Empirically Measuring the Impact of Photo ID Over Time and Its Impact on Women

Abstract

Voter identification laws that require most prospective voters to present government-issued photo identification as a condition of casting a countable ballot continue to be an enormous issue in legislatures and courtrooms across the United States. The 2012 Presidential election cycle featured the high-profile adoption of and litigation related to photo identification laws from Pennsylvania to Texas to South Carolina. 1 The 2014 mid-term election cycle featured passage of new photo identification laws and litigation from Tennessee to Wisconsin to Arkansas to Virginia to Kansas to Texas (again!). 2

Voting But for the Law: Evidence from Virginia on Photo Identification Requirements

“…But this first analysis only isolates one element of the law's potential burden. Provisional ballots are an imperfect proxy of the actual number of disenfranchised voters, as they only measure the direct effect of ineligibility (Pitts ).…”

“…Some states also consider only a narrow range of photo IDs as valid identification, while others permit nonphoto IDs such as a utility bill or paycheck. Pitts (2012) helpfully clarifies that "there is actually very little [legal] controversy about voter identification generally." Rather, "the flashpoint of dispute .…”

“…There is also no complete coverage of who has proper identification, so the match, even if accurate, may not be comprehensive. Ansolabehere (2012), for example, could not determine whether a registered voter without a state photo identification also lacks a U.S. passport or military identification, which also counts as valid ID for the purposes of voting (Pitts 2012). Further, voter rolls are likely to include deceased individuals and people who have moved out of the state.…”

“…Both methods may also overstate the level of disenfranchisement for more technical reasons. State voter ID laws often allow voters' names on their identification to only conform to, rather than match, a name in the poll book, and they exempt certain people from the requirements altogether (Pitts 2012). But Hood and Bullock (2008), for example, exactly match people in the state-wide voter file and DMV database by first name, middle name, last name, street address, city, and zip code, even though the law does not require this.…”