondary institution of higher education, such as a college or university Passport U.S. passport State issued by a state government agency any any ID card of the specified class (e.g., "State: RI, any" means any photo ID issued by the state of Rhode Island). In both tables, states with names in italics (e.g., Alabama) are categorized in this report as having a strictly enforced voter ID requirement.120 The states with names not in italics (e.g., Florida) are categorized as not having a strictly enforced requirement. State Exceptions Comments Alabama X Florida Provisional ballot, counted if validated by signature matching. Georgia Provisional ballot, counted if, within 3 days after the election, voter presents ID at county election office. Idaho State: Idaho, DMV-issued Student: Idaho high school or state-accredited IHE Tribal Voter must complete and sign affidavit, which must be accurate under penalty of law. Enacted 2010. Indiana Provisional ballot counted if, by noon 10 days following the election, voter, at county election office, presents ID or signs an affidavit declaring indigence or religious objection to being photographed. Kansas X Louisiana Voter must sign affidavit that includes DOB and mother's maiden name, and is subject to challenge. Michigan Voter must sign affidavit and is subject to challenge. Mississippi Religious objection to being photographed. Affidavit (provisional) ballot, counted if, within five days following the election, voter presents ID at county election office; a voter with a religious objection to being photographed must execute an affidavit at county election office within five days following the election. New Hampshire Other: as determined by election officials (subject to challenge) For registration, residents of care facilities may use a letter from the administrator rather than a photo ID. North Carolina Tribal: federal or NC North Dakota Tribal Long-term care certificate (nonphoto) issued by ND facility No recourse specified. ND is exempt from the HAVA provisional-ballot requirements. Rhode Island Provisional ballot, counted if provisional ballot application signature matches the voter registration signature. South Carolina Religious objection to being photographed—requires affidavit. South Dakota X Overseas absentee voters Tennessee Indigence or religious objection to being photographed—requires affidavit. Provisional ballot, counted if, by the end of the second business day after the election, voter presents ID to county election officer. Texas State: TX, DMV-issued, including Provisional ballot, counted if, within six calendar days of the election, voter presents to county election office ID or, under penalty of perjury, affidavit declaring religious objection to being photographed, or that lack of ID resulted from declared natural disaster within 45 days of casting of ballot. Virginia Employee: any Tribal: VA recognized Provisional ballot marked "ID-ONLY" and counted if, by noon on third day after the election, voter submits a copy of an accepted ID to the electoral board by facsimile, email, in-person, USPS, or commercial delivery. Wisconsin State: WI DMV-issued Student: WI accredited IHE Tribal: federally recognized in WI X Provisional ballot, counted if voter presents ID to election inspectors before the polls close on election day or to the municipal clerk by 4 pm on the Friday following the election. Washington (Vote-by-Mail State) Provisional ballot, counted if signature on declaration matches signature on voter registration record. State Exceptions Comments Alaska X An election official who knows the voter may waive the requirement. The voter may cast a "questioned" (provisional) ballot, counted if information provided by the voter is verified by review board. Arizona AZ vehicle registration Federal: any Local: any Official election material mailed to voter Provisional ballot, counted if voter ID presented to county recorder by 5 pm on the fifth business day after a federal general election, or 5 pm on the third business day after any other election. Arkansas Government document that shows name and address of voter Pollworker indicates on the precinct voter registration list that the voter did not provide ID and the county election board may review the list and send the information to the prosecuting attorney for possible investigation Pollworker must ask for ID but voter is not required to show it. Colorado Student: CO IHE, with photo Certified birth certificate Certified naturalization document Tribal Verification of residency in group facility or medical confinement Provisional ballot, counted if a designated election official can verify the voter's eligibility. Connecticut ID with name and with address, signature, or photo Voter must sign, under penalty of false statement, a form with voter's address and date of birth attesting identity. Delaware Government: Check or other document with voter's name and address Voter must sign an affidavit affirming identity. Pollworker must ask for ID but voter is not required to show it. Hawaii ID type not specified but must contain voter's signature Voter must state date of birth and residence address. ID to be provided if requested by pollworker. Kentucky Credit card Photo ID with signature Other approved ID Provisional ballot, counted if the county board of elections confirms voter's eligibility. ID not required if voter is known to pollworker. Missouri Bank statement Paycheck Utility bill Government: Check or other document with voter's name and address No provision in state law for permitting a voter who does not present ID to cast a provisional ballot. Montana Photo ID Bank statement Paycheck Utility bill Voter confirmation notice Government: Check or other document with voter's name and address Ohio Bank statement Paycheck Utility bill Government: Check or other document (with voter's name and address X Provisional ballot accompanied by OH DL or ID number, or last four digits of SSN, provided at polling place or at board of elections within 7 days of the election. Except for military ID, documents must include current name and address, government IDs must be unexpired, and other documents must be dated within the past 12 months. Oklahoma State: OK, any photo ID Federal: any photo ID Tribal photo ID County voter registration card Provisional ballot, counted if name, address, DOB, and DL or last four digits of SSN match registration record. Photo IDs must show name and be unexpired. Utah Bank/financial statement Certified birth certificate Certified naturalization document Certified court record with adoption or name change Employer ID Federal or state government check Local government ID Paycheck Student: UT IHE Utility bill Provisional ballot, counted if ID provided subsequently at polling place or at county clerk's office by close of business on the Monday after the election. Notes: The table text is intended to briefly summarize major requirements in each state for purposes of analysis and general comparison and does not constitute a comprehensive description of them. State requirements may change and may be variously interpreted or modified by election jurisdictions and the courts. Oklahoma has a photo ID requirement enacted in 2010, but it permits use of a county voter registration card, which is issued to all voters at registration and is not a photo ID. Therefore, its requirements are described in this table. Author Contact Information Acknowledgments [author name scrubbed], now retired and previously CRS Analyst in Elections, originally served as the lead author of this report. The report was previously updated in November 2014. Voter ID requirements in some states have been subject to litigation that is unresolved as of the date of this report. This update does not attempt to provide a complete summary of such litigation or to cover all policy matters that might be relevant. The authors can provide updates and other information to congressional offices upon request. National Conference of State Legislatures, "History of Voter ID," April 18, 2016, http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/voter-id-history.aspx. Ibid.; Commission on Federal Election Reform, "Building Confidence in U.S. Elections," September 2005, http://www1.american.edu/ia/cfer/report/full_report.pdf. The National Commission on Federal Election Reform, To Assure Pride and Confidence in the Electoral Process, August 2001, at http://web1.millercenter.org/commissions/comm_2001.pdf. Ibid., p. 14. Ibid., p. 31. HAVA is codified at 52 U.S.C. §10101 note et seq. §303(b). NVRA is codified at 52 U.S.C. §20501 et seq. §304. The statutes referred to in §906 are the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act, the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act, the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Commission on Federal Election Reform, "Building Confidence in U.S. Elections." According to this source, 24 states had voter ID requirements in 2005. Ibid. Title II of the act (49 U.S.C. §30301 note) sets out requirements for acceptance by the federal government of state driver's licenses and IDs. The requirements include both information (name, photo, date of birth, gender, ID number, residence address) and features (security, machine readability) to be present on the ID, and standards for minimum information to be provided to obtain the ID (a photo ID or nonphoto ID with full legal name and date of birth, documentation of date of birth, proof of a social security account number or verification of ineligibility, and documentation showing name and residence address). Three of the 20 members dissented (ibid.). Paul Gronke et al., "Voter ID Laws: A View from the Public," Research Paper No. 2015-13 (Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Political Science Department, 2015), http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Papers.cfm?abstract_id=2594290. According to this study, the decrease can be accounted for by a drop in average support by Democrats from 75% in 2006 to 55% in 2014, with support by Republicans remaining near 90% throughout. See "Obtaining an ID." Washington Post Poll, "Fear of Voter Suppression High, Fear of Voter Fraud Higher," August 13, 2012, http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/polling/voter-identification-laws-washington-post-poll/2012/08/13/13829cb0-e419-11e1-89f7-76e23a982d06_page.html. See, for example, Senate debate, Congressional Record, vol. 148, No. 18 (February 27, 2002), pp. S1223-S1232. See, for example, National Conference of State Legislatures, "Voter Verification without ID Documents," May 12, 2016, http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/voter-verification-without-id-documents.aspx. Interpretation of a state's requirement may not always be clear-cut. For example, the Kansas requirement does not include an alternative to photo ID for most voters, but it exempts members of the military and their dependents, people with religious objections to being photographed, and, for absentee voting, voters with permanent disabilities (State of Kansas, Office of the Secretary of State, "Election Standards: Chapter II. Election Administration," July 7, 2014, http://www.sos.ks.gov/forms/elections/election_standards/ChapII-ElecAdmin.pdf). Delaware requires a photo or nonphoto ID, but a voter without one can cast a regular ballot after signing an affidavit affirming the voter's identity (Delaware State Election Commissioner, "Voting in Delaware," September 19, 2012, http://elections.delaware.gov/pubs/Voting%20in%20Delaware.pdf). The specific requirements for the states that do not require an ID from voters are not presented in this report. For more information on the requirements of those states, see National Conference of State Legislatures, "Voter Verification without ID Documents." Information presented in the figure and tables are based on CRS analysis of requirements as described in the following sources: Government Accountability Office, "Elections: State Laws Addressing Voter Registration and Voting on or Before Election Day," GAO-13-90R, (October 4, 2012), http://www.gao.gov/assets/650/649203.pdf; Government Accountability Office, "Elections: Issues Related to State Voter Identification Laws," GAO-14-634, (September 19, 2014), http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-634; Wendy Underhill, "Voter Identification Requirements | Voter ID Laws," National Conference of State Legislatures, April 11, 2016, http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/voter-id.aspx#Laws%20in%20Effect; requirements as described on state election-office websites; wording of provisions in state election statutes. Where differences in information in those sources were identified, the state sources were considered to be the most accurate for purposes of this analysis. In 11 of the 13 states with a strictly enforced requirement, that involves presenting the required information subsequently to election officials, prior to a specified deadline. North Dakota, which does not have a voter registration requirement and is therefore exempt from HAVA's provisional ballot requirement (52 U.S.C. §21082), provides no such option. A voter who does not bring an approved ID to the polling place cannot cast a ballot. That is also the case in Missouri, except if two election officials from different parties attest that they know the voter. All but three of those states (North Dakota, Texas, and Virginia) were listed by the Department of Homeland Security as being in compliance with the REAL ID Act in June 2016 (Department of Homeland Security, "Current Status of States/Territories," June 16, 2016, https://www.dhs.gov/current-status-states-territories). Some observers list Ohio as having a strict voter ID requirements (see, for example, Underhill, "Voter Identification Requirements"). However, the requirement is characterized as not strictly enforced in this report because a voter without ID can cast a regular ballot by providing the number of the voter's driver's license or state ID or the last four digits of the Social Security number (State of Ohio, Office of the Secretary of State, "Frequently Asked Questions About Voter Identification," 2016, http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/elections/Voters/FAQ/ID.aspx). Montana has a similar but not identical requirement (State of Montana, Office of the Secretary of State, "Montana Voter Information," 2016, http://sos.mt.gov/elections/Vote/index.asp#vote). State of Oregon, Office of the Secretary of State, "Laws, Rules, Restrictions and Statistics Governing the Elections Process," 2016, http://sos.oregon.gov/elections/Pages/laws-rules.aspx. See 23 ORS §254.470(8). State of Kansas, Office of the Secretary of State, "Election Standards: Chapter II. Election Administration." State of Alabama, Office of the Secretary of State, "Implementation of Photo Voter Identification Law," October 22, 2013, http://www.sos.alabama.gov/downloads/press/photo-voter-id-rules_FINAL.pdf; State of Missouri, Office of the Secretary of State, "How to Vote," 2016, http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/goVoteMissouri/howtovote. In Missouri, the two officials must be "supervising election judges, one from each major political party." Alabama also provides that a voter can cast a provisional ballot and present an ID subsequently; Missouri does not. Florida Department of State, Division of Elections, "Election Day Voting," 2016, http://dos.myflorida.com/elections/for-voters/voting/election-day-voting/#voting. North Carolina State Board of Elections, "Exceptions," Voter ID, 2016, http://voterid.nc.gov/exceptions.html; South Carolina State Election Commission, "Photo ID Requirements," SCVotes.org, September 24, 2012, http://www.scvotes.org/2012/09/24/photo_id_requirements. Typically, IDs are available without charge only to registered voters who do not already have an accepted voter ID such as a current local driver's license and who can provide specified documentation. Specific qualifications and requirements vary among the states. North Dakota Secretary of State, "ID Required for Voting in North Dakota," 2016, https://vip.sos.nd.gov/IDRequirements.aspx?ptlhPKID=103&ptlPKID=7. The requirement does not extend to voters who send in their ballot applications by mail, fax, or email (State of Virginia, Department of Elections, "Absentee Voting," 2016, http://elections.virginia.gov/casting-a-ballot/absentee-voting/index.html). See footnote 24. Missouri's guidance to voters on ID requirements does not include an option for provisional voting if the voter does not present an accepted ID (State of Missouri, Office of the Secretary of State, "How to Vote"). This section of the report was written by [author name scrubbed], Legislative Attorney. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 41.
|
|
52 U.S.C. §§10301, 10303(f). 42.
|
|
52 U.S.C. §10301(b). 43.
|
See e.g., Election Law at Moritz, Major Pending Election Administration Cases, http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/election-law/major-pending-cases/ (last visited June 28, 1016).
44.
|
553 U.S. 181 (2008). For further discussion of the Crawford |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
2005 Ind. Acts 109, codified at Ind. Code §3-11-8-25.1 (2016). |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Crawford |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
48.
See id. at 199-200. |
Id. at 203. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
See id. at 204. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 27. |
See Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983); Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 52.
|
|
See Frank v. Walker, 768 F.3d 744 (7th Cir. 2014), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 1551 (2015). 53.
|
|
See Frank, 17 F. Supp. 3d at 843-44 (citing Wis. Stat. §§5.02(6m)(a)-(f); 343.50(5)(a)(3) (2016)). 54.
|
|
See id. 55.
|
|
See Frank, 768 F.3d at 745. 56.
|
|
See id. 57.
|
|
See id. at 746. 58.
|
|
See id. 59.
|
|
See id. 60.
|
|
Id. at 753. 61.
|
|
Id. 62.
|
|
Id. 63.
|
|
See id. at 755. 64.
|
|
See Frank v. Walker, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 141805, at *4 (E.D. Wis. Apr. 12, 2015), vacated by, in part, and remanded, Frank v. Walker, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 6656 (7th Cir. 2016). 65.
|
|
See id. at *23-34. 66.
|
|
See Wis. Stat. §5.02(6m)(g) (2016). 67.
|
|
See Frank, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 141805, at *6. 68.
|
|
See Frank v. Walker, 819 F.3d 384 (7th Cir. 2016). 69.
|
|
See id. at *10. 70.
|
Frank v. Walker, 2016 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Id. at |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 31. |
42 U.S.C. §1973(b). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 32. |
Frank, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59344, at 93. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 33. |
Frank v. Walker, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 19108, at 4 (7th Cir. Wis., Oct. 6, 2014). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 34. |
See id. at 5-6. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 35. |
See id. at 26. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 36. |
See id. at 26-27. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 37. |
See Martin v. Kohls, 2014 Ark. 427, at 15. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 73.
|
|
See Veasey v. Abbott, 796 F.3d 487 (5th Cir. 2015). 74.
|
|
2011 Tex. Gen. Laws 619, codified at Tex. Elec. Code Ann. §63.0101 (2016). 75.
|
|
See Veasey v. Perry, 71 F. Supp. 3d 627, 633 (S.D. Tex. 2014). 76.
|
|
See Veasey, 796 F.3d at 504 (quoting Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30, 35 (1986)). 77.
|
|
Id. (quoting Gingles, 478 U.S. at 47 (emphasis added)). 78.
|
|
Id. at 513 (citing Veasey, 71 F. Supp. 3d at 695, 698). 79.
|
|
See id. at 512-513 (quoting Veasey, 71 F. Supp. 3d at 664). 80.
|
|
See Veasey v. Abbott, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 4419 (5th Cir. 2016). 81.
|
|
Veasey v. Abbott, 84 U.S.L.W. 3611, at *1 (April 29, 2016). 82.
|
|
See id. 83.
|
|
See Veasey v. Abbott, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 13255, at *121 (5th Cir. July 20, 2016). 84.
|
|
See id. at *125-130. 85.
|
|
See id. at *135-140. |
The Arkansas Constitution sets forth four qualifications for voters: (1) U.S. citizenship; (2) Arkansas residency; (3) at least 18 years of age; and (4) lawful registration to vote in the election. ARK. CONST. Art. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 88.
|
|
See id. 89.
|
|
They may have been in effect, however, for other elections in some cases. 90.
|
|
See, for example, Brennan Center for Justice, "Election 2016 Newsletter: Voting Law Challenges Head to Court," May 3, 2016, https://www.brennancenter.org/newsletter/election-2016-newsletter-voting-law-challenges-head-court-2016#voting; Moritz College of Law, "Major Pending Cases," The Ohio State University, May 2016, http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/election-law/major-pending-cases/?sort=topic&active=yes. See also "Legal and Constitutional Issues Regarding Voter Photo ID Laws." |
In some states, indigent voters and those with a religious objection to being photographed are exempt from the photo ID requirement. For more information, see CRS Report R40515, Legal Analysis of Religious Exemptions for Photo Identification Requirements, by | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 41. |
Some observers have proposed solutions that might reduce the risk of such a conflict, for example, by placing digital photographs of registered voters in electronic pollbooks, thereby eliminating the need for most voters to present separate identification documents (Caltech/MIT Voting Technology Project, Voting: What Has Changed, What Hasn't, and What Needs Improvement, October 18, 2012, at http://www.vote.caltech.edu/sites/default/files/Voting%20Technology%20Report_final.pdf). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 42. |
See, for example, the disparate views presented in two recent books: Lorraine Carol Minnite, The Myth of Voter Fraud (Ithaca [N.Y.]: Cornell University Press, 2010); John Fund, Who's Counting?: How Fraudsters and Bureaucrats Put Your Vote at Risk (New York: Encounter Books, 2012). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 43. | Karen Shanton and Wendy Underhill, "Costs of Voter Identification" (National Conference of State Legislatures, June 2014), http://www.ncsl.org/documents/legismgt/elect/Voter_ID_Costs_June2014.pdf. CRS Report R41667, How Local Election Officials View Election Reform: Results of Three National Surveys, by [author name scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed]. See, for example, Thad E. Hall and R. Michael Alvarez, "Why Everything That Can Go Wrong Often Does: An Analysis of Election Administration Problems," 2003, http://www.vote.caltech.edu/sites/default/files/vtp_wp10.pdf; George Merritt and Katy Human, "Voting Problems Overwhelm City," The Denver Post, November 8, 2006, http://www.denverpost.com/ci_4620304; Kate Taylor, "Chaos at New York City Polls Amid New Rules and Voting Machines," The New York Times, November 6, 2012, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/07/nyregion/chaos-at-new-york-city-polls-amid-new-rules-and-voting-machines.html. Bonny Berkner and Carol S. Faber, Geographical Mobility, 1995 to 2000 (US Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, US Census Bureau, 2003), http://als.peoriabulldogs.com/R85Content/media/pictures/sociology/documents/unit_01/geographical_mobility_1995_2000.pdf. The researchers found that 9.4% of the population moved to a different state between 1985 and 1990, and 8.4% between 1995 and 2000. Some countries issue such ID cards, either specifically for voting, or in the form of a national identification card. For further discussion, see ACE Electoral Knowledge Network, "Encyclopaedia," 2013, http://aceproject.org/ace-en. See, for example, Mica Rosenberg, "Native Americans Move to Frontlines in Battle Over Voting Rights," Reuters, May 31, 2016, http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-votingrights-nativeamericans-insi-idUSKCN0YM19O. Government Accountability Office, "Elections: Issues Related to State Voter Identification Laws." The lowest percentage, 80%, was voters with valid driver's licenses from the nationwide study. Interpretation of the results of the studies is subject to limitations arising from scope, methodology, and other factors as discussed in the report. Ibid. See, for example, Sari Horwitz, "Getting a Photo ID so You Can Vote Is Easy. Unless You're Poor, Black, Latino or Elderly," The Washington Post, May 23, 2015, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/getting-a-photo-id-so-you-can-vote-is-easy-unless-youre-poor-black-latino-or-elderly/2016/05/23/8d5474ec-20f0-11e6-8690-f14ca9de2972_story.html. Texas Department of Public Safety, "Election Identification Certificates (EIC)—Documentation Requirements," 2016, http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/DriverLicense/eicDocReqmnts.htm. See, for example, Krissah Thompson, "Study Finds Costs Associated with Voter IDs," The Washington Post, July 18, 2012, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/study-finds-costs-associated-with-voter-ids/2012/07/17/gJQAlrcXsW_story.html. Government Accountability Office, "Elections: Issues Related to State Voter Identification Laws." See, for example, Election Assistance Commission, "Election Crimes: An Initial Review and Recommendations for Future Study," December 2006, http://www.eac.gov/assets/1/workflow_staging/Page/57.PDF. See, for example, Federal Bureau of Investigation, "Election Crimes," 2016, https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/corruption/election-crimes. In addition to impersonating someone else on the voter rolls, this can include people still on the rolls but no longer legitimately registered in the jurisdiction, such as voters who have moved out of the jurisdiction but have not been removed from the rolls. However, the distinction between registration fraud and impersonation fraud would be blurred in states with polling-place election-day registration or no voter registration. See, for example, Zoltan Hajnal, Nazita Lajevardi, and Lindsay Nielson, "Voter Identification Laws and the Suppression of Minority Votes," February 5, 2016, http://pages.ucsd.edu/~zhajnal/page5/documents/VoterIDLawsandtheSuppressionofMinorityVoters2ndrevision.pdf; and studies discussed in Government Accountability Office, "Elections: Issues Related to State Voter Identification Laws." Caltech/MIT Voting Technology Project, Voting: What Has Changed, What Hasn't, and What Needs Improvement, October 18, 2012, at http://www.vote.caltech.edu/sites/default/files/Voting%20Technology%20Report_final.pdf. See, for example, Commission on Federal Election Reform, "Building Confidence in U.S. Elections"; Adam Liptak, "Error and Fraud at Issue as Absentee Voting Rises," The New York Times, October 6, 2012, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/07/us/politics/as-more-vote-by-mail-faulty-ballots-could-impact-elections.html?_r=0. See, for example, the disparate views presented in two books: Lorraine Carol Minnite, The Myth of Voter Fraud (Ithaca [N.Y.]: Cornell University Press, 2010); John Fund, Who's Counting?: How Fraudsters and Bureaucrats Put Your Vote at Risk (New York: Encounter Books, 2012). For example, one study found that more stringent voter ID requirements were associated with lower turnout, but the effect was small, there was no evidence of an effect of photo ID per se, and no evidence was presented with respect to impacts on voter fraud (The Eagleton Institute of Politics and The Moritz College of Law, Best Practices to Improve Voter Identification Requirements [Election Assistance Commission, June 28, 2006], at http://www.eac.gov/assets/1/workflow_staging/Page/62.PDF). Problems caused by confounding factors are discussed in Government Accountability Office, "Elections: Issues Related to State Voter Identification Laws." Studies discussed in one report found changes ranging from -3.9% to +1.8% overall, with larger effects in some demographic groups in specific states (ibid.). See, for example, Hajnal, Lajevardi, and Nielson, "Voter Identification Laws and the Suppression of Minority Votes"; Rosenberg, "Native Americans Move to Frontlines in Battle Over Voting Rights." | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
CRS Report R41667, How Local Election Officials View Election Reform: Results of Three National Surveys, by [author name scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed]. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| 119. | Date of enactment is likely more relevant for states with photo ID requirements because such requirements have been more subject to debate and controversy than nonphoto ID requirements for voters, which has a longer history of use (see, for example, National Conference of State Legislatures, "History of Voter ID"). Dates in Table A-1 should not be regarded as definitive, as the analysis in this report did not attempt to reconcile alternative interpretations; see, for example, differences in the timelines in Ibid. and Government Accountability Office, "Elections: Issues Related to State Voter Identification Laws."120. | As noted in Figure 1, the term "strictly enforced" is used in this report to refer to states where, with certain exceptions, a voter who does not present the required ID at the polling place either cannot vote or must take specified action after leaving the polling place to verify his or her identity in order for the ballot to be counted.|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||