Bateman 16
Allison Bateman
The Relationship Between Strict Voter Identification Laws and
Voter Fraud Elimination
April 29, 2016
PS 302 Campaigns and Elections
Dr. Michael Cobb
Abstract
Since the year 2000, many states have started to introduce new voter identification laws, requiring those who plan to cast a ballot on Election Day to fulfill specific requisites in order to gain eligibility to vote. In this paper, I will examine the voter identification laws’ impact on the prevention of voter impersonation, how these laws affect those attempting to use their fundamental right to vote as United States citizens, as well as how the laws disenfranchise specific groups of people such as African Americans, Hispanics, and similar minorities. The relationship between voter fraud, voter impersonation in specific, prevention and the implementation of strict voter identification laws is not very strong to say the least, according to the literature reviewed throughout this paper. In conclusion, we can say that voter impersonation is virtually nonexistent, and the newly introduced voter ID laws do nothing more than disenfranchise minorities who are trying to vote; ultimately resulting in the suffering of the Democratic party.
Introduction
States throughout the country are continuing to introduce stricter voter identification laws claiming that they are necessary in order to combat voter impersonation as well as other types of voter fraud. To some, the majority being conservative, voter fraud is seen as a serious danger in the United States today; however, there is not much evidence supporting this claim. Ongoing examinations of voter fraud claims reveal that voter fraud is very rare, in general, voter impersonation is nearly non-existent, and much of the problems associated with alleged fraud in elections relates to unintentional mistakes by voters or election administrators; it rarely has anything to do with an individual attempting to cast a ballot as someone else (Levitt, 2007). In fact, multiple studies discussed in this paper, show that the new, more strict, voter identification laws actually do nothing more than suppress voter participation; especially from groups of low-income, minorities, and people of color. It is no coincidence that voter ID laws’ most loyal supporters are conservative, and the individuals these laws hurt the most are minorities who tend to lean towards the liberal side of the spectrum.
Not every voter identification law is the same; there are different variations of these laws in which states are abiding by. They can typically be categorized in two ways; laws can be sorted by whether the state asks for a photo ID or whether it accepts ID’s without a photo as well; also, the laws can be divided by what actions are available for voters who do not have ID (Underhill, 2016).
Although the strict photo-identification laws are quickly sweeping the states, many states do not yet require a photo ID to vote. As of this year, many states have non-strict photo identification laws in place (see Figure A). North Carolina is actually listed as having non-strict, non-photo identification laws, but this is subject to change in the near future (Underhill, 2016). It is surprising to see that North Carolina has not yet become a state that enforces strict photo identification laws across the board for voters, as it is a dominantly Republican state. Compared to North Carolina’s fellow majority Republican states, it is one of the last to implement stricter voter identification requirements overall; although it does have different rules as to what some voters can do if they do not have a valid form of identification.
My principle question is why states are continuing to introduce strict voter identification laws with the claim that it will solve voter impersonation, as well as other voter fraud problems, while showing little supporting evidence of voter fraud actually occurring on a large scale. Extensive amounts of research shows us that voter fraud in general, is not the threat to society that many conservatives are manipulating it to be; as well as voter impersonation ultimately being non-existent. The literature reviewed also proves that these laws are doing nothing more than disenfranchising thousands of citizens and their fundamental right of voting; the majority of these citizens being Democrats.
The Irrelevance of Voter Fraud and Impersonation
There are numerous types of offenses that fall under the umbrella that is voter fraud. A few of these include perjury, voter registration fraud, forgery, counterfeiting, bribery, destroying already cast ballots, as well as one of the most controversial right now: voter impersonation. Strict requirements to show voter identification on election day are essentially designed for one thing and one thing only: to prevent people from going to polls pretending to be someone else in order to each cast a single incremental fake ballot. This is a very slow, and ultimately ineffective way to try and steal an election, which is why it almost never happens. One of the most well-known studies was a comprehensive investigation of voter impersonation researching the context of general, primary, special, and municipal elections from the year 2000 to the year 2014, resulting in the findings of only 31 credible cases of voter impersonation taking place within these 14 years. In general and primary elections alone, more than one billion ballots were cast in this period (Levitt, 2014). While the study conducted by Levitt in 2014 gave accurate representations pertaining to voter impersonation, a Department of Justice study outlined during a 2006 Congressional hearing gives us a view of voter fraud in general and how often it occurs. The results show us that out of the 197 million votes cast for federal candidates between 2002 and 2005, only 40 voters were indicted for voter fraud; only 26 of those cases, or 0.00000013 percent of the votes cast, resulted in convictions or guilty pleas (Bingham, 2012). As mentioned before, stealing an election by committing voter impersonation fraud is virtually impossible, therefore, it is a very rare occurrence. Richard Hasen, an expert in election law at the Loyola Law School, also made a statement confirming this idea: “If they found a single case of conspiracy to affect the outcome of a Congressional election or a statewide election, that wold be significant. But what we see is isolated, small-scale activities that often have not shown any kind of criminal intent.” (Lipton, Urbina, 2007). The literature reviewed has shown us that throughout the past decade and even beyond, that voter fraud and specifically voter impersonation is ultimately irrelevant.
Voter ID Laws are Affecting the Wrong People
The sophistry of “voter fraud” has been punctured by the mounds of evidence showing such fraud is vanishingly rare. Since these more strict voter identification laws started showing up in the early 2000’s, their true purpose has been clear: to help Republicans win election. What Republican lawmakers fail to admit is that their motivation for these laws is not just anti-Democratic, but anti-democratic (Hemmer, 2014). It is apparent that the conservatives who support strict voter identification laws only want them in place in order to ultimately limit voting by groups unfavorable to their party; it is proven that these voter ID laws skew democracy in favor of whites and those on the political right (Ingraham, 2016).
Non-Hispanic whites accounted for 89 percent of Republican self-identifiers nationwide in 2012, while accounting for 70 percent of Independents and 60 percent of Democrats. Over one-fifth of Democrats (22%) were African American, while 16 percent of Independents were Hispanic. These results are based on more than 338,000 interviews conducted as part of Gallup Daily tracking’s Racial and Ethnic Composition of the U.S. study in 2012, and they clearly underscore the distinct racial profiles of partisan groups in today’s political landscape (Newport, 2013). Requiring a government issued photo ID is the most important tactic in the Republican war on voting. In April, 2008, the Supreme Court upheld a voter identification law in Indiana, even though state GOP officials were unable to provide a single instance of a voter committing the type of fraud the new ID law was supposed to stop. Emboldened by the ruling, Republicans launched a nationwide effort to implement similar barriers to voting in dozens of states. These laws are so outlandish that in most states, even a student ID isn’t considered an acceptable form of identification needed to cast a ballot. “It’s like creating a second class of citizens in terms of who gets to vote,” says Analiese Eicher, a Dane County, Wisconsin board supervisor (Berman, 2011). A study co-authored by Cathy J. Cohen of the University of Chicago and John C. Rogowski of Washington University in St. Louis found that young minorities are disproportionally affected by these voter identification laws. According to the study, significantly more minority youths were asked to show identification than white youth; you can imagine this occurred with adult minorities as well. 72.9 percent of African American youth were asked for ID, compared with 60.8 percent of Latino youth, and 50.8 percent of white youth. “The effort to protect the vote doesn’t make sense and it is largely discriminatory, impacting we know, young people in particular, young people of color, the poor, and the elderly,” Cohen said.
The literature reviewed on this topic provides adequate amounts of research in order to conclude that strict voter identification laws are disenfranchising minorities of their fundamental right to vote, resulting in the Democratic party ultimately suffering due to the higher percentage of minority Democrats than Republicans. It is obvious to see that Republicans are attempting to deprive Democrats of numerous votes that are rightfully theirs.
Not All Voter ID Laws Are Equal
As of 2016, eleven U.S. states have strict voter ID laws, meaning that voter without acceptable identification must vote on a provisional ballot and also take additional steps after Election Day for it to be counted. For instance, the voter may be required to return to an election office within a few days after the election has taken place and present an acceptable ID to have the provisional ballot counted. However, if the voter does not return to the election office to show an acceptable form of ID, the provisional ballot will not be counted and will be thrown out (Underhill, 2014).
Twenty two states currently have non-strict voter ID laws, which means at least some voters without acceptable identification have an option to cast a ballot that will be counted without further action on the part of the voter. For example, a voter may sign an affidavit of identity, or poll workers may be permitted to vouch for the voter. In some of the non-strict states, such as Colorado, Florida, Montana, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Utah, and Vermont, voters who do not show required identification may vote on a provisional ballot. After Election Day has ended, officials will determine, based on signature checks and other verifications, whether or not the voter was eligible and registered (Underhill, 2014).
North Carolina happens to fall into the category of non-strict, non-photo identification requirements, which is surprising, although this is subject to change in the future. North Carolina is one of the only states to have a system in which voters who are unable to produce an acceptable form of identification due to a reasonable impediment, may be able to have their vote counted; that is, after many inconveniences take place. The voter must sign a declaration describing their impediment and provide their date of birth as well as the last four digits of their social security number; or the voter would need to bring in an acceptable document bearing their name and address, such as a recent utility bill, a bank statement, or other government-issued document. The ballot will be counted when the information provided on the declaration is verified and all other eligibility requirements are met (Underhill, 2014).
Voter ID Laws and Partisanship
Partisan ship is the most important player when it comes to the sudden shift of voter identification requirements. Of the 22 states with these new restrictions, 18 passed them through entirely Republican-controlled bodies. A study by social scientists Keith Bentley and Erin O’Brien of the University of Massachusetts Boston found that restrictions were more likely to pass “as the proportion of Republicans in the legislature increased or when a Republican governor was elected.” After Republicans took over state houses and governorships in 2010, voting restrictions typically followed party lines (Weiser, 2014). It is statistically proven that Democrats are racially diverse, as we discussed prior, and Republicans are mostly white. There is no real reason for Republicans to not support these new strict voter identification laws, as they are limiting the number of minority voters, and in turn, helping Republicans in a major way. Critics of these laws have doubted both their necessity and their ability to keep elections honest. The citizens who lack appropriate documentation required to vote will now be obliged to assemble various other pieces of paper, such as birth certificate, naturalization forms, proof of residence, etc., and make their way, presumably without a car, to a government office that can issue an official photo ID. Research has proven that these men and women are disproportionately young or elderly, poor, African American, and Hispanic; demographically, they are more likely than not to vote Democratic. The number of people potentially affected is considerable: the Texas secretary of state, for example, estimates that at least 600,000 already registered voters do not possess the documents to cast ballots in November. New York University’s respected Brennan Center for Justice has estimated that a total of more than five million people may lack the requisite identification documents in states that have passed new strict voter ID laws (Kayssar, 2012). The repercussions of introducing these voter laws are significant, considering the small amount of credible voter fraud cases found in a previous study throughout the years. When many conservatives use the argument that it is worth disenfranchising a small amount of potential voters in order to make elections completely fair and without fraud, it doesn’t make much sense when comparing the figures: 600,000 potential voters to 31 cases of possible voter fraud.
Hypothesis and Expectations
The foundational question of interest for this paper is: Why are states introducing strict voter identification laws with the hopes it will eliminate voter fraud, if there is little to no evidence showing us that voter fraud is a major problem? The answer to this question is far from being concise; however, the literature suggests ideas and provides enough evidence to answer the question as of right now.
Using the information and data gathered from the research conducted, we can make a solid argument stating that Republicans and conservatives are using strict voter ID laws as a means of preventing those who are unfavorable to their party from casting their ballots on Election Day. As of this year, 2016, 22 states have passed new voter identification laws, and although these are not strict, they still disenfranchise many people from participating in a fundamental right of being a citizen: voting.
From going off of past research and studies conducted over time (see Figure B), we can expect to see the proliferation of voter ID laws throughout the United States, especially if Republican candidates take office. As time goes by, the majority Republican states will introduce strict voter ID laws completely.
Hypothetical Research Design
A hypothetical research study that could potentially be conducted in order to provide further information on the way voter identification laws are affecting minorities, as well as the irrelevance of voter fraud and impersonation, could be one conducted here in Raleigh, North Carolina. Something that could be done to begin the research would be to build off the study co-authored by Cathy J. Cohen of the University of Chicago and John C. Rogowski of Washington University in St. Louis, and organize polls to gather more information from adult minorities, such as African Americans and Hispanics, then compare the results with the information gathered from white adults. You could ask them questions relating to the different forms of identification and see what percentage of each group actually has one of these forms of ID. For those who do not have a required form of identification to vote, you could also find out if they have the appropriate documentation necessary to obtain a government issued ID, as well as a means of transportation. The results from this study could help to further test the expectations that voter identification laws are in fact introduced to discriminate and disenfranchise minorities in their fundamental right to vote.
Results
The research studied and literature reviewed throughout this paper has given a more broad perspective as to what is actually going on when Republican lawmakers create stricter voter identification laws, as well as what the states are doing by introducing these laws and enforcing them during election years. The information gathered shows us that not only do strict voter ID laws disenfranchise minorities the right to vote, but also that voter impersonation and voter fraud is ultimately irrelevant today. The claim that voter fraud is a major issue in elections is simply a justification to keep certain groups of people from playing their part in our democracy by voting, and it just so happens that these groups of people are unfavorable toward the Republican party. The conservatives that argue the point on voter fraud give the claim that they are simply trying to make elections fair for every party, when the literature suggests that these laws are doing the complete opposite. Every voter identification law might be unequal, but the results are almost the same: to disenfranchise minority voters, and essentially win the race for Republicans.
Implications of the Research and Conclusion
Especially since the year 2000, states across the country have began implementing new voter identification laws that require those who intend to cast ballots on Election Day to have an appropriate form of government issued identification. Throughout this paper, I have examined numerous research studies, as well as many credible pieces of literature in order to answer why states are introducing strict voter identification laws claiming they will solve the country’s voter fraud epidemic, whiles showing little evidence for voter impersonation actually occurring on a large scale. The new voter ID laws have ultimately no impact on voter impersonation and voter fraud, but they do have an impact on who is allowed to vote and who is not. It is evident from the research and literature that these laws simply disenfranchise a specific group of people from acting on their fundamental right to vote: minorities. It is also no coincidence that the voter ID laws’ most loyal supporters are conservative Republicans, and those who are negatively affected by these laws are liberal Democrats.
The relationship between voter fraud as well as voter impersonation, prevention and the introduction of strict voter identification laws is not a very solid relationship by any means according to the literature reviewed throughout this paper. Therefore, we can conclude that voter impersonation is virtually nonexistent, voter fraud rarely happens in general, and the newly introduced voter identification laws are doing nothing more than keeping minorities from voting; which is ultimately leading to the suffering of the Democratic party.
Bibliography
*Listed by author’s last name in alphabetical order*
Beman, Ari. “The GOP War on Voting.” Rolling Stone. N.p., 30 Aug. 2011.
Web. 29 Apr. 2016.
Bingham, Amy. “Voter Fraud: Non-Existent Problem or Election-
Threatening Epidemic?” ABC News. ABC News Network, 12 Sept. 2012.
Web. 29 Apr. 2016.
Hajnal, Zoltan, Nazita Lajevardi, and Lindsay Nielson. “Voter Identification
Laws and the Suppression of Minority Votes.” Voter Identification Laws
and the Suppression of Minority Votes Zoltan Hajnal, UCSD 1 (n.d.): n. pag.
Web.
Hemmer, Nicole. “They Just Don’t Like Voting.” US News. U.S. News &
World Report, 21 Oct. 2014. Web. 29 Apr. 2016.
Ingraham, Christopher. “New Evidence That Voter ID Laws ‘Skew
Democracy’ in Favor of White Republicans.” Washington Post. The
Washington Post, 4 Feb. 2016. Web. 29 Apr. 2016.
Keyssar, Alexander. “Voter Suppression Returns.” Harvard Magazine. N.p.,
15 June 2012. Web. 29 Apr. 2016.
Levitt, Justin. “A Comprehensive Investigation of Voter Impersonation
Finds 31 Credible Incidents out of One Billion Ballots Cast.” Washington
Post. The Washington Post, 6 Aug. 2014. Web. 29 Apr. 2016.
Levitt, Justin. “The Truth About Voter Fraud.” Brennan Center for Justice at
New York University School of Law (2007): n. pag. Web.
Newport, Frank. “Democrats Racially Diverse; Republicans Mostly White.”
gallup.com. N.p., 8 Feb. 2013. Web. 29 Apr. 2016.
Schultheis, Emily. “Study: ID Laws Hurt Young Minorities.” POLITICO. N.p.,
12 Mar. 2013. Web. 29 Apr. 2016.
Underhill, Wendy. “Voter Identification Requirements |Voter ID Laws.”
Voter Identification Requirements | Voter ID Laws. N.p., n.d. Web. 26 Apr.
2016.
Weiser, Wendy R. “Voter Suppression: How Bad? (Pretty Bad) | Brennan
Center for Justice.” Voter Suppression: How Bad? (Pretty Bad) | Brennan
Center for Justice. N.p., 1 Oct. 2014. Web. 29 Apr. 2016.
Figures and Tables
Figure A – Voter Identification Laws in Effect as of 2016
Figure B – Voter ID Enactments 2000-2015