Voter Identification Laws and the Suppression of Minority Votes

Abstract

The proliferation of increasingly strict voter identification laws around the country has raised concerns about voter suppression. Although there are many reasons to suspect that these laws could harm groups like racial minorities and the poor, existing studies have been limited, with most occurring before states enacted strict identification requirements, and they have uncovered few effects. By using validated voting data from the Cooperative Congressional Election Study for several recent elections, we are able to offer a more definitive test. The analysis shows that strict identification laws have a differentially negative impact on the turnout of racial and ethnic minorities in primaries and general elections. We also find that voter ID laws skew democracy toward those on the political right. V oting is the bedrock of democracy. Through the vote, citizens choose leaders, sway policy, and generally influence democracy. By contrast, citizens who do not vote can be ignored. It is thus not surprising to see that the laws that shape turnout and determine who can and who cannot vote generate enormous attention and controversy. The latest front in this debate concerns voter identification laws. Voter identification laws have been a topic of discussion since 1950, when South Carolina became the first state to request some form of identification at the polls (NCSL 2015). Since then, more and more states have instituted some form of voter ID law. But it is only within the past decade that the strictest forms of voter ID have proliferated and that voter ID laws have received widespread attention. Today these voter ID laws take several distinct forms. Strict voter ID laws require identification in order to cast a regular ballot. Other more lenient laws request, but do not require, voters to show some kind of identification document at the polls. These laws can also be distinguished by whether or not they allow or consider nonphoto identification. All told, 34 states currently enforce some form of a voter identification law (NCSL 2015). Of these, 11 are strict ID law states that require a person to show identification in order to vote. 1 More states appear to be waiting in the wings. New Mexico, Nevada, Iowa, and others are all considering new stricter voter identification laws (NCSL 2015). The consequences of all of this could be enormous. Given that more than half of the nation's population is currently subject to these laws, that stricter laws are being considered in multiple states, and that the courts are actively evaluating the merits of these laws in a series of landmark cases, there is a compelling need to know exactly what the true impact of these laws is. There is no shortage of opinions about these laws. On one side, the proliferation of these laws raises real concerns for critics who believe that they are unnecessary and ultimately detrimental to democracy. Activist groups, like the Brennan Center for Justice, claim that voter ID laws serve as effective barriers that limit the legitimate participation of racia...

Doubling Down: Inequality in Responsiveness and the Policy Preferences of Elected Officials

“…Others find no differential impact on Latinos relative to whites (e.g., Alvarez, Bailey, and Katz ). Similarly, Grimmer et al (), critiquing Hajnal, Lajevardi, and Nielson (), find little empirical effect of voter identification laws on minority voter turnout. Highton, summarizing the literature, concludes that “a small number of studies … find modest, if any, turnout effects of voter identification laws” (2017, 149; see also Hershey ).…”

“… The research on the direct impact of voter identification laws on Latino voter participation has been mixed (see Hajnal, Lajevardi, and Nielson [] and rebuttal by Grimmer et al []).…”

Voter ID Laws: A View from the Public*

“…Conclusions from this literature remain mixed. Several studies find evidence of a suppressive effect of voter ID laws, even within a few months of the adoption of these laws (Alvarez, Bailey, and Katz, ; Barreto, Nuno, and Sanchez, ; de Alth, ; Hajnal, Lagevardi, and Nielson, ; Hood and Bullock, ; U.S. GAO, ; Vercellotti and Andersen, ), while others find no effect (see Ansolabehere, ; Erikson and Minnite, ; Muhlhausen and Sikich, ; Mycoff, Wagner, and Wilson, ; Vercellotti and Andersen, )…”

“…The recently published article by Hajnal, Lagevardi, and Nielson (), finding that strict voter ID laws suppress minority turnout, has already been thoroughly discredited by Grimmer et al. ().…”

Patterns and Mechanisms of Political Participation among People with Disabilities

“…An additional demographic item we controlled for was whether or not the respondent lived in the South (see appendix A for coding). We included this variable due to the South's history of voting discrimination, once necessitating special coverage under the Voting Rights Act (Overton 2006;Hasen 2012;Wang 2012); the more recent removal of such coverage (Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529, 2013) (Blacksher and Guinier 2014); and empirical evidence demonstrating the relationship among southern states, voter identification laws, and decreased levels of voter turnout (Hajnal, Lajevardi, and Nielson 2017). Additionally, we controlled for South due to its relationship with disability status itself: 46% of permanently disabled individuals reported living in the South in the 2012 ANES, and 28% in the 2016 ANES.…”