Strict ID Laws Don’t Stop Voters: Evidence from a U.S. Nationwide Panel, 2008–2018

Cantoni, Enrico; Pons, Vincent

doi:10.3386/w25522

Cited by 25 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 101 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Using our estimates of differential turnout and plausible assumptions about the effect of the law on those with identification, we find that the effects of voter ID laws on overall turnout are very small because very few voters lack photo ID. This is consistent with recent work using a nationwide voter file panel (Cantoni and Pons 2019).…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 92%

“…The overall effect of the voter ID law on primary election turnout in number of votes, therefore, is Overall Effect in Primary = Mechanical Effect in Primary + Deterrent Effect in Primary = −1, 169 − (0.007) * 196, 544 ≈ −1, 169 − 1, 376 = −2, 545which is about 0.116% of the 2016 primary electorate in North Carolina. This is consistent withCantoni and Pons (2019), which finds small effects of voter ID laws on overall turnout using a nationwide voter file panel. Even in a large nationwide panel researchers lack the power to detect this sized effect.…”

supporting

confidence: 87%

“…To assess the effects of voter ID laws scholars compare turnout in states that have voter ID requirements with those that do not, using either aggregate state-level turnout or self-reported turnout data (Erikson and Minnite 2009). Some designs have found no effect on turnout (Mycoff, Wagner, and Wilson 2009;Hood and Bullock 2012;Highton 2017;Cantoni and Pons 2019), while others have found negative effects on turnout (Alvarez, Bailey, and Katz 2008;Barreto, Nuño, and Sanchez 2009;Alvarez, Bailey, and Katz 2011;Hajnal, Lajevardi, and Nielson 2017). Yet, if the effect of voter ID laws persists, then states that are classified as "control" states after a law is repealed will still have voters affected by the law being in place.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The Durable Differential Deterrent Effects of Strict Photo Identification Laws

Grimmer¹,

Yoder²

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An increasing number of states have adopted laws that require voters to show photo identification to vote. We show that the differential effect of the laws on turnout among those who lack ID persists even after the laws are repealed. We leverage administrative data from North Carolina and a photo ID law in effect for a primary, but not the sub- sequent general, election. Using exact matching and a difference-in-differences design, we show that for the 3% of voters who lack ID in North Carolina, the ID law caused a 0.7 percentage point turnout decrease in the 2016 primary election relative to those with ID. After the law was suspended this effect persisted: those without ID were 2.6 percentage points less likely to turnout in the 2016 general election and 1.7 percentage points less likely to turnout in the 2018 general.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 92%

supporting

confidence: 87%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Durable Differential Deterrent Effects of Strict Photo Identification Laws

Grimmer¹,

Yoder²

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Since the separation of powers also applies at the state level, state legislatures and the executive are elected separately. In each state, voters elect the governor directly 2 Cantoni and Pons (2019) analyze the effect of strict ID laws. The influence of voting reforms on voter turnout and policy outcomes in countries other than the United States is investigated by Baland and Robinson (2008) in the context of the secret ballot in Chile; by Fujiwara (2015) in the context of electronic voting in Brazil; by Hodler, Luechinger, and Stutzer (2015) in the context of postal voting in Switzerland; and by Fowler (2013), Hoffman, León, and Lombardi (2017), and León (2017) in the context of compulsory voting in Australia, Austria, and Peru, respectively.…”

Section: A the Electoral And Budgeting Processesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Youth Enfranchisement, Political Responsiveness, and Education Expenditure: Evidence from the US

Bertocchi

Dimico

Lancia

et al. 2020

American Economic Journal: Economic Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We examine the link between the political participation of the young and fiscal policies in the United States. We generate exogenous variation in participation using the passage of preregistration laws, which allow the young to register before being eligible to vote. After documenting that preregistration promotes youth enfranchisement, we show that preregistration shifts state government spending toward higher education, the type of spending for which the young have the strongest preference. A 1 percent increase in youth voter turnout generates a 0.77 percent increase in higher education spending. The results collectively suggest political responsiveness to the needs of the newly enfranchised constituency. (JEL D72, E62, H52, H75, I23, I28, J13)

show abstract

“…Republican voters are much more likely to believe that voter fraud is a major problem in United States elections, despite strong evidence to the contrary. Democratic voters, seeing efforts by Republicans to make it harder to register and vote, view voter suppression as a much more troubling tactic, 9 sometimes believing such tactics have a larger effect on election outcomes than they actually do (Neely 2020;Cantoni and Pons 2019).…”

Section: B Polarized and Judicialized Election Decision Makingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Three Pathologies of American Voting Rights Illuminated by the COVID-19 Pandemic, and How to Treat and Cure Them

Hasen

2020

Election Law Journal: Rules, Politics, and Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The COVID-19 global pandemic, which already has claimed over 150,000 lives in the United States by the end of July 2020, has revealed cracks in American economic and social infrastructure. The pandemic also has revealed the inadequacy of the American political infrastructure, in particular, the lack of systematic and uniform protection of voting rights in the United States. The pandemic has illuminated three pathologies of American voting rights that existed before the pandemic and are sure to outlast it. First, the United States election system features deep fragmentation of authority over elections. Second, protection of voting rights in the United States is marked by polarized and judicialized decision making. Third, constitutional protections for voting rights remain weak. Despite these three pathologies and the Supreme Court's recent decision in RNC v. DNC concerning Wisconsin ballot receipt deadlines, which sided against expanded voting rights, there is room for some hope that at least some courts will provide a measure of protection for voting rights during the pandemic. In some of the early COVID-19-related election litigation, courts are putting a thumb on the scale favoring voting rights and enfranchisement in both constitutional and statutory cases. Judges have recognized that the balancing required by the Anderson-Burdick test looks radically different when voters cannot easily register and vote in person, and when candidates cannot collect signatures to get on the ballot. In the context of statutory interpretation, some courts seem to be applying without explicit articulation ''the Democracy Canon,'' an old canon counseling courts to interpret ambiguous election statutes with a thumb on the scale favoring voting rights. But the picture is mixed, and a number of courts are not adequately accommodating voting rights during the pandemic. More significantly, court intervention can only go so far, and long-term vigorous judicial protection of voting rights is neither likely nor sufficient to cure American voting rights pathologies. Progress will require more radical change, such as a constitutional amendment protecting the right to vote, requiring national nonpartisan administration of federal elections, and setting certain minimal voter-protective standards for the conduct of state and local elections. Movement toward constitutional amendment is a generational project aimed at entrenching strong voting rights protections against political backlash.

show abstract

Strict ID Laws Don’t Stop Voters: Evidence from a U.S. Nationwide Panel, 2008–2018

Cited by 25 publications

References 101 publications

The Durable Differential Deterrent Effects of Strict Photo Identification Laws

The Durable Differential Deterrent Effects of Strict Photo Identification Laws

Youth Enfranchisement, Political Responsiveness, and Education Expenditure: Evidence from the US

Three Pathologies of American Voting Rights Illuminated by the COVID-19 Pandemic, and How to Treat and Cure Them

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About